On violence by Hannah Arendt is an interesting reflection on history and politics. In this short but substantial essay, Hanna Arendt analyzes the historical facts of the 1960s by inserting/telling them 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 the community to unmask political hypocrisy rather than to fight against structural injustice and social order (they seem inevitable events). Arendt's intentions to dismantle the shortcomings of contemporary intellectualism and the threats of some social movements are the crux of this book. It carries out a sort of semantic cleaning by clarifying the differences between the concepts of violence, authority, strength and power. This clarification allows her to propose her 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 issues related 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Hannah Arendt deals with the most important themes of the international political agenda: violence, the causes of violence, the relationship between violence, power, authority, the rationality of violence, the difference between collective and individual violence. Violence is the undisputed protagonist of the history of the twentieth century, but in this book Arendt's speech focuses on the violence that takes place in collective spaces, such as universities. He believes that - to analyze violence as a social phenomenon - it is necessary to clear the field of 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 this role was secondary for him; not violence but the contradictions inherent to the old society determined its end. The emergence of a new society was preceded, but not caused, by violent explosions, which he likened to the pangs of labor that precede, but obviously do not cause, the event of organic birth. Sartre, Sorel and Fanon, the supporters of violence as a tool for the redemption of the oppressed, do not realize (according to Arendt) that their theories serve to support "Marx's worst illusions". In the specific case of Sartre, he is reproached for his ideological claim and for promoting incitement to common struggle and rebellion in third world countries. According to Arendt, the Third World does not exist, but it is an ideology: To think, finally, that there is something like a "Unity of the Third World", to which the new slogan could be addressed in the era of decolonization. "Natives of all underdeveloped countries unite!" (Sartre) means repeating Marx's worst illusions on a much larger scale and with far fewer justifications. The Third World is not a reality but an ideology. Arendt's definition of the Third World as an ideology draws my attention to the view this philosopher and political theorist has regarding ideologies, as stated in her book entitled The Origins of Totalitarianism: “Be careful when dealing with generally accepted opinions that purport to explain entire trends of history is especially important for the historian of modern times because the last century has produced an abundance of ideologies that claim to be keys to history but in reality are nothing more thandesperate efforts to escape responsibility” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism. It seems to me that Hannah Arendt believes that, regardless of its particular context, Third World ideology is just as dangerous as other systems of ideas that have marked the twentieth century. I wouldn't venture to say that Arendt thinks that Third Worldism, Nazism, Maoism or Stalinism are made of the same stuff, but she seems to be convinced that their ideologues claim, just as in other political beliefs, 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 perpetrators and their victims for a nefarious escape from reality. Also controversial is his perspective on the riots in American universities and the role that white liberals and the Black Power movement had on them. His opinion on the demands of the black community and the response of whites is very virulent. He believes that claiming that "all white men are guilty" is not only dangerous nonsense, but also the best excuse for doing nothing. It seems to me that Arendt's conclusion on these riots and on 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 cover for guilty individuals to hide behind. 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 cloud discernment and the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong. It does not offer the opportunity to reconstruct universal moral principles. For these reasons, America's national guilt produces negative effects: it is developing a kind of reverse racism, which serves quite effectively to give the real grievances and rational emotions of the black population an outlet into irrationality, an escape from reality . . In other words, he argued, similarly to what he did 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 of society. The collective dynamics are a sort of vicious circle that needs to be broken because it is pervaded by fear, violence and ignorance. In the last pages of On Violence, in fact, Arendt exposes the crux of the issue and allows us to glimpse the juxtaposition between violence and anger, concluding that the moment in which engagements become enrages constitutes a denunciation of the inconsistent theories and ideologies that they consider the lack of emotion as an attribute of rationality. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay It is clear that Hannah Arendt was a thinker who had no worries about appearing prickly. It offers a revisionist view not only on issues related to violence, but also on the risks of ideologies as obstacles to free thought. Third Worldism, Nazism, Maoism, Stalinism, the KKK, Black Power, the indignados movement, the gilets jaunes, the lepénistes, the Northern League, etc., despite the differences and the abyss between their adherents, have in common fact that it constitutes a barrier to the development of autonomous thinking. Their followers lose the ability to reject their dogmas and assume their responsibilities as individuals. Additionally, they can use the shield.