Ricoeur emphasizes that ideology serves three functions: legitimizing authority, distorting reality, and social integration. The legitimacy of authority relies largely on successfully establishing the ideological function to create surplus value, rather than solely on individual political activity as Arendt asserts. Ricoeur adds that surplus value need not be understood solely in economic terms, but also as how politics favors the practice of power. He shows through Weber that ideology and violence are necessary to consolidate authority structures like the state, and this should not be condemned because failing to establish ideological functions risks totalitarianism.
Ricoeur emphasizes that ideology serves three functions: legitimizing authority, distorting reality, and social integration. The legitimacy of authority relies largely on successfully establishing the ideological function to create surplus value, rather than solely on individual political activity as Arendt asserts. Ricoeur adds that surplus value need not be understood solely in economic terms, but also as how politics favors the practice of power. He shows through Weber that ideology and violence are necessary to consolidate authority structures like the state, and this should not be condemned because failing to establish ideological functions risks totalitarianism.
Ricoeur emphasizes that ideology serves three functions: legitimizing authority, distorting reality, and social integration. The legitimacy of authority relies largely on successfully establishing the ideological function to create surplus value, rather than solely on individual political activity as Arendt asserts. Ricoeur adds that surplus value need not be understood solely in economic terms, but also as how politics favors the practice of power. He shows through Weber that ideology and violence are necessary to consolidate authority structures like the state, and this should not be condemned because failing to establish ideological functions risks totalitarianism.
Ricoeur emphasizes that ideology serves three functions: legitimizing authority, distorting reality, and social integration. The legitimacy of authority relies largely on successfully establishing the ideological function to create surplus value, rather than solely on individual political activity as Arendt asserts. Ricoeur adds that surplus value need not be understood solely in economic terms, but also as how politics favors the practice of power. He shows through Weber that ideology and violence are necessary to consolidate authority structures like the state, and this should not be condemned because failing to establish ideological functions risks totalitarianism.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
Carlos Alfonso Garduño – Arendt and Ricoeur on authority
we can find the conceptualization of the notion of ideology that we seek in
the Lectures on Ideology and Utopia. In them, Ricoeur emphasizes the need to understand the concept in relation to three functions: legitimization of authority, distortion of reality, and social integration. The legitimacy of authority depends largely on the successful establishment of the ideological function, and not as Arendt seems to assert solely on the political activity of individuals. The function of ideology as a form to legitimate authority is, therefore, to create a surplus--‐-value, in a way that recalls Marx’s account of the role of ideology with regard production processes. What Ricoeur adds, however, is that surplus--‐-value does not have to be understood simply in economic terms. It can also be understood as a function of a politics that favors the practice of power.
What Ricoeur shows through Weber, in
fact, is that ideology and violence are necessary to consolidate a form of authority, like that of the state, and that this should not necessarily be condemned because the risk of an unsuccessful establishment of the ideological function would be precisely totalitarianism. Función integrativa de la autoridad. Lucas G. Martín - ¿Hannah Arendt y la servidumbre voluntaria? Repensando la hipótesis de Miguel Abensour.
Abensour opone Arendt a la servidumbre voluntaria de La Boetie. En el artículo se
quiere buscar acercamiento. [Según Hilb solamente el poder genera poder]. abensour dice que Arendt jamás se hizo la pregunta por la servidumbre voluntaria. Se queda en la pregunta en los arcanos de la dominación (y OT?). la servidumbre siempre es exterior a los dominados. [Recordar que cuando Arendt habla de violencia es violencia política].
Abensour, M. (1999). Hannah Arendt : la critique du totalitarisme et
la servitude volontaire ? En Enriquez, E., Le goût de l’altérité. París: DDB. Abensour, M. (2006a). Du bon usage de l’hypothèse de la servitude volontaire ? Réfractions, 17
Tassin, E. (1994). Pouvoir, autorité et violence. La critique arendtienne
de la domination. En Godard, J-Ch y Mabille, B. (dir.), Le Pouvoir. París: Vrin - Intégrale.