Large-Scale Violence as Contentious Politics

Abstract

Political theorists and fearful citizens alike often draw a deep distinction between violence and politics. As Hannah Arendt put it:

Power springs up whenever people get together and act in concert, but it derives its legitimacy from the initial getting together rather than from any action that then may follow. Legitimacy, when challenged, bases itself on an appeal to the past, while justification relates to an end that lies in the future. Violence can be justifiable, but it never will be legitimate. Its justification loses in plausibility the farther its intended end recedes into the future. No one questions the use of violence in self-defense, because the danger is not only clear but also present, and the end justifying the means is immediate (Arendt, 1969:52).

Thanks to Peter Bearman for reminding me of Ulf Hannerz’s work as a resource for this paper. I owe my meager knowledge of genocide to collaboration with Bruce Jones. Bruce does not, however, bear any responsibility for my errors. As usual, Sidney Tarrow’s unforgiving criticism has caused significant revisions to earlier versions of the paper.