Power. Authority. Violence
A research paper highlighting the relation between the three terms: power, authority and violence, and the nature of violence and power in Hannah Hannah Arendt’s theory in her book ‘Crises of the Republic’.

-------------------------------------------------
Sushrut S. Vaidya (20155042)

Hannah Arendt (1906 – 1975) was a political theorist, who through her theories got the recognition of a philosopher and framed the thoughts of many political theorists to come through her topics on the nature of power, authority and totalitarianism.

Through this paper, I shall be talking about my take on the relation between the three fundamentals of Hannah Arendt’s theory in her book ‘Crises of the Republic’. The relation that I will be deriving is between her theory of power, authority and violence. I hope to be, at the end of this paper, be able to provide an input as to where the ideal culminated theory lies and be able to put forward a few points on the continued flow of power.

Power, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is defined as the ability to act or produce an effect or as the possession of control, authority or influence over others. Power, has evolved into its many forms as it was practiced through time. Turning back time to back when primordial man asserted his power over others to the beginning of civilized life to the time where empires began and required ruling to the creation of the ‘modern man’, power has been exercised multiple times. I use the term ‘modern’ to depict a shift in the way human civilization evolved. The use of morals, conduct, discipline and the birth of the rules that would pave a way of life for the civilizations to come marked the beginning of what is known as the ‘modern man’.

The reason power has played such a major role is probably because man was made to rule. Man, through all the qualities that were handed over in the pool of creation, imbibed the qualities of leadership and domination. These very qualities, when subjected to disciplinary action and the use of moral and ‘thinking for the populous’, combined to what we know as ‘a ruler’, someone who knows what is to be done for the collective good and has the power to exercise his/her opinion knowing it would count as the collective good for the majority of the population.

However, power does have its limitations. Hannah Arendt, in her book Crises of the Republic says, “Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but, to act in concert. It is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together”. What she means through this is that it can’t be given to a single individual, the reason for this being because it would go against the mind of the individual. The ruler may take decisions for the collective good, but can also bend them to his own intentions and create a corrupt system. Hence, it is always handed to a group of individuals, who through each of their views, is required to keep a check on the remaining of the others and ensure no such bias is set.

Authority, what is it? Well, in simple terms, it can be explained by saying it is the power to give orders or make decisions. It however, is defined as the power to influence or command thought, opinion or behavior. What one can understand by this is that it is instilled into someone with power; someone who is capable of taking decisions not only for himself but for the collective good of others.

There lies a unique characteristic in the subject of authority. It’s that it can be handed over to a set of capable individuals or to a given person as well, it can be a sort of personal authority: one where the relation exists between two acquainted individuals that lie in some sort of hierarchical structure, such as a parent and child, between teacher and a pupil, and can be those associated with common authority: in which there lies the command over a set of individuals that perform a lower class of functions. I would like to impose upon this fact with the condition of not describing menial jobs as an example, rather something professional. Arendt, is seen to describe authority ‘whose hallmark lies in unquestioned recognition by those who are asked to obey; and where neither coercion nor persuasion is needed.’ However, it can be seen that since those assigned to have authority now have power, it is upto the power holder to exercise it with the right intention. It is when power is vested in an individual that there is a fine line between violence and peace. Arendt, throughout her chapter On Violence can be seen to explain that the gain of power gives rise to the birth of authority and it is through the misuse of this authority that bring about violence.

