“Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together.” (Hannah Arendt)

Arendt’s Conception of Power

Arendt distinguishes power from violence and authority. Violence, she argues, is instrumental – it always requires tools and aims to achieve a specific goal. Authority stems from a recognized position or tradition. Power, however, is not an instrument but a condition – it emerges when people come together and act in concert, creating spaces of public deliberation and collective decision-making. This ‘power of acting together’ is distinct from the ‘power over’ others, which Arendt associates with domination.

The Group Basis of Power

Arendt’s claim that power resides in groups, not individuals, stems from her belief that power is constituted through communication and agreement. It is the shared understanding and mutual support within a group that enable collective action. Without this cohesion, power dissipates.

• Public Sphere: Arendt emphasizes the importance of a vibrant public sphere where citizens can engage in reasoned debate and collective action. This sphere is inherently group-based.
• Action and Speech: Power manifests through ‘action’ (initiating something new) and ‘speech’ (revealing oneself and the world). Both are fundamentally communicative acts requiring an audience – a group.
• Legitimacy: Power gains legitimacy not from individual decree but from the consent and participation of the governed.

Illustrative Examples

Several historical and contemporary examples illustrate Arendt’s point:

• The American Revolution (1775-1783): The success of the American Revolution wasn’t solely due to George Washington’s leadership, but to the collective action of colonists, committees of correspondence, and the Continental Congress. The power to challenge British rule resided in the unified resistance of a group.
• The Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968): Martin Luther King Jr.’s charisma was undoubtedly important, but the movement’s power stemmed from the collective organizing, protests, and boycotts of African Americans and their allies. The power to dismantle segregation was a group effort.
• Arab Spring (2010-2012): The uprisings across the Middle East demonstrated the power of collective action, facilitated by social media, to challenge authoritarian regimes. However, the fragmentation of these movements into competing factions illustrates Arendt’s point – when the group dissolves, so does its power.

Counterarguments and Nuances

While Arendt’s argument is compelling, it’s important to acknowledge counterarguments. Charismatic leaders like Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela appear to wield significant individual power. However, even these leaders derived their power from their ability to mobilize and inspire groups. Their individual authority was contingent upon the collective support they commanded. Furthermore, the concept of ‘elite’ power – where small groups control resources and decision-making – complicates Arendt’s view, suggesting that power can be concentrated within specific groups, even if not universally distributed.

The Role of Institutions

Institutions, while often seen as instruments of power *over*, can also facilitate the ‘power of acting together’. Democratic institutions, for example, provide frameworks for collective deliberation and decision-making, thereby enabling the exercise of power by the citizenry. However, Arendt cautioned against the bureaucratization of politics, arguing that it can stifle public discourse and erode the foundations of power.