Although many authors have addressed the issue of violence from an intellectual perspective, the majority of proposals are affected by the urgency of political action. Therefore, if a theoretical approach has to be done, it would be appropriate here to keep apart from a social intervention perspective. In terms of political theory, violence reveals as decisive in human affairs –victory still determines the outcome of a conflict- as it is not enough examined in the history of political ideas. In addition, the grounding in which political theory used to consider the issue has been badly affected in recent times by both moralism and pragmatism. H. Arendt shows there is no need to resort to partial perspectives -such as scientific approaches or ideological assumptions- if violence is to be understood: first of all, we have to recover from history of thought the meaning of key concepts, without which no theoretical approach can be done. Any inquiries on violence must deal with related concepts such as “power”, “authority”, “potency” or “force”. Unless we clarify these concepts when taking in consideration the matter of violence, its interfering could stray from an impartial consideration of the issue. Secondly, there is no better way to search the “essence” of human action than addressing the political realm, deeply moved by contingency and human freedom. Therefore, as violence usually appears as part of a larger phenomenon, the identification between violence and power risks transforming the whole framework where questions such as the essence of power, the role of authority, episodes of violence, etc. still are meaningful to us. On the opposite side of political theory S. Ferlosio’s work considers these major concepts –power, authority and violence- as synonyms. The basic assumption underlying this attitude is the general conception of politics in the unique sense of domination.