Power after Power: Arendt on Power Accumulation in “Leviathan”
Abstract
Hannah Arendt claims that Thomas Hobbes argued for power accumulation, offering what she describes as the “blueprint” for 19th-century imperialism. Her reading is often criticized for being biased and hostile towards Hobbes. Yet the paper contends that her interpretation has one advantage. In Leviathan, Hobbes fails to deduce the need to acquire “power after power” from his theory of desire. Arendt bridges this gap by proposing that Hobbes tied power accumulation to capital acquisition: when power is seen as supporting economic growth rather than our natural desires and social ambitions, its accumulation can become limitless. On the other hand, the paper argues that Arendt overlooks the upper boundary of Hobbesian power accumulation. As shown by his discussions on popularity and colonial expansion, Hobbes thinks that both private subjects and states ought not to accumulate power indefinitely.
References
Arendt, H. (1946). Expansion and the philosophy of power. The Sewanee Review, 54(4), 601–616.
Arendt, H. (1950). The imperialist character. The Review of Politics, 12(3), 303–320.
Arendt, H. (1973). The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Arendt, H. (1998). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Arendt, H., & Voegelin, E. (2015). Disput über den Totalitarismus. Göttingen: V&R Unipress.
Bazzicalupo, L. (1996). Hannah Arendt on Hobbes. Hobbes Studies, 9(1), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1163/187502596x00070 (doi.org in Bing)
Birmingham, P. (2011). Arendt and Hobbes: Glory, sacrificial violence, and the political imagination. Research in Phenomenology, 41(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916411x558864 (doi.org in Bing)
Blau, A. (2023). Thomas Hobbes in racist context. Hobbes Studies, 36(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1163/18750257-bja10058
Caso, A. (2016). La persona humana y el Estado totalitario. Ciudad de México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.
Field, S. (2014). Hobbes and the question of power. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 52(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2014.0010
Foisneau, L. (2005). Authoritarian state vs totalitarian state: Leviathan in an early twentieth-century French debate. Rechtsphilosophische Hefte, 11, 77–94.
Gangl, M. (2018). Thomas Hobbes—totalitärer oder liberaler Denker? Zur Hobbes Diskussion der dreißiger Jahre. In: G. Raulet & M. Llanque (Eds.), Geschichte der politischen Ideengeschichte (pp. 175–202). Baden-Baden: Nomos. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845289830 (doi.org in Bing)
Heidegger, M. (1991). Nietzsche, Volumes I and II (D. F. Krell, Trans.). San Francisco: Harper.
Hobbes, T. (1668). Leviathan sive De Materia, Forma et Potestate civitatis ecclesiasticae et civilis. Amsterdam: Jean Blaeu.
Hobbes, T. (1978). Man and Citizen: Thomas Hobbes’s De Homine and De Cive (B. Gert, Ed.; C. T. Wood, T. S. K. Scott-Craig, & B. Gert, Trans.). Gloucester: Peter Smith.
Hobbes, T. (1998). Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobson, J. A. (2018). Imperialism: A Study. Abingdon: Routledge Revivals.
Keedus, L. (2012). Liberalism and the question of “the proud”: Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss as readers of Hobbes. Journal of the History of Ideas, 73(2), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2012.0017 (doi.org in Bing)
Kennedy, P. (1987). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.
Macpherson, C. B. (1962). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (Hobbes to Locke). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macpherson, C. B. (1985). Introduction. In: Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (pp. ix–lxiii). London: Penguin Classics.
McCormick, J. P. (1994). Fear, technology, and the state: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and the revival of Hobbes in Weimar and National Socialist Germany. Political Theory, 22(4), 619–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591794022004004
Redecker, E. v. (2021). Autoritäre Akkumulation: Hannah Arendt über Hobbes’ Leviathan und die bürgerliche Geschichte. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 69(6), 897–914. https://doi.org/10.1515/dzph-2021-0074
Soubbotnik, M. A. (1997). Hobbes années trente: l’absolutisme et l’État total. Revue Française d’Histoire Des Idées Politiques, 6, 311–327.
Sreedhar, S. (2023). Is the Hobbesian state of nature racialized? Hobbes Studies, 36(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1163/18750257-bja10055
Straehle, E. (2019). The Problem of sovereignty: Reading Hobbes through the eyes of Hannah Arendt. Hobbes Studies, 32(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875025703201001
Strauss, L. (1996). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis (E. M. Sinclair, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tarlton, C. D. (1998). Rehabilitating Hobbes: Obligation, anti-fascism and the myth of a “Taylor thesis.” History of Political Thought, 19(3), 407–438.
Thucydides. (1843). The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, Vol. IX: Eight Bookes of the Peloponnesian Warre (V–VIII) (T. Hobbes, Trans.; W. Molesworth, Ed.). London: John Bohn.
Vialatoux, J. (1935). La Cité de Hobbes. Théorie de l’État totalitaire. Essai sur la conception naturaliste de la civilisation. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre.
Ward, L. (2017). Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on a liberal right of secession. Political Research Quarterly, 70(4), 876–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917717818
The details about the publication policy, including copyright and licensing, are available at: