6 ms·

Hannah Arendt: Reflections on Violence (1969)

83 points by mitchbob 6y ago

vnl10 6y ago
It is very hard to read a long form text in such a narrow column. Sentences are ripped apart, I'd need at least twice the width.
- johnr2 6y ago
  > It is very hard to read a long form text in such a narrow column. It displays at full width in Dillo, which has no JavaScript support. I can't see the article text at all in Firefox with JS blocked by NoScript, however. Strange.
- deerpig 6y ago
  The ideal line length for text layout is based on the physiology of the human eye… At normal reading distance the arc of the visual field is only a few inches – about the width of a well-designed column of text, or about 12 words per line. Research shows that reading slows and retention rates fall as line length begins to exceed the ideal width, because the reader then needs to use the muscles of the eye and neck to track from the end of one line to the beginning of the next line. If the eye must traverse great distances on the page, the reader is easily lost and must hunt for the beginning of the next line. Quantitative studies show that moderate line lengths significantly increase the legibility of text. Web Style Guide – Basic Design Principles for Creating Website Patrick J. Lynch and Sarah Horton 2nd edition, page 97.
leftyted 6y ago
This essay is available elsewhere as On Violence. It touches on topics like student protest movements, left-wing violence (and what Marx would have thought about it), race relations in the US, racism more generally and whether all political power ultimately comes down to violence or coercion. I found it fascinating when I read it years ago and, since then, I've been slowly reading through everything else Hannah Arendt wrote. It's astonishing to me that something like this was published in print. These days I think you're better off scouring the internet for blogs if you want to read something interesting and provocative.
- toyg 6y ago
  > astonishing to me that something like this was published in print Why? The problem in the West is not typically printing something (at least after WWI and the end of most political censorship), but getting people (particularly influential / respected members of the elite) to read it.
  - leftyted 6y ago
    I wasn't making a comment about censorship just that, as far as I know, no one is writing anything half this interesting in publications like the nyrb
    - toyg 6y ago
      Ah yes... the ‘80s and the end of the USSR have sadly wiped out most intellectual discourse on the prime principles of society, from a mainstream perspective.
      - xyzzyz 6y ago
        These are still actively and continuously discussed in right wing and conservative circles, it’s just these are today denied the label of “intellectual” and “mainstream”.
- paganel 6y ago
  > more generally and whether all political power ultimately comes down to violence or coercion. I also strongly recommend Max Weber, if I’m not mistaken he originated the idea of “monopoly of violence” (or at least he was the one that made it famous). His ideas about domestication/rationalization are also worthwhile.
motohagiography 6y ago
Arendt is the most relevant political writer of our current time, imo. The final chapter of her book, "Origins of Totalitarianism," was added in later editions, and it is called "Ideology and Terror." Beyond criticism and explanation, I think it is a rare model with predictive power. The challenge with that book is that unless you are specifically interested in the history of antisemitism, the first 1/3 of the book is about it, and her general theory of totalitarian movements will get lost. I recommend reading the chapters of big theory books in reverse order, as the last thing the author wrote tends to be the thing they have thought the most about and is the most refined idea. (chapter is at: http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Origins/class%20readings/Hannah%20Arendt%20-%20Ideology%20and%20Terror.pdf http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Origins/class%20readin...) Regarding her views about violence, I suspect there may only be two true levers of political power, and these are force, and deception. Where one seems absent, the other is necessarily at work, and where one is renounced the other is tacitly advocated. When they start to form a synergistic feedback loop, you get totalitarian movements. Glad to see Arendt here, hers is an important perspective.
- leftyted 6y ago
  > Regarding her views about violence, I suspect there may only be two true levers of political power, and these are force, and deception. I'm not saying this necessarily makes you wrong, but this is explicitly not what she thinks. In the version of this essay published in Crises of the Republic, she writes: > It is, I think, 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. In other words, power is not reducible to some combination of "force and deception". In the edited version of this essay, she even defines each of these categories: > Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together. > Strength unequivocally designates something in the singular ... > Force ... should be reserved, in terminological language, for the "forces of nature" or the "force of circumstances," that is, to indicate the energy released by physical or social movements. > Authority can be vested in persons – there is such a thing as personal authority, as for instance, in the relation between parent and child, between teacher and pupil – or it can be vested in offices, as, for instance, in the Roman senate or in the hierarchical offices of the Church. (A priest can grant valid absolution even though he is drunk.) Its hallmark is unquestioning recognition by those who are asked to obey; neither coercion nor persuasion is needed. > Violence, finally, as I have said, is distinguished by its instrumental character. Phenomenologically, it is close to strength, since the implements of violence, like all other tools, are designed and used for the purpose of multiplying natural strength... Taken from http://www.fsmitha.com/review/arendt.html http://www.fsmitha.com/review/arendt.html because I don't have a text version of this essay, but you can find it here https://monoskop.org/images/7/70/Arendt_Hannah_Crises_of_the_Republic.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/7/70/Arendt_Hannah_Crises_of_the... (154 of the pdf). The point is that, for Arendt, power is not about coercion and it's not about deception or force. It's about consensus, shared opinions and judgements, and the proof of this consensus, which is a group of people's ability to act in concert.
IndySun 6y ago
https://pca.st/episode/ae2b80e8-ff56-407c-906d-a0cfe5959720 https://pca.st/episode/ae2b80e8-ff56-407c-906d-a0cfe5959720 Very informative and a solid introduction.
lousyd 6y ago
Cripes this is a long read. Is there an animated version?
Der_Einzige 6y ago
My issue with Arendt is that she's almost uncritically a defender of American-republicanism as opposed to European attempts at it. I'm not sure that the American Revolution was as uniquely awesome as she claims it was. I think that it's just as possible that it could have ended up with extreme totalitarianism much as the french one did, had things gone only slightly differently. Beyond being an overzealous fan of the USA (ironically on the grounds that it forces plurality as opposed to radicalism even though recent politics is slowly eroding this arguments). She also was pretty fking Racist, and while this may be hard for her fans to imagine, the quotes were pretty obvious when I was reading her works. ‘The right to free association, and therefore to discrimination, has greater validity than the principle of equality,” the context is for arguing in support of segregation in the US South - https://www.normfriesen.info/forgotten/little_rock1.pdf https://www.normfriesen.info/forgotten/little_rock1.pdf "To force parents to send their children to an integrated school ) against their will means to deprive them of rights which clearly belong to them in all free societies-the private right over their children and the social right to free association. " - end of that same article! Honestly, I like a lot of her writings but she was very flawed.
- scarecrowbob 6y ago
  Yeah, I pretty much agree. I thought it was interesting to read that essay, and the others published in Crises of the Republic, alongside Fanon's Wretched of the Earth. Both texts have a lot to say that's useful. "Lying in Politics" seemed even more useful, especially when thinking about social media. There are a lot of well thought out, interesting takes on the world in her writing, but there are also a lot of unstated assumptions about the world. Those assumptions seem fair-enough for the when and where of her writing, but they are not the same assumptions that a lot of us might hold today.
- leftyted 6y ago
  She wrote a lot about racism and certaintly wasn't racist by her own standards or the standards of the day. If you want to retroactively apply modern notions of racism to someone who lived last century...that's your perogative, but is it really a game worth playing? I agree with you that she was wrong about integration though it's more complicated than you're letting on. She raises interesting points in the essay you linked. There is an inevitable conflict between freedom (of association) and equality -- she's just on the wrong side of that conflict in this specific case.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
https://archive.vn/ej34z https://archive.vn/ej34z

