3 ms·

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

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.
- phizy 6y ago
  It seems pretty clear to me that the ideal (for those who don't want to be authoritarians) has always been to offer as many opportunities to evade violence as possible. If someone is violating the law, ask them to correct it. If they fail there, help them correct it. If they fail there (or insist), penalize them with inconveniences or fees. If they still fail, 'force' starts to enter the picture, but it should always come with a consideration of need. A person should have to burn through a lot of their credibility and good will before society starts forcing their hand.

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.

phizy 6y ago
It seems pretty clear to me that the ideal (for those who don't want to be authoritarians) has always been to offer as many opportunities to evade violence as possible. If someone is violating the law, ask them to correct it. If they fail there, help them correct it. If they fail there (or insist), penalize them with inconveniences or fees. If they still fail, 'force' starts to enter the picture, but it should always come with a consideration of need. A person should have to burn through a lot of their credibility and good will before society starts forcing their hand.