Chapter 12: Concerning Violence Flashcards
According to Arendt, what role did European imperialism play in the rise of European fascism?
Arendt argued in “The Origins of Totalitarianism” that European imperialism provided fertile soil for the development of European fascism, as it demonstrated how peoples could be converted into races and how one group could be placed in the position of the master race.
How did Arendt differentiate between European colonialism and European fascism, particularly regarding the Holocaust?
Arendt believed that while European colonialism contributed to the rise of European fascism, the Nazi Holocaust was unique in its anti-utilitarian character, as it did not benefit anyone.
In “On Violence,” how does Arendt define power and violence?
Arendt defines power as the human ability to act in concert, existing among people as they act together, while violence is an instrument used to make others obey.
What is Arendt’s critique of violence in revolutionary struggles, particularly in response to Frantz Fanon’s analysis?
Arendt criticizes the glorification of violence in revolutionary struggles, advocating instead for civil disobedience as a means of effecting political change.
How does Fanon’s conception of violence differ from Arendt’s?
Fanon views violence as the defining feature of colonialism, arguing that it is inherent to the colonial system. In contrast, Arendt distinguishes between power and violence, advocating for civil disobedience over violent revolution.
According to Fanon, why is violence central to colonialism?
Fanon argues that violence is inherent to colonialism, serving as a means of exploitation and control over colonized peoples. He views violence as an expression and a means of the occupant-occupied relationship.
What does Fanon believe is necessary to overcome colonialism?
Fanon contends that violence is required to overcome colonialism, as colonial powers will only yield when confronted with greater violence. He rejects the idea of a non-violent option in a world saturated by violence.
How does Fanon critique the instrumentalist view of violence?
Fanon rejects the instrumentalist view of violence, which suggests that violence can be used strategically to achieve specific ends.
He argues that violence is a structural force inherent in colonialism, rather than a tool that can be picked up and put down as needed.
In what ways does Fanon’s perspective on violence challenge conventional understandings of revolution?
Fanon challenges the idea that revolution can or should be separate from violence, arguing instead that violence is unavoidable in the struggle against colonialism. He sees violence as central to revolutionary change in a world shaped by colonial oppression.
Compare and contrast Arendt’s and Fanon’s theorisation of violence
Both Arendt and Fanon recognize the significance of violence in political contexts, but they approach it from different perspectives.
Arendt focuses on the distinction between power and violence, emphasizing the importance of
consensus and civil disobedience in political action, while Fanon sees violence as an inherent aspect of colonialism and a necessary means of resistance.
Arendt critiques violence as destructive to political life, whereas Fanon sees it as a tool for revolutionary change in the face of colonial oppression.
While Arendt advocates for non-violent political action, Fanon argues that violence is unavoidable and necessary to confront colonial powers.
Both theorists offer insights into the complex relationship between power, violence, and resistance, but they diverge in their assessments of the role and efficacy of violence in political struggles.
What are some constraints on violence?
Despite its prevalence in politics, violence is often constrained by legal norms, ethical principles, and social norms that regulate its use.
International law prohibits certain forms of violence, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and establishes mechanisms for accountability and justice.
Within domestic contexts, democratic institutions, civil society organizations, and human rights frameworks play a role in monitoring and challenging the abuse of power and violence by state and non-state actors.
What is the relationship between power and politics?
Power is a central concept in politics, referring to the ability to influence or control the behavior of others, either through coercion, persuasion, or authority.
Politics is the process through which power is exercised and contested within society, involving the negotiation and competition of interests, values, and resources.
Power in politics can be manifested through various means, including institutional authority, economic resources, social influence, and ideological dominance.
How is violence used as a political tool?
Violence is often used as a means to attain or maintain power in political contexts. It can be employed by state actors, non-state actors, or individuals to achieve political objectives, suppress dissent, or enforce control.
In some cases, violence is institutionalized through state apparatuses such as the military, police, or legal system, while in others, it may take the form of insurgency, terrorism, or civil unrest.
What is the relation between legitimacy and violence?
The legitimacy of political power can influence the acceptability and justification of violence within society.
Governments that are perceived as legitimate may have greater authority to use violence in maintaining order or defending national security.
Conversely, the illegitimate use of violence by state authorities, such as human rights abuses or suppression of democratic rights, can undermine their legitimacy and provoke opposition.
Non-state actors may also justify their use of violence based on claims of resistance against oppression, injustice, or exploitation, challenging the legitimacy of existing power structures.
How are Arendt and Fanon contemporarily relevant?
In an era marked by authoritarianism, social polarization, and global crises, Arendt’s emphasis on democratic values, pluralism, and civic responsibility offers a counterpoint to the allure of authoritarian populism and political extremism.
Likewise, Fanon’s analysis of colonial violence and the legacy of imperialism continues to inform discussions on racial justice, post-colonialism, and global solidarity, highlighting the ongoing struggles for liberation and self-determination.