83 points by mitchbob 6y ago

It is very hard to read a long form text in such a narrow column. Sentences are ripped apart, I'd need at least twice the width.

johnr2 6y ago
> It is very hard to read a long form text in such a narrow column. It displays at full width in Dillo, which has no JavaScript support. I can't see the article text at all in Firefox with JS blocked by NoScript, however. Strange.
deerpig 6y ago
The ideal line length for text layout is based on the physiology of the human eye… At normal reading distance the arc of the visual field is only a few inches – about the width of a well-designed column of text, or about 12 words per line. Research shows that reading slows and retention rates fall as line length begins to exceed the ideal width, because the reader then needs to use the muscles of the eye and neck to track from the end of one line to the beginning of the next line. If the eye must traverse great distances on the page, the reader is easily lost and must hunt for the beginning of the next line. Quantitative studies show that moderate line lengths significantly increase the legibility of text. Web Style Guide – Basic Design Principles for Creating Website Patrick J. Lynch and Sarah Horton 2nd edition, page 97.

leftyted 6y ago

This essay is available elsewhere as On Violence. It touches on topics like student protest movements, left-wing violence (and what Marx would have thought about it), race relations in the US, racism more generally and whether all political power ultimately comes down to violence or coercion. I found it fascinating when I read it years ago and, since then, I've been slowly reading through everything else Hannah Arendt wrote. It's astonishing to me that something like this was published in print. These days I think you're better off scouring the internet for blogs if you want to read something interesting and provocative.

toyg 6y ago
> astonishing to me that something like this was published in print Why? The problem in the West is not typically printing something (at least after WWI and the end of most political censorship), but getting people (particularly influential / respected members of the elite) to read it.
- leftyted 6y ago
  I wasn't making a comment about censorship just that, as far as I know, no one is writing anything half this interesting in publications like the nyrb
  - toyg 6y ago
    Ah yes... the ‘80s and the end of the USSR have sadly wiped out most intellectual discourse on the prime principles of society, from a mainstream perspective.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      These are still actively and continuously discussed in right wing and conservative circles, it’s just these are today denied the label of “intellectual” and “mainstream”.
paganel 6y ago
> more generally and whether all political power ultimately comes down to violence or coercion. I also strongly recommend Max Weber, if I’m not mistaken he originated the idea of “monopoly of violence” (or at least he was the one that made it famous). His ideas about domestication/rationalization are also worthwhile.

