That the word “violence” is a powerful piece of political rhetoric has been brought home by the welter of opinion pieces, editorials and tweets that have emerged about a recent spate of “milkshakings” – in which prominent right-wing figures have been doused with dairy-based beverages.
Those who have sought to condemn these actions have labelled them “political violence”, taking them to be unjustifiable. Those who have sought to defend and justify these actions have rejected the term “political violence”.
It is worth asking two questions: as political violence, could “milkshaking” be justified? And is milkshaking even violence in the first place?
At the outset, it’s worth dealing with the objection that political violence is always wrong. This is almost certainly incorrect. It’s useful to think of a distinction Hannah Arendt made between legitimacy and justification. Violence can never be legitimate – it cannot be intrinsically right – but it can be justified.
If we are committed to a present state of affairs – such as the enfranchisement of women – then we cannot completely dismiss the way that that state of affairs was brought about. The difficulty is in determining the “ends”...
