This paper reviews political theorist Hannah Arendt's book "Eichmann in Jerusalem", which is based on the trial of Nazi Adolf Eichmann in Israel in 1961.
1,025 words (approx. 4.1 pages), 0 sources, 2005, $ 36.95
Abstract This paper explains that Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" follows the trial chronologically, dealing primarily with the trial, Eichmann as a person and especially the treatment of Jews to "solve" the Jew issue in Germany during the rule of Hitler. The author points out that Arendt asserts that the primary driving force of Adolf Eichmann, who had no personal hatred against Jews, was his wish for a career in the Third Reich; therefore, on this premise, Arendt suggests that a holocaust such as the one in Germany could have happened anywhere, and could happen again. The paper relates that the subtitle of the book, "A Report on the Banality of Evil", gives the reader an interesting idea that Arendt's view of evil is banality, which can be prevented by rational thought.
From the Paper "Of particular interest is the section dealing with Eichmann's personality. What makes this interesting is that Hannah Arendt does not assume the role of psychoanalyst when writing about him. She merely presents him as he is through his actions and his words. Thus, the reader is introduced to an unexceptional man who willingly became involved in the merciless killing of millions. It is similarly interesting and also horrifying to note that even while on trial, Eichman showed absolutely no remorse for his actions. His main regret is his inability to further his Third Reich career."
Abstract This essay examines the main points of theoretical disagreement between Karl Marx and Hannah Arendt. It is argued here that the most important distinction between Arendt and Marx lies in their differing interpretations of labor. Marx portrays labor as a generalized theory of manpower, and Arendt indicates there are two kinds of labor, animal laborans (animal labor) and homo faber, or, the work of the hands.
Abstract This paper explores Hannah Arendt's theory which she called "the banality of evil." Arendt's hypothesis is critiqued and studied through the example of Adolf Eichmann, a figure responsible for orchestrating the Nazi Holocaust. A disturbing facet of Arendt's argument is based on the belief that Adolf Eichmann lacked intrinsically evil psychological makeup. It is debated in this paper whether a human being could willingly devise a scheme that was the most sadistic and systematic killing in world history. A brief portion of the paper examines common instances where the 'banality of evil' could excuse wrongdoing.
From the Paper "The term 'banality of evil' can be explained in a variety of ways. Literally, the word 'banality' translates as "dullness". The word evil can be defined as "something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity" . On the surface, a basic analysis of the phrase implies that sadistic behavior does not always have a starting point. Arendt's use of this phrase offers an alternative explanation to our traditional perceptions of evil. She refutes the notion that an ulterior motive must exist to commit sinister acts such as the Holocaust. In Eichmann's example, this would imply that he was not motivated by Anti-Semitism or inner-resentment towards any race. Instead, Arendt proposes that some individuals' capacity for evil derives from their superficial character. Their superficiality dulls their ability to make informed and moral decisions."
Abstract This paper examines how Hannah Arendt came up with her thoughts on ideologies, and to be more specific, those associated with Nazi ideology and the totalitarian state. It looks at how Arendt often associated the Nazi ideology with terror and saw no justification in why the Nazis used their beliefs for their appalling rein over society. In comparison, it examines how Machiavelli, a writer in the 1500s, had thoughts of his own, some dealing with how a prince should rule and the characteristics one should have to be a successful ruler.
From the Paper "Arendt discusses how Nazis associate terror with totalitarianism and why they coincide together. She believes that terror is a way of how totalitarian governments work and suggests that this is how they enforce their way of life on society. In this type of society either people are with the movement and are educated or are against their ideology and viewed as ignorant and a threat to society. This gave Nazis the power they needed to kill people at will with no opposition. They used terror as a way to suppress the masses to conform to their ideology. They related their ideas to a scientific way of thinking and made people see that their ideology had merit and made sense to continuing the existence of the human race. They used propaganda as a way of instilling their beliefs and discrediting any other form of thinking or reasoning."
Abstract This paper examines Hannah Arendt and Karl Jaspers' ideas on totalitarianism and discusses the nature of totalitarianism and its impact on society. The paper also discussses examples of totalitarian governments, particularly that of Germany. The paper then relates the power that these governments had with the views of Arendt and Jaspers. The paper contains extensive footnotes.