motohagiography 6y ago

Arendt is the most relevant political writer of our current time, imo. The final chapter of her book, "Origins of Totalitarianism," was added in later editions, and it is called "Ideology and Terror." Beyond criticism and explanation, I think it is a rare model with predictive power. The challenge with that book is that unless you are specifically interested in the history of antisemitism, the first 1/3 of the book is about it, and her general theory of totalitarian movements will get lost. I recommend reading the chapters of big theory books in reverse order, as the last thing the author wrote tends to be the thing they have thought the most about and is the most refined idea. (chapter is at: http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Origins/class%20readings/Hannah%20Arendt%20-%20Ideology%20and%20Terror.pdf http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/Origins/class%20readin...) Regarding her views about violence, I suspect there may only be two true levers of political power, and these are force, and deception. Where one seems absent, the other is necessarily at work, and where one is renounced the other is tacitly advocated. When they start to form a synergistic feedback loop, you get totalitarian movements. Glad to see Arendt here, hers is an important perspective.

leftyted 6y ago
> Regarding her views about violence, I suspect there may only be two true levers of political power, and these are force, and deception. I'm not saying this necessarily makes you wrong, but this is explicitly not what she thinks. In the version of this essay published in Crises of the Republic, she writes: > It is, I think, 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. In other words, power is not reducible to some combination of "force and deception". In the edited version of this essay, she even defines each of these categories: > Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together. > Strength unequivocally designates something in the singular ... > Force ... should be reserved, in terminological language, for the "forces of nature" or the "force of circumstances," that is, to indicate the energy released by physical or social movements. > Authority can be vested in persons – there is such a thing as personal authority, as for instance, in the relation between parent and child, between teacher and pupil – or it can be vested in offices, as, for instance, in the Roman senate or in the hierarchical offices of the Church. (A priest can grant valid absolution even though he is drunk.) Its hallmark is unquestioning recognition by those who are asked to obey; neither coercion nor persuasion is needed. > Violence, finally, as I have said, is distinguished by its instrumental character. Phenomenologically, it is close to strength, since the implements of violence, like all other tools, are designed and used for the purpose of multiplying natural strength... Taken from http://www.fsmitha.com/review/arendt.html http://www.fsmitha.com/review/arendt.html because I don't have a text version of this essay, but you can find it here https://monoskop.org/images/7/70/Arendt_Hannah_Crises_of_the_Republic.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/7/70/Arendt_Hannah_Crises_of_the... (154 of the pdf). The point is that, for Arendt, power is not about coercion and it's not about deception or force. It's about consensus, shared opinions and judgements, and the proof of this consensus, which is a group of people's ability to act in concert.

IndySun 6y ago

https://pca.st/episode/ae2b80e8-ff56-407c-906d-a0cfe5959720 https://pca.st/episode/ae2b80e8-ff56-407c-906d-a0cfe5959720 Very informative and a solid introduction.

lousyd 6y ago

Cripes this is a long read. Is there an animated version?

Der_Einzige 6y ago

My issue with Arendt is that she's almost uncritically a defender of American-republicanism as opposed to European attempts at it. I'm not sure that the American Revolution was as uniquely awesome as she claims it was. I think that it's just as possible that it could have ended up with extreme totalitarianism much as the french one did, had things gone only slightly differently. Beyond being an overzealous fan of the USA (ironically on the grounds that it forces plurality as opposed to radicalism even though recent politics is slowly eroding this arguments). She also was pretty fking Racist, and while this may be hard for her fans to imagine, the quotes were pretty obvious when I was reading her works. ‘The right to free association, and therefore to discrimination, has greater validity than the principle of equality,” the context is for arguing in support of segregation in the US South - https://www.normfriesen.info/forgotten/little_rock1.pdf https://www.normfriesen.info/forgotten/little_rock1.pdf "To force parents to send their children to an integrated school ) against their will means to deprive them of rights which clearly belong to them in all free societies-the private right over their children and the social right to free association. " - end of that same article! Honestly, I like a lot of her writings but she was very flawed.

scarecrowbob 6y ago
Yeah, I pretty much agree. I thought it was interesting to read that essay, and the others published in Crises of the Republic, alongside Fanon's Wretched of the Earth. Both texts have a lot to say that's useful. "Lying in Politics" seemed even more useful, especially when thinking about social media. There are a lot of well thought out, interesting takes on the world in her writing, but there are also a lot of unstated assumptions about the world. Those assumptions seem fair-enough for the when and where of her writing, but they are not the same assumptions that a lot of us might hold today.
leftyted 6y ago
She wrote a lot about racism and certaintly wasn't racist by her own standards or the standards of the day. If you want to retroactively apply modern notions of racism to someone who lived last century...that's your perogative, but is it really a game worth playing? I agree with you that she was wrong about integration though it's more complicated than you're letting on. She raises interesting points in the essay you linked. There is an inevitable conflict between freedom (of association) and equality -- she's just on the wrong side of that conflict in this specific case.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

https://archive.vn/ej34z https://archive.vn/ej34z