Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

DANA R. VILLA

Introduction: the development ofArendt’spolitical thought

Widely recognized as one ofthe most original and influential political think-ers ofthe twentieth century, Hannah Arendt remains an elusive figure. Shenever wrote a systematic political philosophy in the mode ofThomasHobbes or John Rawls, and the books she did write are extremely diverse intopic, covering totalitarianism, the place ofpolitical action in human life, thetrial ofAdolfEichmann, the meaning ofthe modern revolutionary tradition,the nature ofpolitical freedom and authority, and the faculties which makeup “the life ofthe mind.” These works are not constructed upon a singleargument, diligently unfolded, or upon a linear narrative. Rather, they aregrounded upon a series ofstriking conceptual distinctions – between tyrannyand totalitarianism; action, labor, and work; political revolution and strug-gles for liberation; thinking, willing, and judging – which Arendt elaboratesand weaves into complex thematic strands. The interconnections betweenthe strands are sometimes left to the reader. Thus, it is no surprise that new-comers to her work are often baffled by how the pieces fit together (not onlyfrom book to book, but often within a single volume). They cannot helpwondering whether there is, in fact, a consistent perspective behind hervaried reflections on the nature ofpolitical evil, the glories ofpoliticalaction, and the fragility ofcivilized society (the “human artifice”) in the faceofmounting natural, technological, and political pressure. The situation isnot helped by the fact that many commentators on Arendt have tended toseize upon one strand ofher

oeuvre

, elevating her reﬂections on politicalaction, or her theory oftotalitarianism, to a position ofunquestioned pre-eminence.This chapter attempts a briefoverview ofthe development and place of Arendt’s political thought, highlighting the fears which animated her think-ing as well as situating her with regard to some ofthe major ﬁgures in theWestern tradition ofpolitical philosophy. My concern throughout is to givethe reader some sense ofthe “hidden continent ofthought” (to use MargaretCanovan’s felicitous image) that underlies the various stops on Arendt’s

itinerary as a political thinker, and to show how the pieces ﬁt together – if not into a comprehensive and systematic whole, at least into a sustained andprofound reﬂection on the nature ofpolitics, the public realm, and the forcesthat constantly threaten to turn modern life into a new form ofbarbarism.

The Origins of Totalitarianism

The Origins ofTotalitarianism

was written, simply, to begin what Arendtcalled“the interminable dialogue” with a new and horrific form ofpolitics,one which could not be understood through recourse to historical precedentsor the use ofhomogenizing social scientific categories. It was in this bookthat Arendt began to grapple with the problem ofpolitical evil – evil aspolicy – on an enormous and hitherto unimaginable scale. She was con-vinced, from very early on, that the Nazi and Stalinist regimes representedan entirely “novel form ofgovernment” unlike anything ever cataloged by thelikes ofAristotle or Montesquieu; one built entirely on terror and ideologi-calfiction and devoted to a destructive perpetual motion. Indeed, in Arendt’sestimation it was a grave mistake to view totalitarian regimes as updated ver-sions ofthe tyrannies ofold, which had used terror merely as an invaluableinstrumentfor getting and preserving power. Thus, when Arendt surveystotalitarian regimes (and “their central institutions,” the concentration andextermination camps), she stresses how little strategic rationality governedtheir use ofterror. Not enemies ofthe regime (these had already been elim-inated during the totalitarians’ rise to power), but totally innocent popula-tions (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, intellectuals, wealthy peasants) werekilled once the regimes were in place. This extermination ofentire catego-ries ofinnocents took place in accordance with a supposed Law ofNatureor History, which reduced all historical development to the fundamentalunderlying “reality” ofa war between races or classes.Terror, then, was not a

means

for totalitarian regimes but, in Arendt’s view,their very

essence.

But this raises two important questions. First, how can aregime whose essence is terror come to power in the ﬁrst place? What was thebasis ofits mass appeal? Secondly, how is it that European culture, theculture ofthe West, gave birth to these pathological experiments in whatArendt calls “total domination”?For Arendt, the appeal oftotalitarianism lay in its ideology. For millionsofpeople shaken loose from their accustomed place in the social order byWorld War, the Great Depression, and revolution, the notion that a singleidea could, through its “inherent logic,” reveal “the mysteries ofthe wholehistorical process – the secrets ofthe past, the intricacies ofthe present, [and]the uncertainties ofthe future” was tremendously comforting.

Once the

the cambridge companion to hannah arendt2

premise ofthe ideology was accepted – that is, once the idea that all historyis the history ofclass struggle (Marxism) or a natural development resultingfrom the struggle between the races (Nazism) –every action ofthe regimecould be logically “deduced” and justiﬁed in terms ofthe “law” ofHistoryor Nature. The idea ofclass struggle logically entailed the idea of“dyingclasses” who would soon be swept into the dustbin ofhistory (and should behelped on their way), just as the Nazis’ conception ofracial/cultural strug-gle entailed the idea of“unﬁt races”– races whose built-in inferiority wouldlead them to extinction in the ruthless Darwinian struggle for survival anddomination. The unembarrassed claim oftotalitarian ideology in both itsMarxist and its National Socialist forms was that the logic ofits central ani-mating idea mirrored the logic ofthe historical or natural process itself.Hence, totalitarian regimes could claim an authority which transcended allmerely human laws and agreements (which the regimes treated with thinlydisguised contempt), an authority derived directly from the “laws ofmotion”which governed the natural or historical process.

The certitude that arises from the apparent possession ofsuch a “key tohistory” helps us understand the nature oftotalitarianism’s appeal. But whatabout the second question? How is it that Europe, the home oftheEnlightenment and the Rights ofMan, gave birth to a form ofpolitics as bru-tally murderous as totalitarianism?Arendt’s answer to this question is complex and multi-faceted; anysummary ofit will be simpliﬁed to the point ofdistortion. Nevertheless, wecan note that Arendt viewed modern European history as, in large part, aseries ofpathologies, with totalitarianism as “the climactic pathology.”

Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism were not aberrations born ofpeculiarly dys-functional national characters or political histories; rather, they were phe-nomena made possible by a particular constellation ofevents and tendencieswithin modern European history and culture. Foremost among these was theimperialism ofthe late nineteenth century, with its focus on expansion forthe sake ofexpansion and the limitless accumulation ofwealth. This bound-less pursuit ofwealth and empire undermined the self-limiting structure of the nation-state and preﬁgured the totalitarian pursuit ofglobal conquest.Moreover, it represented, in Arendt’s eyes, the triumph ofthe

bourgeois

(wholusted after wealth and power at any price) over the

citoyen

(who was con-cerned with the public realm and the preservation ofrights and freedoms).Dissolving the stable boundaries ofthe public world in order to expandfurther and gain more, imperialism set the stage for political movementswhich were concerned no longer with care ofa stable and limited publicworld, but with conquest and the self-assertion ofnational (ethnic or racial)identity.

The development ofArendt’s political thought