Power Is the Essence of All Government, but Violence Is Not - Critical Thinking Example

To analyze the claim Power is the essence of all government, but violence is not," we must first examine in depth Arendt's argument behind her statement. My essay shall begin with such an examination and then move on to analyze Foucaults writings on such matters. Additionally, I shall also critique Karl Marx literature on the same issue. I shall finish by coming to a reasoned conclusion taking both authors writings into account.

Arendt starts her argument by laying down definitions for both violence and power. She writes that power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert(p44); she describes the property as only remaining in existence as long as the group it refers to keeps together. It can never be the property of an individual; it is only ever the property of a group relation, even though we use phrases such as "that man is in power," what we are referring to is the man being empowered by his group of subjects. On the other hand, violence, which, Arendt writes, is phenomenologically close to strength, designates something in the singular(p44), it is an instrument that multiples this strength of individuals.

Arendt notes, Nothing [Is] more common than the combination of violence and power (46). She even expresses that it is tempting to equate violence and power if we think of power regarding command and obedience. However, by doing this, we would be mistaken. There have been many cases in history, where "violence appears as a last resort to keep the power structure intact (p47) and therefore it may seem as though violence is a prerequisite of power (p47). Arendt realizes she needs to provide an effective counterargument for this statement if she later is to make a claim "Power is indeed of the essence of all government, but violence is not (p51). She examines the case of revolution and recognizes that although the government may resort to violence to keep the state in order. The government superiority only lasts as long as the commands they give to their armed forces are obeyed and this is a power relation, as can seem from Arendt's earlier definition of power. She writes,

Where commands are no longer obeyed, the means of violence are of no use (p49). Therefore, Everything depends on the power behind the violence (p49). Only if there were created robot soldiers, that obey the governments commands automatically, would the fundamental ascendancy of power over violence (p50) change. Here, I believe, Arendt makes a convincing argument - indeed when we consider almost every situation in which the governments superiority is in dangerous, what seems relevant is not whether violence is carried out but whether violence is carried out correctly via the governments agents carrying out their orders.

It is after this that Arendt moves to make her conceptual claim that Power is indeed the essence of all government, but violence is not. After showing that violence is not a prerequisite for power, Arendt is in a safe position to make such a claim. The dictionary definition of essence is the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, which determines its character," and so indeed if violence was a prerequisite for power than her statement would not make logical sense. She argues for her statement by referring to violence being instrumental whenever you use violence it is normal for some other ends for example, a man might use violence for the ends of gaining respect from another. If violence is instrumental, it cannot be the essence of anything. Power, however, is an "end in itself (p51); it is something to be aimed for, purely for its sake, much like a concept such as peace is.

Arendt argues that asking a question like What is the end of government?(p51) Is question begging; the essence of the government is power, which is "an end in itself." Arendt writes, "The government is essentially organized and institutionalized power (p51).

However, Arendts argument for violence not being the essence of government does not stop here. She now makes a stronger claim that power and violence are opposites; where one rules absolutely, the other is absent (p56). So not only is Arendt suggesting that violence is not the essence of government, she is suggesting that it is the opposite of the essence of government. She gives examples of where regimes have resorted to violence and failed such as the Russian government and European Imperialism. When violence is left to its course it ends in power's disappearance (p56), Arendt writes. However, I believe Arendt takes this point too far where she argues her argument implies it is not correct to think of the opposite of violence as non-violence (p56). All because in history, violent regimes have ended, their power is lost, does not mean you can take a word such as violence and state its opposite is power instead of "non-violence."

In Foucault's "The Subject and Power," he writes violence's "opposite pole can only be passivity (p789), and here I agree with him. He makes the point that the bringing into play the role of power relations does not exclude the use of violence any more than it does the obtaining of consent; no doubt the exercise of power can never do without one or the other, often both at the same time (p789).It highlights how power is most definitely not the opposite of violence and where power is exercised, sometimes so is violence. He refers to violence being one of the instruments (p789) of power. Foucault goes on to make an interesting point When one defines the exercise of power as a mode of action upon the actions of others. when one characterizes these actions by the government of men by other men - in the broadest sense of the term - one includes an important element: freedom(p790). In other words, for a government to exercise power, it has to be possible that there were initially choices or actions for the governments subjects to partake in, for a party to guide them over these - for the issues to be governed. Therefore freedom, Foucault argues, is a prerequisite for power. Taking

Foucaults argument it seems that power is not the essence of all government; instead, both power and freedom are.

Karl Marx in his book theory of history: A defense, writes about violence as a tool for destruction. He talks about power being in the hands of the ruling class who are the rich people in the society but objects the use of barrels of guns to obtain power (p.43). Marx is aware of the role of violence in history. He argues that the emergence of power in the society is preceded but not caused by hostile outbreaks of violence (p.44). Marx compares this to labor pangs that come before but do not lead to the situation of an organic birth. About this, he regards the states as a mechanism of violence upon direction by the ruling class, but the authentic power does not contain or rely on force (p.45). Marx teachings rued out the use of violence to obtain power. He argues that organized armed uprising is the work of the military but not those in political power and ruling the state. In his writings, Marx argues that violence can never be a means to obtain power, but it is the way to the destruction of any sane and peaceful society.

In conclusion, having looked at Arendts arguments behind the claim Power is the essence of all government but violence is not" and taking Marx and, Foucault's, writings on the matter into account. I can come to say that in some ways I agree with this statement, and in some ways, I do not. I agree that power is an essence of government, as mentioned above, Arendt argues well for this point however I do not believe it is the only essence of government as Foucaults writings demonstrate, there may be other concepts intrinsic to the nature of the concept of government, such as freedom. Marx writings illustrate that the emergence of power in the society is preceded but not caused by hostile outbreaks of violence. He does not support the mechanism of violence as a way to obtain power. In a combination of both writings, a standpoint can only be valid depending on the logic presented in both cases. Furthermore, I do not subscribe to the idea that power and violence are an opposite of one another as Arendt proposes and hence implicitly implies in the quote power is the essence of all government but violence is not.

All quotes from Arendt are taken from Arendt's "On Violence."

All quotes from Foucault are taken from Foucault's "The Subject and Power."

All quotes from Marx are taken from Cohens The Theory of History: A Defense."

Works Cited

Cohen, Gerald Allan. Karl Marx's theory of history: a defence. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000.

Foucault, Michel. "The subject and power." Critical inquiry 8.4 (1982): 777-795.