Finally, relating all of the above aspects, we can now derive a theory for violence.
Violence, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary is defined as the exertion or physical force so as to injure or abuse or as an intense, turbulent or furious and often destructive action or force. This definition can be reflected not only to oneself but to others, and others in a community. The use of violence has, for time immemorial, been used for many a reason. Focusing on the reason of asserting one’s own domination over others, violence has been used either to create power or to dissolve it. To my view however, it can be seen that people who assert the characteristic of violence to dissolve an existing domination, generally acquire that sense of domination over themselves; a blanket of power against the cold winds of morality and justice. Violence however, needn’t be the solution to exert a sense of domination over others; it is generally what is done. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the opposite of this is nonviolence. In her book, Arendt states “Violence appears where power is in jeopardy. This implies that it is not correct to think of the opposite of violence as nonviolence; to speak of non-violent power is redundant.” This can be explained by saying that violence, in all its forms, comes from the abuse of authority and that, is independent of the human psyche. Man, can interpret the common power given to him, in his own way and implement his authority on those he is to command and direct. This implementation can be through the use of force or through the action of words and shall, in his own conscience, be capable of instigating violence through his actions. Violence, through its own definition, is characterized to be similar to strength, since it is through strength that violence ban be implemented and is designed and used for the purpose of multiplying what is known as ‘natural’ or ‘inherent’ strength. Hence, violence is a term subjective to the term “authoritative” and can vary from situation to situation.

Human action can never be predicted as accurately as we think it can be. Humans, especially the ones that abuse the authority that has been given to them, will use any sort of means to achieve their political goals rather their intended goals, more often than ever despite it not being of great relevance. Hence, it is towards this part of this paper that link, connecting all of the above aspects will be formed.
Hannah Arendt, in her book, also writes that “it is a rather sad reflection on the present state of political science that our terminology does not distinguish among such key words as power, strength, force, authority, and, finally, violence – all of which refer to distinct, different phenomena and would hardly exist unless they did”.

The theory developed by Arendt is understood as follows:
Power, is the source of all of violence. Power, which is vested in an individual or a group of individuals, through a competition entitling the winner to this asset, leads to the formation of authority. And it is this authority that allows a sense of ruling over the other; taking the decisions of the others and framing it for the collective good of the populous. If the holder of this authoritative power is one that devotes his life towards the collective good of the State and the people of the State, then the ruling is said to be just. Else, in the other case where the holder is more towards the greedy side and cares only about the self and not about the State and its people, there lies the term of unjust that may be applied to him. It is in this very case that violence springs up. Violence, in any form, dissolves the very essence which law and order stand by. In Arendt’s words, “Violence can always destroy power. Out of a barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the mist instant and perfect obedience. What can never grow out of violence is power”. What can be interpreted through this is that the aftermath of violence however, involves the dissolution of power from the former holder and a state of equilibrium – where the power holder consists of Nobody – is created. This leads to a competition between other groups of individuals who have the hope of taking over as the new government, sadly leading into an unstable form of government, hence proving that out of violence, power cannot be created.
Now that the topic of government is being discussed, it an be said that they form the stable solution. Hannah Arendt talks about the various types of government. She talks about how the types of ruling coincides with the terms that are used since the Greek antiquity to define the different forms of government as the rule of man over man – the monarchy, the oligarchy, the aristocracy and democracy, the bureaucracy, and the democracy. She talks about how the ideal government would exist when no man would be held responsible; there is a rule by Nobody. This cannot sustain itself mainly because of the fact that there would be no one who would even be asked to answer for what is being done. Tyranny in this case, would seem normal to all those who asserted with no sink for complaints.

To conclude, there lies a relation between the natures of power, authority and violence. They’re so well interrelated that none of them can even begin functioning without the other. Power leads to authority and misuse of authority leads to violence. However, since power leads to violence, it isn’t the same case when it comes the other way around. Violence, if inexistent, doesn’t mean that society is non-violent for, nonviolence is redundant in society. What it implies is that the society is just; i.e. the ruling of the people by the one chosen to rule them is just.

Bibliography
Hannah Arendt, Hannah. Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics ; Civil Disobedience ; On Violence ; Thoughts on Politics and Revolution. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Print. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power --------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power
[ 2 ]. Hannah Arendt, Hannah. Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics ; Civil Disobedience ; On Violence ; Thoughts on Politics and Revolution. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Print.
[ 3 ]. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority
[ 4 ]. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence