Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:05:45.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Power and Violence*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

E. V. Walter
E. V. Walter
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ancient Greeks rarely fail us when we turn to them in a receptive but cautious spirit for conceptual clarity, and their treatment of the abstraction “power” and terms related to it is relevant and suggestive. In Greek, a root contained in several words associated with political power has two meanings. The verb archein means both “to rule” and “to start”; the noun arché means both “sovereignty” and “beginning.” J. L. Myres, in his analysis of Greek political ideas, suggests:

It is now clear that in compounds the prefix arkhé (as in our words “architect” and “archbishop”) describes not merely the first or chief man of a company or organization, but the initiatory function of him who “starts” the others to work, and originates the design which they are to complete. And this appeal to Greek practical life confirms the view that what is essential in the notion of arkhé is just this initiatory “push” or “drive” with which the gifted man imposes his will-and-pleasure on the rest.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1964 , pp. 350 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Myres, John L., The Political Ideas of the Greeks (New York, Abingdon Press, 1927), p. 158Google Scholar.

2 Herodotus, , Histories III 83Google Scholar; Aristotle, , Politics 1277b 15Google Scholar.

3 Aristotle, , The Metaphysics V 1013a, trans. Ross, W. D., 2d ed. (London, Oxford University Press, 1948)Google Scholar.

4 Metaph. 1013a, 1046a, trans. Hope, Richard (Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Paperbacks, 1960), pp. 104, 182Google Scholar. The Hope translation prefers “power” to the word “potency,” which is found in older translations.

5 As indicated below, I have extended the conception of power proposed by Oppenheim, Felix E. in Dimensions of Freedom: An Analysis (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His scheme is more useful than those proposed by Lasswell and other contemporary analysts of power. As David Braybrooke has stated in a recent review, Oppenheim has probably “come closer than any previous writer to achieving maximum clarity about freedom and such related concepts as power and control.” I agree with Braybrooke that “the next order of business” in the analysis of power and freedom is the critique of this scheme, “for as of this moment that subject starts with Oppenheim's account.” Philosophical Review, Vol. 72 (1963), p. 525Google Scholar.

6 Metaph. 1019a, trans. Hope, , p. 105Google Scholar.

7 MacIver, R. M., The Web of Government (New York, 1947), p. 77Google Scholar.

8 Russell, Bertrand, Power: A New Social Analysis (London, Unwin Books, 1962), p. 25Google Scholar.

9 Dimensions of Freedom, p. 100.

10 Ibid., ch. 2.

11 Ibid., p. 40.

12 Ibid., p. 52.

13 Ibid., chs. 4, 5.

14 Ibid., chs. 1–6.

15 Cf. Selye, Hans, The Physiology and Pathology of Exposure to Stress (Montreal, Acta, 1950), pp. 2–13Google Scholar; or Selye's, popularization, The Stress of Life (New York, 1956)Google Scholar.

16 Whyte, William Foote, Street Corner Society, 2d ed. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 258Google Scholar.

17 Homans, George C., Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (New York, 1961), p. 386Google Scholar.

18 Tacitus, , The Complete Works (New York, Modern Library, 1942), pp. 712, 714Google Scholar.

19 Walker, Eric A., A History of Southern Africa, 3d ed. (London, Longmans, Green, 1957), p. 112Google Scholar; cf. Cambridge History of the British Empire, VIII, p. 41 ffGoogle Scholar.

20 From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, p. 251.

21 Andrewes, A., Probouleusis (London, Oxford University Press, 1954), pp. 6, 9Google Scholar.

22 Cambridge Ancient History, II, 1st ed., ch. xviiGoogle Scholar; Hammond, N. G. L., A History of Greece to 322 B.C. (London, Oxford University Press, 1959), pp. 67, 140Google Scholar.

23 Southall, Aidan W., Alur Society: A Study in Processes and Types of Domination (Cambridge, W. Heffer, 1953)Google Scholar.

24 Emmet, Dorothy, “The Concept of Power,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 54 (1954), p. 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 y Gasset, José Ortega, Concord and Liberty, trans. Weyl, Helene (New York, 1946), pp. 34, 35Google Scholar.

26 Cf. Radin, Paul, The World of Primitive Man (New York, 1960), cha. 6, 8Google Scholar.

27 Cooperman, David takes a different approach in Power, Force, and Violence (unpublished Ph. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1954)Google Scholar. Working out the problem in a conceptual framework that follows Talcott Parsons, he deals with effects on the normative structure and defines violence as destructive harm not to persons, as I have defined it, but to boundaries of action.

