Hannah Arendt articulated violence
Within the framework of my integrative work in an instance of colloquium by indirect promotion in the area of Political Science, I have decided and 4 respectively.
Arendt points out the issues of violence in the political field. She infinitely disgusted violence as a right of power. Power as such is an instrument of command, while command owes its existence to the "instinct of domination"
"A man feels more man when he imposes on himself, and makes others instruments of his will," said Sartre, and this, in turn, provides an incomparable pleasure.
The bureaucracy is considered or, in any case, the domain of a complex offices system as one of the most formidable ways of exercising domain, called as anyone’s government, where no one is responsible, a tyrant government, in which no one Question what the other is doing and in which the location of the enemy is difficult. All political institutions are manifestations and materializations of power, this means that power is indirectly exercised, not with weapons, knives or anything that represents violence itself, but, by manifesting laws that, in turn, men approved and decay when the same man stops supporting them and fulfilling them.
A distinction between violence and power, is that power always requires the number, while violence can do without the number because it rests on the instrument, the extreme form of power is that of all against one, and the extreme form of violence is the of one against all, and the latter is never possible without instruments, that is where reference is made to the aforementioned.
Hannah is based on keywords, such as "power", "power", "strength", "authority" and of course "violence", while Nancy Fraser is based specifically on "justice", emphasizing that This is never directly experienced, if we indirectly experience the sense of injustice, and, through it, we experience what justice is. "Overcoming injustice means dismantling institutionalized obstacles that prevent some from participating with others, as members with full right to social interaction," says Fraser, referring to an injustice occurs when situations are institutionalized that disable the participation of the participation of some in social life.
Nancy Fraser is based on certain demands of social justice, one of them is the claim of redistributive pretending a fairer distribution of resources and wealth. Another is the recognition policy, which recognizes as a objective a world that accepts differences, but does not use them to discriminate, either because of their skin color, gender, sexuality or any characteristic of a human being. It is here, where she personally articulates the texts of both authors, believing that a person at the time of discriminating feels more powerful, exercising on another unnecessary violence and having some contempt for the feelings of the discriminated. It also joins the concept of "force" referred. "Authority" could be considered as another word to describe a certain degree of violence in the discrimination environment, since a submissive person exposed to discrimination gives another the sense of authority indirectly for the fear that she can exercise.
Although Hannah Arendt is contextualized in an area of violence and power by the State, and Nancy Fraser more in the social sphere of justice, it seemed more appropriate to relate these texts, at some point Fraser also relates social justice towards the State for economy issues by marginalized social groups, looking for precisely an equitable distribution of resources and wealth.
I conclude my work referring to Hannah Arendt’s ideals, who said that power does not need justification, arising from where people join and act concertedly, while Fraser refers to the justification and recognition of justice.
Leave feedback