Abstract

The aim of this essay is to defend Walter Benjamin’s postulate that law is inherently violent in the context of modern democracies. The re-reading of Benjamin’s canonical essay “critique of violence” from the point of view of communication theory allows for a critical assessment of Jürgen Habermas’ philosophy of law. Building on Hannah Arendt’s distinction between power and violence, this essay identifies a contradiction between Habermas’ earlier concept of “the colonization of the lifeworld” and his later justification of positive law, namely the failure to account for the ambivalent part law plays in discourse. Law always marks both the aim and, at the same time, the ending of political discourse; it is thereby violent precisely in its capacity as a substitute for communicative action.