Within Max Weber’s Politics as a Vocation and Hannah Arendt’s The Promise of Politics, one can find both parallels and contrasts in the respective authors’ conceptions of politics, both in modern and ancient times. In examining Weber and Arendt’s perspectives on the legitimacy of politics and violence in the eyes of the citizens it seeks to control and the connection of politics to freedom, one is exposed to the similarities and stark differences apparent in 20th century political thinkers. In Politics as a Vocation, Weber discusses politics in the sense of the politics of a state, and therein defines the state as having a “monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a particular territory” (Weber 33). Weber states that this monopoly
…show more content…
Therefore, Weber sees politics as an entity strengthened by a powerful fear of it, whereas Arendt views politics as something that could, according to her, hopefully and potentially be destroyed by extensive amounts of fear of the violence it has the potential to …show more content…
As he describes it, to live from politics is to rely on it as a career and a source of income, whereas to live for politics is to participate in the governmental process due to an inner passion for it, as well as, most importantly, to be able to participate actively without worrying about a career and the bare necessities of life, as they are wealthy enough to be free from such constraints. Initially, Arendt’s argument parallels Weber’s, as she discusses the ancient Greek polis, wherein only the wealthy could participate in politics as they were free from the constraints of slavery or labor. However, as she shifts her discussion to that of politics in the modern era, she expresses that politics, and participating in it, is no longer freedom in and of itself but rather the necessary means through which persons can fight for religious or academic freedom, stating “politics becomes on one hand a necessity that stands in opposition to freedom, and yet on the other hand is the prerequisite for freedom” (Arendt
Therefore, Weber sees politics as an entity strengthened by a powerful fear of it, whereas Arendt views politics as something that could, according to her, hopefully and potentially be destroyed by extensive amounts of fear of the violence it has the potential to …show more content…
As he describes it, to live from politics is to rely on it as a career and a source of income, whereas to live for politics is to participate in the governmental process due to an inner passion for it, as well as, most importantly, to be able to participate actively without worrying about a career and the bare necessities of life, as they are wealthy enough to be free from such constraints. Initially, Arendt’s argument parallels Weber’s, as she discusses the ancient Greek polis, wherein only the wealthy could participate in politics as they were free from the constraints of slavery or labor. However, as she shifts her discussion to that of politics in the modern era, she expresses that politics, and participating in it, is no longer freedom in and of itself but rather the necessary means through which persons can fight for religious or academic freedom, stating “politics becomes on one hand a necessity that stands in opposition to freedom, and yet on the other hand is the prerequisite for freedom” (Arendt