Intelligence notes

◉Dashboard↗

On Violence — Arendt (1970)

8 min read

On Violence — Arendt (1970)

Author: Hannah Arendt Published: 1970, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Origin: Expanded from an essay first published in The New York Review of Books (1969) Length: ~106 pages — deliberately concise

Overview

On Violence is Arendt’s most operationally useful political work — a sustained analytical argument that power and violence are not related phenomena on a spectrum but structural opposites. Written at the intersection of the Vietnam War, the student movements of 1968, and the intellectual debates around decolonization, it engages directly with Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon, and the emergent Black Power movement. The result is both a theoretical intervention and a practical diagnostic tool for assessing the structural condition of any political order.

The book’s density-to-utility ratio is unusually high. In approximately one hundred pages, Arendt establishes a conceptual framework that remains among the most analytically precise available for distinguishing genuine political authority from coerced compliance — a distinction that is foundational for assessment of authoritarian regimes, cognitive warfare campaigns, and the long-term sustainability of any political order.

The Core Argument: Power and Violence as Opposites

Power

For Arendt, power is the ability to act in concert with others. It is irreducibly collective — it cannot be held by an individual acting alone and cannot be stored, stockpiled, or manufactured. Power exists only so long as a group chooses to act together; it disappears the moment the group disperses or withdraws its consent.

Power is therefore always a function of legitimacy — not moral legitimacy in an abstract sense, but the ongoing, active consent of a group to coordinate action together. An institution has power when people continue to act through it; it loses power when they stop. This makes power inherently fragile and continuously renewable simultaneously.

Power is, in Arendt’s framework, an end in itself — the condition for collective political life, not merely an instrument for achieving other goals.

Violence

Violence, by contrast, is always instrumental. It requires implements — weapons, technology, organization — and it is always a means toward some end beyond itself. It can never be an end in itself without ceasing to be meaningful.

The crucial asymmetry: violence can destroy power but cannot create it. A government that suppresses its population through violence may survive for a period, but it has already demonstrated that it has lost the power — the active collective consent — that would have made violence unnecessary. The violence itself is the evidence of power’s absence.

This produces Arendt’s most frequently cited formulation: “The most extreme form of power is All against One; the most extreme form of violence is One against All.”

The implications are direct:

  • A regime that requires pervasive violence to maintain itself is structurally weaker than it appears. The violence is not a sign of strength but a symptom of the collapse of genuine political authority.
  • A movement that commands genuine popular support — active, voluntary collective action — possesses power that no external violence can permanently suppress without eliminating the population itself.

The Paradox of Violent Revolution

Arendt’s most penetrating engagement is with Fanon’s argument (in The Wretched of the Earth, 1961) that violence is politically redemptive for colonized peoples — that the act of collective violence against the colonizer generates the solidarity and agency that constitutes a new political community.

Arendt rejects this directly: violence may destroy an oppressive system, but it does not build the power required for a new one. The destruction of colonial authority through violence does not automatically generate the collective capacity — the voluntary, coordinated political action — required to build new institutions. Post-colonial states that achieved independence primarily through violent means frequently found themselves with the shell of state apparatus but without the genuine political power needed to make it function.

The destruction of the old order and the construction of a new one require different capacities. Violence is effective at destruction; it is structurally incapable of generating the consent-based collective action that constitutes political power.

The Bureaucracy Problem: Violence Without Authority

A significant section of On Violence addresses bureaucratic rule — which Arendt characterizes as “rule by nobody.” In a bureaucratic system, violence (coercion, legal sanction, administrative force) is exercised without identifiable political authority behind it. No individual is responsible; everyone is following procedures. The result is a system that can compel behavior but cannot generate genuine political consent or accountability.

This analysis maps directly onto contemporary problems in algorithmic governance and autonomous weapons systems:

  • Algorithmic targeting systems (Gospel, Lavender, TITAN) that recommend targets without identifiable human decision-makers responsible for the selection reproduce the bureaucratic structure Arendt identifies: violence exercised through procedures that dissolve individual accountability. See The IDF’s Kill Machine and Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems.
  • Cognitive warfare operated through automated amplification systems — where content is boosted by algorithm rather than decided by any identifiable actor — reproduces the same accountability dissolution in the information domain.

The Scharre accountability gap (the observation that no individual commits a war crime when an autonomous system kills unlawfully) is Arendt’s bureaucracy problem applied to lethal systems.

Analytical Applications for Hybrid Threats Assessment

Authoritarian Regime Sustainability

Arendt’s framework provides a diagnostic tool for assessing how close any authoritarian regime is to collapse. The volume of violence required to maintain order is inversely proportional to the degree of genuine political power the regime retains. A government that can govern primarily through law and voluntary compliance retains power. A government that requires pervasive surveillance, mass incarceration, and periodic violent suppression has lost power and is substituting violence for it.

Applied to Russia: the post-2022 expansion of domestic repression — criminal prosecutions for anti-war speech, suppression of independent media, expansion of FSB surveillance — is analytically a signal of power contraction rather than power consolidation. The regime can compel compliance but is losing the capacity to generate genuine consent. The question is not whether such regimes are powerful but how long violence can substitute for power before the structural contradiction becomes unsustainable.

Cognitive Warfare as Power Projection

Cognitive warfare operations that succeed in generating genuine popular consent — not merely inducing compliance through fear or confusion, but actually shifting how target populations understand reality and their place in it — are qualitatively more powerful than kinetic operations that compel compliance through violence.

This is precisely why information operations targeting consent are strategically more significant than kinetic operations targeting behavior. If a foreign information operation can shift the political values and loyalties of a target population, it has generated real political power within that population — power that will persist after the campaign ends, that will reproduce itself through social networks, and that requires no ongoing violence to maintain.

The Gramscian Connection

Gramsci’s concept of hegemony — political domination through cultural leadership rather than coercion — maps directly onto Arendt’s analysis. The “war of position” (building cultural hegemony before attempting direct seizure of state power) is a strategy for building genuine power (in Arendt’s sense) rather than relying on violence. See Antonio Gramsci.

The implication for cognitive warfare: campaigns that build genuine narrative consent within target populations are not merely influence operations but power-building operations in the Arendtian sense. They deserve different analytical treatment from campaigns that merely create confusion or suppress information.

Critical Limitations

The power/violence dichotomy is analytically sharper than empirically accurate. Weber’s foundational concept — the state’s “monopoly on the legitimate use of violence” — combines what Arendt separates. In practice, states exercise genuine power partly through the legitimate deployment of violence (law enforcement, military deterrence, judicial sanction). The line between power (legitimate authority backed by collective consent) and violence (coercion) is continuously negotiated, not fixed.

Arendt’s framework is most useful as an analytic ideal type rather than a descriptor of actual political systems. The question “how much of this regime’s authority rests on consent versus coercion?” is analytically productive even if the pure poles she describes never exist empirically.

The colonial context. Arendt’s dismissal of Fanon has been criticized extensively — her understanding of the colonial context and the political subjectivity of colonized peoples was limited. The counterargument is not merely that she failed to understand Fanon’s context but that her framework of “power” may itself reflect a particular Western liberal tradition of political life that does not universalize across all settings.

Sources

  • Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970.
  • Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth [Les Damnés de la Terre]. Maspero, 1961.
  • Benda, Julien. La Trahison des clercs. Grasset, 1927.
  • Weber, Max. “Politics as a Vocation” [Politik als Beruf]. 1919. In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Oxford University Press, 1946.
  • Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth. Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. Yale University Press, 1982.

Graph View

Backlinks