6 ms·

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

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.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  My assertion afterwards was my next order conclusion, and I agree, not specifically what she asserted. I'm going to revisit it, as the idea of power being an artifact of free consensus of belief in a group, and not intrinsic to violence is hard to reconcile with some of her earlier observations, and indeed, physics.
  - quacked 6y ago
    I am inclined to agree with the impossibility of reconciling a definition of "power" that does not involve violence and non-consensual control; a lot of modern writers and thinkers will use their own definition of "power" in order to frame it based on collectivism, as if "power" only exists if it's conceded voluntarily by other people, but I think this is wishful thinking. Oddly enough, they want to specifically use the word "power" because of its existing reputation, i.e. its connotations with acts of non-consensual control. They may say something like "real power does not stem from violence, real power comes from a group and does not exist without group coherence." However, the only reason they're focusing on the word "power" is because they know what it implies and are using its reputation as a concept in order to lend credibility to their own ideas, which themselves usually contradict the agreed-upon meaning of the "power". To be clear, this may not strictly apply to Hannah Arendt, but I see other people playing with the word "power" so frequently that I thought it was relevant to mention.
    - leftyted 6y ago
      The bones of her argument are not semantic. She's saying that there is a sharp difference between consensual power and non-consensual power. The fact that she uses the word "power" to refer to the former and "violence" to refer to the latter is not that interesting. The distinction itself is what's interesting. I agree with her that there's a distinction to be made between, on one hand, a group of people agreeing to follow a set of rules to accomplish some goal and, on the other, a slave driver forcing his slaves to accomplish that goal. The idea that there is no real distinction here, that all power is based on coercion, was popular when she wrote the linked essay and it's popular today (as evidenced by the replies here). I used to think that way but I no longer do and, I have to say, it's quite a relief.
simonh 6y ago
Surely you mean the only levers of political power aside from consent? If you have a legitimate mandate from the electorate, you can get an awful lot done. However when you reach the limits of your political base, then yes the temptation is to reach for other means. For governments without a popular mandate or support, or who are insecure in the support they may have, well, the result often isn't pretty.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  But "consent" can be informed by threats of violence and by deception. We "consent" to the police searching us at a traffic stop, not because we legitimately want them to, but because we wish to avoid a future penalty (a threat of violence). If we don't consent, we only do so knowing that we are secure in doing so because the law permits us to do so. We only do so because there is not a threat of violence against us if we do so. Consent doesn't exist apart from threats of violence and deception. The latter two are all around us and constantly informing our decisions.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  >If you have a legitimate mandate from the electorate, you can get an awful lot done. It took Massachusetts 3 years to open a recreational marijuana shop after a ballot initiative passed for legalization.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Which is why ballot initiatives and referendums are so often a terrible idea. The problem is the executive have no ownership of the proposal and don’t feel any responsibility for it unless they were the ones campaigning for it. In a democracy the way to get something done is for someone to get elected on a platform to implement it and then own delivering it once in office. I’m a Brit and Brexit is a classic example of the failure of referendums. None of the political parties wanted it and for several years after we had a Prime Minister who had opposed it. Result - years of confusion and recrimination. Even when it happens (actually it already has) there will be endless arguments about whether it’s a “real” Brexit. Elect leaders you trust and the let them lead. If you don’t like the results, vote them back out.
082349872349872 6y ago
Having just read "Ideology and Terror", I have to say it seems to set up a "totalitarian" strawman that sounds much closer to life under Big Brother than with what I've read of life under either Hitler or Stalin. Interesting ideas, but I'm not sold on the idea there was anything new beyond Tyranny/Oligarchy with a more focused sales pitch.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Key difference over tyranny is that totalitarianism is necessarily an expansionist movement with global aspirations, whose enemy is any truth or belief that could enable people to find a basis for agreement against it. It's total dominion of the human spirit through terror, where traditional 'isms are just nationally focused. When you break people with the randomness of the terror, they will oppress themselves. In this model, North Korea is still just a national tyranny, and even China's CCP is a national police state with colonial aspirations, but it hasn't metastasized into a transnational movement. Hitlerism and Stalinism were the result of movements that created totalitarian empires. Arendt's view was it was a new form of government that was an artifact of the 20th century.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    If Waterloo hadn't happened, (and leaving aside expansions on the other side of the Atlantic) would the French Empire have counted as totalitarian? It had an official emperor, and they definitely tried to export revolution.

