On violence by Hannah Arendt is an interesting reflection on history and politics. In this brief but substantial essay, Hanna Arendt analyzes the historical facts of the 1960s by including, relating and comparing them in the context of the most important events of the 20th century. The essay is a lucid x-ray of violence, defined as the ratio used by the individual or collective to unmask political hypocrisy rather than to fight against structural injustice and social order (which seem to be inevitable events ). Arendt's intentions to dismantle the deficiencies of contemporary intellectualism and the threats of certain social movements are at the heart of this book. It operates a sort of semantic cleansing clarifying the differences between the notions of violence, authority, force and power. This precision allows him to propose his own theory on violence, which is very important, especially when it comes to offering an interesting explanation on the destructive power of collective dynamics. It is precisely on the questions linked to collective dynamics and collective guilt that I would like to focus in this text. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayHannah Arendt addresses the most important topics on the international political agenda: violence, the causes of violence, the relationship between violence, power and authority. , the rationality of violence, the difference between collective and individual violence. Violence is the undisputed protagonist of 20th century history, but in this book Arendt's remarks focus on violence that takes place in collective spaces, such as universities. She considers that – to analyze violence as a social phenomenon – it is necessary to remove any semantic, sociological or ideological ambiguity. She is particularly critical of ideological ambiguities, starting with the refutation of New Left Marxism by demonstrating its possible inconsistencies in light of Marx's theory of historical materialism. Marx was aware of the role of violence in history, but for him this role was secondary; It was not violence, but the contradictions inherent in the old society that brought about its end. The emergence of a new society was preceded, but not caused, by explosions of violence, which he likens to the pains of labor which precede, but of course do not cause, the event of organic birth. Sartre, Sorel and Fanon, the supporters of violence as an instrument of redemption for the oppressed, do not realize (according to Arendt) that their theories serve to support “the worst illusions of Marx”. In the specific case of Sartre, he is criticized for his ideological pretension and his incitement to the common struggle and rebellion of third world countries. According to Arendt, the Third World does not exist, but it is an ideology: To think, finally, that there exists a “unity of the Third World”, to which we could address the new slogan in the era of decolonization. “Natives of all underdeveloped countries, unite!” » (Sartre) amounts to repeating Marx's worst illusions on a considerably larger scale and with much less justification. The Third World is not a reality but an ideology. Arendt's definition of the Third World as an ideology caught my attention because of the opinion that this philosopher and political theorist has towards ideologies, as stated in her book entitled The Origins of Totalitarianism: "Attention management of generally accepted opinions claiming to explain entire trends ofhistory is particularly important to the modern-day historian because the last century has produced an abundance of ideologies that claim to be the keys to history but are in reality only desperate efforts to escape responsibility. » - Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism. It seems to me that Hannah Arendt considers that, whatever its particular origins, Third World ideology is as dangerous as the other systems of ideas that marked the 20th century. I would not dare to assert that Arendt thinks that Third Worldism, Nazism, Maoism or Stalinism are made of the same cloth, but she seems convinced that its ideologues claim, just as in other political convictions, to manipulate the masses. There are no good ideologies in the 20th century, since they all claim to impose a vision of the world. They lead to fatal consequences, including terror and violence. Ideologies prepare their executioners and victims for an infamous escape from reality. His views on the American college riots and the role that white liberals and the Black Power movement played in them are also controversial. His opinion on the demands of the black community and the white response is very virulent. She considers that asserting that “all white men are guilty” is not only a dangerous absurdity, it is also the best excuse for doing nothing. It seems to me that Arendt's conclusion on these riots and American collective responsibility is a sort of paraphrase of what she said in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil: "The greatest evil perpetrated is the evil committed by anyone. ". According to Arendt, the concept of collective guilt is senseless and serves as an effective means of concealment behind which guilty individuals hide. The reluctance to make judgments based on individual moral responsibility means that individuals refuse to “be people.” They refuse to interact with others and assume their role in the world. Collective dynamics obscure discernment and the ability to grasp the difference between good and evil. This does not open up the possibility of reconstructing universal moral principles. For these reasons, the American national sense of guilt produces negative effects: it develops a kind of reverse racism, which serves very effectively to give the very real grievances and rational emotions of the black population an outlet into the irrational, a escape from reality. . In other words, she affirmed, as she had done in Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil, that collective guilt tends to justify or trivialize reality. It’s not about understanding the real problems in society. Collective dynamics constitute a sort of vicious circle that must be broken because it is permeated with fear, violence and ignorance. In fact, in the final pages of On Violence, Arendt lays out the crux of the matter and gives us insight into the juxtaposition of violence and anger, concluding that the moment when the engaged become the enraged constitutes a complaint before the incoherent. theories and ideologies that consider the lack of emotions as an attribute of rationality. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay It's obvious that Hannah Arendt was a thinker who didn't mind appearing prickly. It offers a revisionist vision not only on issues related to violence, but also on the risks posed by ideologies as obstacles to free thought. Despite their differences and the gulf between their supporters, Third Worldism,.