From the Paper "Within society, the statements that are made by the government authorities are true because they are the power among people, which gives them more control and the authority to define crime. By using this power, police can have upper hand on crime and criminals due to the fact that people become intimidated those who have a power over them. In other words, the law was made for the police and criminal justice to gain and maintain a power over society. When people believe there is a power that can restrain them, they have more self-control in order to avoid others who look down on them and embarrassment. Furthermore, the law was made to give society structure under the criminal justice system."
Abstract This paper examines Hannah Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism" (1951) and Heda Kovaly's "Under a Cruel Star: Life in Prague" 1941_1968 (1986) to determine how Europeans reacted to totalitarianism in the twentieth century.
Abstract This paper discusses Hanna Arendt's moral philosophy and how it would be applied to the decision about who to serve in an intensive care unit and Jeremy Bentham's theory of utility and how it would be applied to the decision of torturing Iraqi prisoners in order to gain information on terrorist cells.
From the Paper "The determination of how to use the available beds in the intensive care unit if applied to Hannah Arendt's view of morality would encompass all of the following considerations on every given potential admission: first come first served, the most critical and life threatening, those who can afford to pay, the youngest the, oldest, those in the most pain, those who have the best chance to survive and those most valuable to the community."
Tags: morality, ethics, values, truth, absolutes, moral code, norms, identity, happiness, pleasure, the good
Abstract This paper analyzes Arendt's conception of totalitarianism as presented in her work, "The Origins of Totalitarianism", and discusses her notion of society's capacity for collective tyranny and violence. The paper points out that Arendt based this notion on the belief that the political phenomenon is a social or mass-created phenomenon that forms a code of ethical conduct apart from the individual. The paper further explains that, according to Arendt, this political phenomenon is then capable of creating a mental environment and force that produces horrific collective actions that no individual would precipitate on his or her own. Finally, the paper explains the implications of Arendt's theory, which essentially shifts responsibility for acts of tyranny and brutality from the leadership to the victims of the acts, as well as the ensuing controversy her theory elicited.
From the Paper "Since the publication of her 1951 work on The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt has received much criticism as a philosopher and an historian for her theory of the human, historical development of notions of society or what Arendt terms ?the social.? From the social organizations of the salon, which were loose and diffuse, and based on ideological alliances, human beings evolved in their organization, she suggests, to alliances upon material interests in the forms of classes. But the nationalist and imperialist movements of the 19th century perverted these previous mental and material social alliances in history, to create the manifestation of "the masses" that enabled totalitarianism to take hold in Germany, Russia, and other areas of the world."
Discussion of the Holocaust centering on Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem" examining both age old anti-Semitism in Germany and the banality or ordinariness of Hitler's bureaucratized system of annihilation.
1,535 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 3 sources, 2002, $ 50.95
Abstract This paper is based on Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem". It discusses two views of the Holocaust: one that the perpetrators were Germans nurtured on a centuries old anti-Semitism tradition; and another that the perpetrators were ordinary people, caught up in a bureaucratized system of annihilation that encouraged unthinking complicity that made this evil seem banal or ordinary because everyone was going along with it. That these two views are easily reconciled is the thesis of the paper. Elie Wiesel's "Night" and Michael Dobkowski's "Genocide and The Modern Age" are used to supplement discussion of Arendt's treatment of the trial of Adolf Eichmann.
From the Paper "It is true that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Germans with a long history of pervasive inhumane anti-Semitic views. It is also valid to say that the Holocaust was facilitated by banal acceptance of a bureaucratized system of annihilation. With centuries of hatred, and barbarous treatment of Jews as precedent, it was easy for the Germans to move on to state sanctioned systematized slaughter. Those whose upbringing had taught them to hate Jews, might move quickly into positions of power in the Third Reich. Others who weren?t capable of thinking for themselves, saw everyone else, including those they respected and admired supporting Hitler's answers to the Jewish question. A long tradition of anti-Semitism joined with unthinking complicity to escalate the banality of evil. As evil progressed through stages of classification, ghettoization, deportation, and concentration to eradication, it was just another step in the progression of dehumanization for those who had forgotten the unity of the human community."
A comparison between Aristotle and Arendt's works with regards to the way in which they both describe the ideology of various forms of governments within their works.