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.

motohagiography 6y ago
My assertion afterwards was my next order conclusion, and I agree, not specifically what she asserted. I'm going to revisit it, as the idea of power being an artifact of free consensus of belief in a group, and not intrinsic to violence is hard to reconcile with some of her earlier observations, and indeed, physics.
- quacked 6y ago
  I am inclined to agree with the impossibility of reconciling a definition of "power" that does not involve violence and non-consensual control; a lot of modern writers and thinkers will use their own definition of "power" in order to frame it based on collectivism, as if "power" only exists if it's conceded voluntarily by other people, but I think this is wishful thinking. Oddly enough, they want to specifically use the word "power" because of its existing reputation, i.e. its connotations with acts of non-consensual control. They may say something like "real power does not stem from violence, real power comes from a group and does not exist without group coherence." However, the only reason they're focusing on the word "power" is because they know what it implies and are using its reputation as a concept in order to lend credibility to their own ideas, which themselves usually contradict the agreed-upon meaning of the "power". To be clear, this may not strictly apply to Hannah Arendt, but I see other people playing with the word "power" so frequently that I thought it was relevant to mention.
  - leftyted 6y ago
    The bones of her argument are not semantic. She's saying that there is a sharp difference between consensual power and non-consensual power. The fact that she uses the word "power" to refer to the former and "violence" to refer to the latter is not that interesting. The distinction itself is what's interesting. I agree with her that there's a distinction to be made between, on one hand, a group of people agreeing to follow a set of rules to accomplish some goal and, on the other, a slave driver forcing his slaves to accomplish that goal. The idea that there is no real distinction here, that all power is based on coercion, was popular when she wrote the linked essay and it's popular today (as evidenced by the replies here). I used to think that way but I no longer do and, I have to say, it's quite a relief.

simonh 6y ago

Surely you mean the only levers of political power aside from consent? If you have a legitimate mandate from the electorate, you can get an awful lot done. However when you reach the limits of your political base, then yes the temptation is to reach for other means. For governments without a popular mandate or support, or who are insecure in the support they may have, well, the result often isn't pretty.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
But "consent" can be informed by threats of violence and by deception. We "consent" to the police searching us at a traffic stop, not because we legitimately want them to, but because we wish to avoid a future penalty (a threat of violence). If we don't consent, we only do so knowing that we are secure in doing so because the law permits us to do so. We only do so because there is not a threat of violence against us if we do so. Consent doesn't exist apart from threats of violence and deception. The latter two are all around us and constantly informing our decisions.
bluntfang 6y ago
>If you have a legitimate mandate from the electorate, you can get an awful lot done. It took Massachusetts 3 years to open a recreational marijuana shop after a ballot initiative passed for legalization.
- simonh 6y ago
  Which is why ballot initiatives and referendums are so often a terrible idea. The problem is the executive have no ownership of the proposal and don’t feel any responsibility for it unless they were the ones campaigning for it. In a democracy the way to get something done is for someone to get elected on a platform to implement it and then own delivering it once in office. I’m a Brit and Brexit is a classic example of the failure of referendums. None of the political parties wanted it and for several years after we had a Prime Minister who had opposed it. Result - years of confusion and recrimination. Even when it happens (actually it already has) there will be endless arguments about whether it’s a “real” Brexit. Elect leaders you trust and the let them lead. If you don’t like the results, vote them back out.

082349872349872 6y ago

Having just read "Ideology and Terror", I have to say it seems to set up a "totalitarian" strawman that sounds much closer to life under Big Brother than with what I've read of life under either Hitler or Stalin. Interesting ideas, but I'm not sold on the idea there was anything new beyond Tyranny/Oligarchy with a more focused sales pitch.

motohagiography 6y ago
Key difference over tyranny is that totalitarianism is necessarily an expansionist movement with global aspirations, whose enemy is any truth or belief that could enable people to find a basis for agreement against it. It's total dominion of the human spirit through terror, where traditional 'isms are just nationally focused. When you break people with the randomness of the terror, they will oppress themselves. In this model, North Korea is still just a national tyranny, and even China's CCP is a national police state with colonial aspirations, but it hasn't metastasized into a transnational movement. Hitlerism and Stalinism were the result of movements that created totalitarian empires. Arendt's view was it was a new form of government that was an artifact of the 20th century.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  If Waterloo hadn't happened, (and leaving aside expansions on the other side of the Atlantic) would the French Empire have counted as totalitarian? It had an official emperor, and they definitely tried to export revolution.