2
Article summary The author of this article starts by highlighting the misconception held by many politicians about violence in the political world as a display of power. A common misconception that has been raised in this article is that most politicians think that power in ruling people is equivalent to exercising legitimate violence, also well known as organized violence. The subject of power and violence has been examined in this article by analyzing the views of other political scientists and sociologists and Arendt contests the definitions provided by many authors. To many authors, power is displayed as “an instrument of rule” (p. 36) which exists because someone dominates the other one. In deed, the views of many on what power really is portrayed as drawing respect from others as a result of issuing commands. It is for this reason that many think that a person who reigns by the rule of the gun has the greatest power. And to add onto this notion, the article highlights that some think of power as “a kind of mitigated violence” (p. 38) which does not differ greatly from the view that power is best manifested through violence. Failure of political science in distinguishing terms such as power, strength, force and authority has also been criticized by Arendt (p. 45). The author highlights that treating these terms as synonyms in political science blurs the difference between power and violence. It is appreciable that the author defines the terms clearly and power emerges as being an entity owned by a group as opposed to strength that is individualistic. Force emerges as energy coming from social movements and authority is said to exist when respect for individuals or office is maintained (p. 45). These
