The State's Monopoly on Violence: A Benjaminian Critique скачать в хорошем качестве

The State's Monopoly on Violence: A Benjaminian Critique

Law is not the opposite of violence; it is its foundation. This analysis explores Walter Benjamin's Critique of Violence. The State's Monopoly on Violence: The state opposes not violence itself, but violence used by others. It claims sole legitimacy. Natural vs. Positive Law: Natural Law judges violence by its ends (justice). Positive Law judges violence by its means (state authorization). The state must use Positive Law to maintain power. The Police as a Spectral Force: Police both preserve existing law and create new law through discretionary force, manifesting state power directly. Administrative & Therapeutic Violence: Bureaucratic rule changes and the therapeutic state manage populations through non-physical force, cloaked in benevolence. The Narco-Tyranny: The state targets legible, law-abiding citizens with administrative burdens as it is more efficient than confronting actual criminals. Summarizes Walter Benjamin's Critique of Violence, arguing that the law is fundamentally built upon and sustained by violence, not as its opposite, but as its necessary condition. Main Claim: The modern state maintains its authority by claiming a monopoly on legitimate violence, which it constantly reinforces through both overt force and subtle administrative control, thereby collapsing the distinction between law-making and law-preserving power. Logic: 1. The Paradox of Law and Violence: Benjamin observed that the state does not oppose violence; it merely opposes the use of violence by anyone other than itself. The state claims a monopoly, asserting that its violence is legitimate, while all non-state violence is illegitimate, regardless of its moral justification. 2. Natural Law vs. Positive Law: Natural Law judges violence based on its ends (e.g., self-defense is justified because the goal—survival—is just). Positive Law (the basis of the modern state) judges violence based on its means (authorization). It only permits force that has been pre-approved by the state, condemning any unauthorized force, even if the goal is noble (e.g., revolutionary violence). The state must operate on positive law to prevent competing legal systems and maintain its sovereignty. 3. The Police as Spectral Mixture: The police operate in a spectral mixture where they simultaneously enforce existing law (law-preserving violence) and create new law (law-making violence). When an officer makes a judgment call in an ambiguous situation, they are effectively legislating with force, manifesting the state's power instantly and everywhere. 4. Administrative Violence: This concept extends beyond physical force to institutional and bureaucratic actions. Law-Making Violence in Institutions: When an institution (like a university admissions office) arbitrarily changes its rules (e.g., shifting from meritocracy to vague lived experience metrics), it violently nullifies the established rights and expectations of those who played by the old rules, imposing a new, arbitrary order. The Therapeutic State and Biopolitics: The state increasingly acts as a gardener (biopolitics), managing the population's health and efficiency. It uses psychological and administrative evaluations (therapeutic state) to intervene in private life (e.g., parenting styles), defining non-compliance not as a crime but as a risk factor or illness that must be treated. This administrative violence is difficult to fight because it is cloaked in benevolence and help. 5. The Narco-Tyranny: The state often targets legible citizens (those easily tracked and processed) with administrative tyranny because it is safer and more efficient than confronting actual violent criminals, who are harder to control. This demonstrates the state's preference for maintaining its bureaucratic metrics over actual public safety.