Freedom, conceived ontologically, is power's condition of possibility. Yet, considering that the subject's interests and identity are constantly shaped, one still has to explain how – theoretically speaking – individuals can resist control. This is precisely the issue I address in the following pages. Following a brief overview of Foucault's contribution to our understanding of power, I turn to discuss the role of visibility vis-à-vis control, and show how the development of disciplinary techniques reversed the visibility of power. While Foucault (...) illustrates that during different historical periods, distinct modes of visibility are produced by power in order to control society, I argue that the very same power that produces visibility is concomitantly dependent upon it. In addition, I maintain that visibility is a necessary component of resistance. But Foucault – perhaps due to his premature death – never adequately explains how individuals can resist the mechanisms of control in a world in which power is ubiquitous. To help clarify this enigma, I turn to Hannah Arendt's insights into power, freedom, plurality, and natality. These concepts, I claim, can serve as a corrective to Foucault because they make room for resistance without assuming that humans can exit power's web. (shrink)

Hannah Arendt's existential, republican concept of politics spurned Carl Schmitt's idea that enmity constituted the essence of the political. Famously, she isolated the political sphere from social conflict, sovereign regimes, and the realm of military violence. While some critics are now interested in applying Arendt's more abstract political ideas to international affairs, it has not been acknowledged that her original reconceptualization of politics was in fact driven by her analysis of global war, and in particular, the startling new challenges raised (...) by nuclear warfare. Arendt's early, unpublished manuscript on the nature of politics contains important reflections on the nature of war and empire. Surprisingly, these reflections tentatively explore the relationship between war and political freedom. A close reading of this work on war can help explain both her later, more radical non-violent concept of political action, and the difficulties she faced integrating her existential republicanism within the global context of conflict in the Cold War. (shrink)

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)