The presumptive theories of political terminology are a digressing constant labyrinth of theories that have and great leverage in politics of the world. Misconception ns and deemed interpretations of some integral powers in theories of factors that have determined the history of mankind are subject to perceptions and philosophical positioning. Arendt H. in an essay of power and violence examines the misconstrued idea of drawing a parallel of violence over power and critically in well knit arguments determines that the are in any case juxtaposed. She proves that they stand in and oil water relationship and are by no means coherent one in its pure form completely annihilates the other.
In this paper I would like to illustrate some loopholes in the argument posed by Berry’s scholarly article of Power and Violence Hannah Arendt Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), and although I agree with the views on power and authority, I beg to differ to what extent power is separable from violence. In a critical examination of her views and how she categorically although selectively demonstrates the effect of power on violence and vise versa I would wish to identify why some of Arendt’s arguments do not hold wait especially in light of the world political systems and the evidence provided over time fro ancient political systems that have provided blueprints for our current system.
In the essay Arendt supposedly points out to instances of power and authority and is able to draw a line between violence- which sometimes works as a means, and power- which I justifiable and end. She handle scholarly the designs of power in respect to violence drawing parallels and determining the difference between these two theories that according to the article are not bed fellows. This is because the article argues that the two theories although they are application in the case of domination are contrary to each other in their determination. For instance it argues that power ought to be legitimate but violence doesn’t instead it is basically exercise under a banner of justification which in some case it can be power. The article also examines instances in which power and violence have come into confrontation and demonstrated the effect of annihilation where the exercise of power as in the case of Stalinist Russia was not in the violence but by subtle designs that manipulated violence and where the imperial British could not hold against Gandhi’s Stayagraha power.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
However the article seems to abjectly divorce power from violence stating that power and violence have the displacement effect in that when violence is introduced power is eventually displaced or transferred. This is well demonstrated especially if the violence is mindless. But as Arendt demonstrates in her textbook examples, a father can loose authority both by coercion and by treating his child as equals. This is because there is a correlation of the variables in that when force is administered it will only be a matter of time before the child develops a way to deal with suppression and thus manage to counter the violence. As Berry says it will create the ability to pedestal the enemy of violence, laughter even though subli9minal. However treating the child as an equal may erode the opinion of the child who previously had his father in high esteem thus create a possibility of repulsion and resistance of his authority.
This demonstrates that the underlying factor is not necessarily the variables of violence and power. There are factors that will in event come in to contribute to the overall outcome of the exercise of both power and violence. This is because power can be used to justify violence and violence to ascend to power. For instance the USA has risen to power over the past few decades especially with the crumbling of the Soviet Union. For a time the world has enjoyed a long period of peace and self determination;’ economic milestones and scientific discoveries and general globalization which has generally made the earth as the extremists observed it under one order philosophy and control. But in time the world ascends to the overall power and USA disappears into the back of the minds of people and its supposed super power is no longer a determinant factor in the world business. President Bush and his military strategies however create a hero world savior scenario with world opinion by demonstrating the commitment of the world to wrestle the new perceived enemy; terrorism. Thus through the recent years USA has risen to its assumed throne of world dominance by virtually determining word policies especially in an effort to tackle terrorism.
How then did such power which was practically evaporating due to concentration in other issues save for military power relinquished by the arbitrating body of the United Nations. This was actually affected by the injection of violence in the Middle East. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan which practically drew the support of the world to USA sentiments especially after September 11th created the magnanimous power for USA. Thus it is the application of violence and the justification as well as the esoteric wooing of public opinion that determines whether power can be confiscated with violence. This is in light of all areas of human progress the struggle for resources and an effort to control the minds of the people in question.
Just a the literally envisioning of George Orwell 1984 big brother establishes total control, over the populace by violence. However direct violence like Stalinist Russia which the author chose to demonstrate her ideas, have proven futile over time. Mustering the importance of justification and playing the puppeteer then authority can be consolidated over violence or even out of consequence as anti conspiracy theory’s would have us believe the subtle case scenarios of political situations. The exercise of violence is usually intertwined with power, in the case of a father and son the father is in position to use violence up to a certain level and age and reason out with the child up to certain level and age. This is because none of them is absolute and their correlation is dependant on other factors that have an inkling to their execution.
The theory of violence and power is as the writer claims misconstrued especially considering the explicit examples it puts across to demonstrate how he ides of their intertwinement is far removed. However I think it is not entirely so alienated to each other as the article would want us to believe. The theory of violence cannot be derived from its opposite is a pervasion from the reality because in as mush as violence is not synonymous with power as proponent of political philosophies of qualities such as strength and dominance will have as believe, power can construct a controlled way to execute violence that will eventually consolidate the power.
During the ancient time Rome was in constant battle and attained the power never imagined before through this constant violence. In attaining this power Rome knew the importance of violence in consolidating this power derived from violence. Thus the great violence in their amphitheatres and coliseums, this is in demonstration that the history of the world is written in blood and most countries have their skeletons in the closet of instances of violence. Thus like Rome all the world requires is a sort of violence although this violence need be controlled and geared to wards a communal consensus.
Thus the need for an enemy, even is this necessitates esoteric control of public opinion or creation of thought up enemies like in the George Orwell’s prophetic 1984 then so be it. Men are not social beings as theories of communities would gave us believe and every one retains a sort of archaic law of the jungle at the back of the mind. Belonging to society is some sort of submission to an ideal bigger than oneself an order that preconceived ideas creates our perception to hold in high esteem. States are like the parent and his son the sate is allowed to monopolies violence that virtually hangs over our heads like a guillotine yet it has to convince us that that is not the case through treating us as the state itself holding the guillotine. Power and violence are not he same thing but are all geared to achieve the idea, human domination.