Die Arbeit analysiert die für Hannah Arendts politische Philosophie zentrale Differenzierung von Macht und Gewalt, mit der sie einen Gegenpol zu Denkerinnen und Denkern bildet, die das Wesen der Politik explizit in gewaltsamen Strukturen sehen. Allerdings wird die Abgrenzung politischer Macht von Formen der Gewaltsamkeit in der postmodernen Arendt-Rezeption stark kritisiert. Speziell bei poststrukturalistischen Theorien – etwa bei Chantal Mouffe – wird stattdessen betont, das Zusammenschließen zu einer Gruppe und einem konsensfähigen ‚Wir‘ komme nie ohne ein Moment an gewaltsamen diskursiven (...) Ausschlüssen und Marginalisierungen aus. Arendts begriffliche Unterscheidung von Macht und Gewalt könne daher nicht aufrechterhalten werden. Vor der Folie von Mouffes (gegen-)hegemonialem Antagonismus wird herausgearbeitet, inwiefern Arendts Philosophie durch ihren Fokus auf dem Neu-Beginnen die diskursiven Bedingungen, unter denen Handeln sich vollzieht, tatsächlich nur undeutlich in den Blick nehmen kann. Gleichzeitig wird aber auch gezeigt, dass ihre Konzepte der Welt, des Zuschauers und des Handelns im Sinne von gerere bzw. πράττειν durchaus reichhaltige Anknüpfungspunkte bieten für die Berücksichtigung gewaltsamer diskursiver Strukturen – und zwar ohne die für ihr Denken so charakteristische Unterscheidung von Macht und Gewalt aufgeben zu müssen. (shrink)

This article reconstructs J. G. A. Pocock's debt to Hannah Arendt's political philosophy in The Machiavellian Moment and argues that her presentation of classical politics in The Human Condition and her account of the secular nature of American foundation in On Revolution were important sources for Pocock's analysis of American liberal insecurity. However, a contextualization of The Machiavellian Moment within Pocock's immediate intellectual and professional milieu indicates that he placed himself in critical relation to Arendt's civic republican theory and located (...) her philosophy of history in the same spectrum as the American political tradition he sought to historicize. While they did share a similar perspective on the ethical and political value of locating oneself within a long historical durée, their different conceptions of the problem of continuity for secular political structures provides a crucial context for their disparate responses to the discourse of political crisis in the United States in the late 1960s and the 1970s. (shrink)

In this work, I present an interpretation of two thinkers, Foucault and Arendt. I place these thinkers within a tradition of critical theory running from Kant to Nietzsche. The opposition between modernism and postmodernism, between its philosophical sources, Kant and Nietzsche, has been widely overstated, for example, in the polemical stance taken by Habermas in The Philosophical Discourse ofModenfity (1987). 1 am concerned to show that this way of mapping does Foucault and Arendt an injustice. Foucault and Arendt accept Nietzsche's (...) critique of reason and Western thought and attack Kant's official philosophy, an analytical philosophy of truth. Yet they also appropriate Kant's reflection on the Enlightenment and revolution (Foucault) and his aesthetic judgment (Arendt). More importantly, Foucault and Arendt embrace postmodern sensibility not as an absolute given but as an attitude that must be - at the risk of inviting Nietzschean scorn - constantly checked and examined. For them, critique is based as much on a serious and sustained interrogation of historical experience as it is on a deconstruction of metaphysical philosophy. Recognizing the problems of attaching labels to Foucault's work and that of Arendt, I focus on the tensions and complexity of their work. There are tensions in Foucault's thought between totalizing/detotalizing impulses, discursive/extra-discursive theorization, macro/micro perspectives, and domination/resistance relations as well as between ethical-political commitments and archaeological detachment. There are also tensions in Arendt's thought between creative rupture and exercise in retrieval, between agonism and consensus as well as between existential engagement and philosophical withdrawal. Critical thought, which is experiment as well as problematization, must constantly live within a field of tension. In this light, I argue that these tensions provide the elements for the uniqueness and coherence of their work and that viewing these tensions as a source of flagrant contradiction fundamentally distorts their intentions. (shrink)