Peace Research Institute Frankfurt
Draft
Leimenrode 29, 60322 Frankfurt, Germany,
## email not listed ##
In all societies violence is differentiated according to varying grades of
legitimacy – dependent on the aims to which it is employed, to the persons
employing violence, to they type and severity of its use and so forth. There exists
no society, in which violence is not an accepted means of social control,
however, each society circumscribes its use with respect to space, time, agents
Out of this process results the category of legitimate violence, which,
however, need not be connected to the state. Max Weber argues, that the state is
based on a nonreducible end in itself:
“Upholding (or reorganization) of the domestic and external distribution of
violence and power. […] The appeal to the naked violence of the means of
coercion towards the outside, but also towards the inside is absolutely essential to
any political association. … the ‘state’ is that association, which claims the
monopoly of legitimate violence – it can’t be defined otherwise” (Weber 1973,
453; emphasis in original)
Webers argument does not mean that the state actually holds a monopoly, but,
that he claims the monopoly. Actually the idea of the state implies, that there can
be no other agent, who legitimizes the use of force/violence. Agents of legitimate
violence may be private ones, however, their legitimacy derives from the state.
We argue, that in many countries of the world this very idea of the superior
rulemaking state is not accepted unequivocally, but has to compete with
different understandings, which accord a significant lower place to the state.
They do not necessarily believe in the fiction that their legitimacy for rulesetting
and ruleenforcement might be dependent on the state.
Likewise the state might claim the monopoly of legitimate violence, however,
in many states, the claim differs sharply from observable practice insofar as
violent social control is very often practiced by nonstate actors. Beyond this gulf
between theoretical claim to supremacy and empirical reality there is another one
between the claim and competing counterclaims, which deny the validity of the
3
There need not be unanimity on the legitimacy of various forms, agents or uses of social control
violence. Most often there is a broad agreement on the largest part, however, there is definitely always
disagreement on specific aspects. The degree and specifics of agreement and dissent with respect to the
legitimate uses of violence for purposes of social control is an important empirical one, as it pertains to
the normative homogeneity vs. fragmentation of a given society and the relative structuration of the state
society divide.
4
My translation. The original goes: „... der Erhaltung (oder Umgestaltung) der inneren und äußeren
Gewaltverteilung. [...] Der Appell an die nackte Gewaltsamkeit der Zwangsmittel nach außen nicht nur,
sondern auch nach innen ist jedem politischen Verband schlechthin wesentlich. [...] der ‚Staat’ ist
derjenige Verband, der das Monopol legitimer Gewaltsamkeit in Anspruch nimmt – anders ist er nicht zu
definieren.“ (Max Weber (1973).Richtungen und Stufen religiöser Weltablehnung. In: ders.. Soziologie,
Universalgeschichtliche Analysen, Politik, Stuttgart (Kröner), 441483, citation: 453.
7