Power and Language Arendt and Nietzsche

Language

Power and Language

The concept of power has been examined closely by many philosophers throughout human history. These philosophers have different ideas of what power is, but they all, in some way, believe that the concept of language is central to power. In On Violence, Hannah Arendt quotes several such definitions. She says that power may be "making others act as I choose," "to command and be obeyed," or "the instinct of domination" (36-7). All of these definitions have some basis in the reality of the concept, but the two philosophers who will be the focus of this essay, Arendt and Nietzsche, disagree with this basic premise and attempt to quantify power in different terms. They also make the case of the centrality of language to power. In other words, that there is a language to power, and the creation of power, that needs to be understood before the concept itself can be understood. Arendt and Nietzsche both recognize that there are certain origins to the concept of power, and that the concept has changed over time.

The two philosophers were from different generations, classes and genders, but they both sought to explain how they conceived that power had developed through human history. Arendt was a German-Jewish political theorist who spent the pre-war years in Germany, but was forced to flee to the United States in 1940. Nietzsche was also a German, born in the nineteenth century, who wrote extensively on many philosophical subjects. Arendt believed that power was derived from one person's need to have dominion over another (Arendt, Reflections on Violence), while Nietzsche believed that the origin came from the disparity between the noble and plebian classes (Nietzsche 45).

At first power was said to be between individuals (Wallace), but Arendt argues that the concept of power cannot exist in this small a sample (Arendt, Reflections on Violence). Since power, at its base, is the imposition of one's will over another (Arendt, On Violence, 34), it can be said that both believe that the issue regards a hierarchical disparity. Meaning, both philosophers seemed to agree that power came from a group of individuals of a seemingly higher rank ruling another, or trying to exert control over another. Arendt discusses the concept of war here also. In On Violence (42) she looks at how people have used violence to meet an end goal. It can be easily argued that the violence of a small group wishing to have power over a larger group is where war comes from. Violence in and of itself is not power, but it is a means to power. The warring states in Greek times, the European principalities that wanted to have control of more land (and therefore commerce (Hutcheon)), and other small groups throughout human history have tried to use violence to achieve power. Arendt also says that violence is used when power is in jeopardy (On Violence 56).

Arendt discusses how the concept of power has changed over time in her book On Revolution. She begins by outlining what war is and how it is different from revolution, she then discusses the French vs. The American revolutions. She says that the French revolution was based on social necessity (On Revolution 49), whereas the American revolution was necessitated by a need for freedom (On Revolution 85). It is interesting how she believes that the concept of power changed in these times. It seems that people were disillusioned by the traditional power that monarchies and other individuals or small groups had held. Thus, different revolutions were fomented to give power to the people (On Revolution 48), supposedly. One interesting note that Arendt makes is that current governments do not use the word power in the same way it was used in ancient societies. Since power is no longer seen as trying to dominate another person, there is now no power (Arendt, Reflections on Power). This is actually more dangerous to society than the violent acquisition of power that former groups have tried because there is no one group responsible when things go wrong. this is evident in the way that the United States government operates now.