Abstract The following paper compares Aristotle's "A Definition of Justice," focusing on the connection between the freedom that democrats seek through political participation and the virtue that aristocrats see through elite rule. In her work "Ideology and Terror," Hannah Arendt reasons that the power of totalitarian states rises from the extreme distortion of logical premises coupled with the use of terror to enforce the ideology. This paper examines how both authors identify the ideology of the government from their era and describe the conditions of a society ruled by each government within their works; however, Aristotle and Arendt differ in their opinions on human oppression.
From the Paper "History has witnessed constant oscillations between various forms and functions of government, from tyrannies to republics. In turn, these governments and their relation to the individual citizen have been the focus of many great thinkers. Both authors identify the ideology of the government from their era and describe the conditions of a society ruled by each government within their works; however, Aristotle and Arendt differ in their opinions on human oppression."
Tags: justice, oligarchy, politics, totalitarianism, human, oppression, tyranny, distortion, era
Abstract This paper examines a chapter from Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism" in which she theorises about the composition of and relevance of the masses in totalitarian regimes. It looks at how her definition of 'masses' does not include specific classes or citizens, but incorporates the section of the population that does not belong to a class or any other kind of social group. It also discusses how many of the first critiques of the book, first published post World War II, were negative and how more recent texts have seen Arendt's work in its historic context, i.e. as an important piece of post war, totalitarianism historiography.
From the Paper "A Classless Society appears in the third section of the Origins entitled Totalitarianism. In this chapter, Arendt theorises about the masses - the people who followed Hitler and Stalin unquestioningly. The masses are politically indifferent or disillusioned men, who had become isolated due to the disintegration of the class system, who did not belong to any professional or social organisations, and who had become atomised, lonely individuals. Arendt claims that this atomisation occurred 'naturally' in Germany but that in Russia, Stalin created an atomised society 'by the skilful use of repeated purges' that eliminated social groups who appeared to be stable and therefore threatening to his regime. As Canovan points out, this suggests that while certain
'natural' circumstances led Hitler to totalitarianism, Stalin deliberately anticipated totalitarianism, or perhaps he was merely fulfilling his (Hegelian) historic role."
Abstract This paper discusses "Eichman and the Holocaust," written by Hannah Arendt, in which she grapples with the role that Nazis, especially Eichman, played in carrying out this human nightmare. The paper examines Arendt's arguments as to why individual Nazi perpetrators should not be blamed for the Holocaust and focuses on her claims of the innocence of Adolf Eichman.
From the Paper "Arendt was actually present at Eichmann's trial held in Jerusalem. According to her account of the trial and Eichmann's testimony, it is her conclusion that Eichmann in fact is not a murderer but, more appropriately, an innocent bystander and thus not guilty of the Nazi crimes against humanity. Arendt's thinking is that Eichmann, at heart, was not a Nazi and thus did not really know of Hitler's program when he joined the Nazi party. Further, she argues that he had nothing to do with the death camps, which in fact grew out of Hitler's euthanasia program and that, all in all, Eichmann was a modest and innocent bystander."
From the Paper "In appearance "politics" is virtually identical to every other word in the English language, a bunch of letters placed together to one abstract meeting, but once spoken, "politics" has a different and distinct sound, that is unique to that word. Other words may be similar in appearance or punctuation, but none are identical. This method of individual distinction, which is discussed in Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition, can transcend to the human level of society as well. Through a simple analyzation of an American Presidential election we can prove how Arendt's theory of a person's ability to speak and act can distinguish oneself from others in the world of American politics."
Abstract The following paper briefly discusses Arendt's book on the Holocaust and focuses specifically on the way in which Jewish leaders in the past and today exhibit the same political and philosophical motivations as the Nazi leaders in the holocaust.
From the Paper "From a political standpoint the Nazi leaders and the Jewish leaders had much in common during the Holocaust. This was pointed out at the trial as an excuse for the Nazi's behavior. The political motivation for each side was the same. Keep those who could help, and eliminate those who were a hindrance. In addition there was a moral blinding in each arena regarding the treatment of Jews at the time. Many Jews were afraid of persecution so they in turn encouraged their leaders to turn on the gypsies, gays and other minorities that they felt the Nazis might be willing to take in their place."
Abstract This paper shall examine the specifics of the totalitarian system in relation to Hanna Arendt's classic text, "The Origins of Totalitarianism". This shall be done through comparing this text to those of "The Captive Mind" by Czeslaw Milosz and "The Joke" by Milan Kundera.
