Abstract
The monopolization of violence has long been accepted as defining the modern State, building on the European story outlined in the previous chapter. That chapter argued that the monopolization process was, at its heart, a process of violence ‘ordering’, which begins with the ‘military monopoly’ established through violent ‘elimination contests’, enabling in turn the taxation required to strengthen the state’s armed capacity. Evidence shows that as the state centralized and concentrated the use of violence, interpersonal male on male public violence began to decline. The capacity of the state to monopolize all violences remained incomplete, however. And Weber acknowledged the dangers of the ‘particularly intimate’ relation between the State and violence (Weber, The Profession and Vocation of Politics. In P. Lassman & R. Speirs (Eds.), Weber: Political Writings (pp. 309–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010: 310), while insisting that violence is intrinsic to any political association or state. The State has to use violence to enforce its claims to monopoly over a given territory. It also expands this territory through violence. War and collective violence have played a significant role in establishing and defining ‘territory’, who does and does not belong to it. In this chapter, we aim to go beyond the ‘military’ aspects of monopolization and explore theories of how monopolization contributes to violence decline, through unintended effects and new technologies of power. The first of these connects monopolization to the transformation of elite behaviours in Europe and sensibilities towards violence, gradually rolling out a process of what Norberto Elias calls ‘affect control’ to other sectors of society. Secondly, it will discuss how Michel Foucault provides an alternative set of tools for bringing into view the historical violences of the monopolization process and the foundation of the state. He then provides his own explanation of violence decline by tracing the shifting repertoire of the power of the modern state away from death and towards the administration of life or biopower. In both theories, violence itself is treated rather selectively and fades into the background. Giorgio Agamben brings sovereign power as violence back into the biopower discussion. He argues that the inclusion of life as an exclusion (or bare life), is foundational to (bio)sovereignty and not an evolution of the modern state. Whereas, Hannah Arendt understood politics as a realm which is not reducible to the biological (and violent) survival of humans, Agamben argues these were never separated. As a result, politics has suffered ‘a lasting eclipse’. Sovereign power bound law and thus violence to life, through the inclusion by exclusion of life that is not worthy of politics, or ‘bare life’. From the global South, Achille Mbembe (2003) coined the term ‘necropolitics’, to show how sovereignty in post colonial Africa resides in the power and capacity to decide who can live and who must die. Thus violence reducing affect control is juxtaposed to arguments about the violent and non-violent forms of control of the body with the emergence of the violence monopolizing sovereign State.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Binkley, S., Dolan, P., Ernst, S., & Wouters, C. (2010). The Planned and the Unplanned: Roundtable Discussion on the Legacies of Michel Foucault. Foucault Studies, 8, 53–57.
Bourgois, P. (2003). In Search of Respect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooney, M. (1997). The Decline of Elite Homicide. Criminology, 35(3), 381–407.
Dean, M., & Villadsen, K. (2016). State Phobia and Civil Society: The Political Legacy of Michel Foucault. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Dolan, P. (2010). Space, Time and the Constitution of Subjectivity: Comparing Elias and Foucault. Foucault Studies, 8, 8–27.
Dunning, E., Murphy, P., & Waddington, I. (1992). Violence in the British Civilising Process. Leicester: University of Leicester Discussion Papers in Sociology, July, No. S92/2.
Eisner, M. (2001). Modernization, Self-control and Lethal Violence—The Long-term Dynamics of European Homicide Rates in Theoretical Perspective. British Journal of Criminology, 41(4), 618–648.
Eisner, M. (2003). Long-term Historical Trends in Violent Crime. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 30, 83–142.
Eisner, M. (2008). Modernity Strikes Back? A Historical Perspective on the Latest Increase in Interpersonal Violence (1960–1990). International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 2(2), 289–316.
Eisner, M. (2011). Killing Kings: Patterns of Regicide in Europe, AD 600–1800. The British Journal of Criminology, 51(3), 556–577.
Eisner, M. (2014). From Swords to Words: Does Macro-level Change in Self-control Predict Long-term Variation in Levels of Homicide? In Crime and Justice, Vol. 43: Why Crime Rates Fall, and Why They Don’t 43: 65–134.
Elias, N. ([1994] 2005). The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Elias, N. (1996). The Germans. Oxford: Polity Press.
Elias, N. (1998). On Civilization, Power and Knowledge (S. Mennell & J. Goudsblom, Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elias, N., & Dunning, E. ([1986] 2008). Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process. Dublin: Dublin University Press.
Elias, N., & Scotson, J. ([1965] 1994). The Established and the Outsiders: A Sociological Enquiry into Community Problems. London: Sage Publications.
Fletcher, J. ([1997] 2005). Violence and Civilization. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Foucault, M. ([1977] 1991). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. (1988). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Random House.
Foucault, M. (2002). Power: The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984 V. 3 (J. D. Faubion, Ed.). London: Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. (2004). Society Must Be Defended. London: Penguin Books.
Gilligan, J. (2001). Preventing Violence. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Gurr, T. (1981). Historical Trends in Violent Crime: A Critical Review of the Evidence. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and Justice (Vol. 3). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hanssen, B. (2000). Critique of Violence: Between Poststructuralism and Critical Theory. London: Routledge.
Johnson, E. A., & Monkkonen, E. H. (1996). The Civilization of Crime: Violence in Town and Country since the Middle Ages. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Linklater, A., & Mennell, S. (2010, October). Norbert Elias. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations—An Overview and Assessment. History and Theory, 49(3), 384–411.
Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40.
Mennell, S. (1990). Decivilising Processes: Theoretical Significance and Some Lines of Research. International Sociology, 5(2), 205–223.
Oksala, J. (2012). Foucault, Politics and Violence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature. London: The Penguin Group.
Ruff, J. (2001). Violence in Early Modern Europe 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwerhoff, G. (2002). Criminalized Violence and the Process of Civilisation: A Reappraisal. Crime, Histoire et Societes/Crime, History and Societies, 6(2), 103–126.
Spierenburg, P. (2001). Violence and the Civilizing Process: Does it Work? Crime, History and Societies, 5(2), 87–105.
Spierenburg, P. (2004). Punishment, Power and History: Foucault and Elias. Social Science History, 28(4), 607–636.
Spierenburg, P. (2008). A History of Murder. Cambridge: Polity.
Stone, L. (1983, November). Interpersonal Violence in English Society, 1300–1980. Past and Present, 101, 22–33.
Walby, S., & Towers, J. (2017). Measuring Violence to End Violence: Mainstreaming Gender. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1(1), 11–31.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pearce, J. (2020). The Monopoly of Violence: From Affect Control to Biopower. In: Politics without Violence?. Rethinking Political Violence. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26082-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26082-8_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26081-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26082-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)