28 Metaph. 1015a, b.

29 Jammer, Max, Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundations of Dynamics (New York, 1962), p. 37Google Scholar.

30 Nichomachean Ethics 1110b.

31 Jammer, op. cit., p. viii.

32 Tillich, Paul, Love, Power, and Justice (New York: Galaxy Books, 1961), p. 7Google Scholar.

33 Jammer, op. cit., p. 264.

34 In Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus 373, Ismene tells exiled Oedipus that at Thebes, each of his sons is attempting to grasp both arché and kratos of the throne.

35 Hesiod, , Theogony 385Google Scholar.

36 Aeschylus, , Prometheus Bound 34, 402, 150Google Scholar.

37 The fact that the official rules limited speech to only two persons on stage, it should go without saying, is hardly a complete or sufficient explanation for Bia's silence.

38 Aesch. Pr. 42.

39 Ibid., 50, 10.

40 Political Power (Glencoe, Ill., 1950), p. 21Google Scholar.

41 The Web of Government, p. 16.

42 Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite (New York, 1956), p. 171Google Scholar.

43 I am grateful for several references furnished by Larry Gross in his unpublished paper, “Political Institutions of Organized Violence in Several Ancient and Modern States.”

44 Kautilya Arthasastra, trans. Shamasastry, R., 7th ed. (Mysore, Mysore Printing and Publishing House, 1961)Google Scholar.

45 From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright (New York, 1946), p. 124Google Scholar.

46 For a brief summary of the controversy over the date of Manu, see Brown, D. Mackenzie, The White Umbrella: Indian Political Thought from Manu to Gandhi (Berkeley, Univ. of California Press, 1953), p. 27Google Scholar.

47 The Laws of Manu, trans. Bühler, G., The Sacred Books of the East, vol. XXV (London, Oxford University Press, 1886), p. 219Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., p. 221.

49 Ibid., p. 219–20.

50 Ibid., p. 218–19.

51 Ibid., p. 314–15.

52 Creel, H. G., Confucius and the Chinese Way (New York, 1960), p. 222Google Scholar. The contrast between Legalism and Confucianism is also described by the historian, Yu-lan, Fung, A Short History of Chinese Philosophy (New York, 1960), p. 164–65Google Scholar.

53 Creel, op. cit., p. 215–16. Fung Yu-lan considers Han Pei-tzu as the “culminating representative” and “the last and greatest theorizer of the Legalist school…” Op. cit., p. 157.

54 Creel, op. cit., p. 239.

55 Fung Yu-lan, op. cit., pp. 160, 164.

56 Ibid., p. 158, italics added.

57 Sinclair, T. A., A History of Greek Political Thought (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961), p. 24Google Scholar.

58 The dependence of power on cooperation is cogently argued in Harris, E. E., “Political Power,” Ethics, Vol. 68 (1957), pp. 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, trans. Henderson, A. M. and Parsons, Talcott (New York, 1947), p. 132; italics addedGoogle Scholar.

60 Ibid., p. 152, italics added.

61 Bendix, Reinhard, Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (New York, 1962), p. 290Google Scholar.

62 African Political Systems, ed. Fortes, M. and Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. xiv, xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

63 Easton, David, “Political Anthropology,” Biennial Review of Anthropology 1959, ed. Siegel, Bernard J. (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1959), pp. 213, 218–19Google Scholar.

64 Easton, David, The Political System (New York, 1953), p. 153, n. 2Google Scholar.

65 Weber, Max, “Politik als Beruf,” Gesammelte Politische Schriften, 2. Aufl. (Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1958), S. 494Google Scholar.

66 From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, p. 78.

67 Compare The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, pp. 154–56 with Weber, Max, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 4. Aufl. (Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1956), I. Hbd. K. i. § 17, S. 29–30Google Scholar.

68 MacIver, R. M., The Modern State (London, Oxford University Press, 1926), pp. 222, 223, 225, 230Google Scholar.

69 The Sociology of Georg Simmel, trans. Wolff, Kurt H. (Glencoe, Ill., 1950), p. 192Google Scholar; “Conflict,” trans. Wolff, Kurt H., in Simmel's, GeorgConflict and The Web of Group-Affiliations (Glencoe, Ill., 1955), p. 26Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.