Political Cultural Studies and Violence

Abstract

Since the very inception of political science the central focus has been on the question of a binding societal order and thus on the conditions and prerequisites for its formation and maintenance. The issue of legitimate physical violence has thus always been at the center of political theory and research. Max Weber’s widely accepted definition of the state as the holder of the monopoly on legitimate violence on its own territory underlines the basic fact that violence, meaning direct physical coercion, has never really been seen as a funda-mentally problematic issue in politics and thus also in political science and political cul-tural studies. Rather, with rare exceptions provided by the anarchist tradition, legitimate violence, first and foremost that of the state, figures throughout the history of political thought as a prerequisite and guarantee of good political order. However, in both political praxis and political research there was some dispute as to which conditions were neces-sary to legitimize the exercise of the state monopoly of violence, and when they are met. From the tyrannicide debates in the ancient world up to the resistance and revolution theo-ries of the early modern age, there have thus always been arguments in political theory for the view that violence against the representatives of constitutional state power can be legitimate if they have violated the recognized conditions for legitimacy. Precursors of political cultural studies from Aristotle to Montesquieu and Tocqueville speculated on the basis of historical experience and comparative observations as to whether putative “national character” and its respective political institutions make particular peoples more inclined to resolve conflicts peacefully or to habitually resort to violence.