Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Thoughts from Hannah Arendt on evil...
In 1963, her writings about the trial were published as Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil a sobering reflection on the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us the lesson of the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil. A decade after Arendt established herself as a formidable thinker with her incisive inquiry into how totalitarian tyrants take hold of a people, she writes:
The essence of totalitarian government, and perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy, is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanize them. It is through this lens of bureaucracy (which she calls the rule of Nobody) as a weapon of totalitarianism that Arendt arrives at her notion of the banality of evil a banality reflected in Eichmann himself, who embodied the dilemma between the unspeakable horror of the deeds and the undeniable ludicrousness of the man who perpetrated them. In a passage that applies to Donald Trump with astonishing accuracy except the part about lying, of course; that aspect Arendt addressed with equal prescience elsewhere she describes Eichmann:
What he said was always the same, expressed in the same words. The longer one listened to him, the more obvious it became that his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else. No communication was possible with him, not because he lied but because he was surrounded by the most reliable of all safeguards against the words and the presence of others, and hence against reality as such.
The Nazis, Arendt argues, furnished this deliberate disconnect from reality with what she calls holes of oblivion. (Today, we call them alternative facts.) In a searing testament to the power of speaking up, she considers what the story of the Holocaust a story irrepressibly told by its survivors has taught us: The holes of oblivion do not exist. Nothing human is that perfect, and there are simply too many people in the world to make oblivion possible. One man will always be left alive to tell the story. The lesson of such stories is simple and within everybodys grasp. Politically speaking, it is that under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that it could happen in most places but it did not happen everywhere. Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation.
Arendt took great care to differentiate between the banal and the commonplace, but some reviewers as those pre-bent on a reflexive rebuttal are always apt to do accused her of suggesting that the atrocity of the Holocaust had been commonplace, which of course was the very opposite of her point. Among those who misunderstood her notion of the banality of evil to mean a trivialization of the outcome of evil rather than an insight into the commonplace motives of its perpetrators was the scholar Gerhard Scholem, with whom Arendt had corresponded warmly for decades. At the end of a six-page letter to Scholem from early December of 1964, she crystallizes her point and dispels all grounds for confusion with the elegant precision of her rhetoric:
You are quite right, I changed my mind and do no longer speak of radical evil. It is indeed my opinion now that evil is never radical, that it is only extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension. It can overgrow and lay waste the whole world precisely because it spreads like a fungus on the surface. It is thought-defying, as I said, because thought tries to reach some depth, to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing. That is its banality. Only the good has depth that can be radical.
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=13eb080d8a315477042e0d5b1&id=6b120da2c7&e=ecba759b73
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 1454 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thoughts from Hannah Arendt on evil... (Original Post)
milestogo
Feb 2017
OP
JudyM
(29,185 posts)1. Very interesting, and useful, perspective. Thanks for posting it!