Thinking with and against Hannah Arendt.pdf

8/14/2019 Thinking with and against Hannah Arendt.pdf

1/13

Thinking ithand againstHannahArendtl

/ BYCLAUDE LEFORT

1 would ike opropose few ritical emarksoncerning an-nahArendt's onception fthe foundation f the totalitariansystemsshepresentedt nthethird art f TheOriginsfTotal-itarianism.n the ateseventies, hen read thisgreatwork,wasfilledwith dmirationor nd felt ery lose to thethoughtofthe uthor.n 1956, heSoviet egime, hich hadpreviouslydenouncedas the rule of a statebureaucracyver theprole-tariat,evealedtself o be a newform fpolitical ociety.ara-doxically, discoveredts totalitarianature fter eading hefamous eport hrushchevssued t theCentral ommitteehatyear that s,at a timewhenArendt laimed o have observedthebeginning f the end of totalitarianovernmentn theSovietUnion.Thispoint snotmerelynecdotal,ince error,rmoreexactlymassterror,s for Arendt but not for me themaincriterionf totalitarianism.owever, rendt's escriptionof a new kindof regime,which she claimed was unprece-dented, was a profound nsightnto thephenomena f bothNazism nd communism.I continue o think hatArendt rought o light n essentialcharacteristicf a totalitarianystem hen heperceivedn it adominationromwithin.Totalitarianism,hewrites,is nevercontent o ruleby xternalmeans, amely,hroughhe tate nda machineryfviolence. . . Thanks o itspeculiar deologyndthe ruleassigned o the deologyn theapparatus fcoercion,totalitarianismas discovered means fdominatingnd terror-

SOCIAL RESEARCH, Vol. 69,No. 2 (Summer2002)


2/13


3/13

THINKING WITH AND AGAINSTARENDT 449ian people to makepossible heproject f totalorganization.Arendtclaims that totalitarianismn power olds the peopletogetherecause f ts bilityoorganizeociety.arfrom ccord-ing anyreal mportanceo Marxist r Leninist heory,hepre-sents hem s useless. heevengoessofar s tosay hat hetruegoal of totalitarianismis notpersuasion,utorganization,heaccumulation fpowerwithout hepossession f the meansofviolence. or thispurpose, heoriginalityf deological ontentcan onlybe considered n unnecessarybstacle. ElsewhereArendtrgues hat t s notthepassing uccesses fdemagogythatwin hemasses, utrathert s thevisible ealityndpower fliving rganization. ccordingo her,thenotionof ideologytends obenegligible.sfor acism,t s realizedvery ay nthefunctioningierarchyf politicalrganization ;nd as tosocial-ism, thefunctioningf theCominterns more onvincinghanany rgumentr mere deologyan ever e. Asexamples fthelackof ignificancerantedo deology,rendt oints otheper-sistence f both themythf theJewishonspiracywhenmostJews ad already eenexterminated)nd themythf the Trot-skyistonspiracywhent hadalready eendefeated).Arendt'snsistencenorganizations ustified:otalitarianulegives redence o the dea that llthingsan beorganizednsoci-ety.n this ense, he mage f a bigmachinemposestself,ndit ssignificanthatntheSovietUnion, ne of themainfiguresof he nemyfthepeoplewas he saboteur. onetheless,rga-nization oes not accountfor heprocess f dentificationhatmen andwomenmakewith he eader, r for hefeelings heyhaveofbeing ncludedna community,e itthecommunityftheParty r thecommunityf thepeopleas One. Curiously,Arendt oespay ttentionothisphenomenonnmany laces:forexample, fter nderscoringherole of organization,hemakes eferenceo thefamouspeech hatHitler ave otheS.A.inwhich e said: All hat ou re,you rethroughme;all thatam, amthrough ou lone.


4/13

450 SOCIAL RESEARCHMy rguments that henotion forganizationasnothingodo with heattempto integratehe ruler nd theruled ntoOne body.Arendt ails o make distinctionetweenrganiza-tion nd incorporation.rganizationmplieshe dea of suppos-edlyrationalociety,hereasncorporationeferso the notionofa collectiveody ndappeals o a programfa socialprophy-lactics. n the neside, hefiguref he nemys the aboteur;n

theother ide, t s thefigureftheparasite,hevermin.As have ndicated,he hapterIdeologynd Terror pensnewwayto investigatehe specificityf totalitarianism.ereArendtdopts morephilosophicalpproach othephenome-nonby uestioninghe tatusf aw ndbyrethinkinghemean-ingof deology.heis no longer ontent ithmerelyayinghattotalitarianovernments unprecedented.nstead, er claim sthatt has exploded heverylternativen which ll definitionsofthe ssence fgovernmentavebeenbased npolitical hilos-ophy; hat s,the alternativeetween awfulnd lawless overn-ment, etweenrbitrarynd egitimateower. he observeshatone is confrontedith kind fgovernmentuitedifferentromthose on whichphilosophers,romAristotlehroughMon-tesquieu, avebasedtheir heoriesfpolitics.he writeshat hetotalitarianegimedefies llpositiveawsncludinghose hatthas established.ut t doesnotoperatewithoutheguidance flaw,nor s itarbitraryor t claims oobey trictlyndunequivo-cally hose awsof Nature r ofHistoryromwhich ll positivelaws avebeen upposed o pring. hen he dds: it sthemon-strous laim ftotalitarianule hat ar rom eing awlesstgoestothe sourceofauthority,romwhich ll positiveawsreceivedtheir ltimateegitimation. henspeaking ftotalitarianawArendt oes notrefer o thespeechof therulers, utsuggeststhat herulershemselvesubmito the upremeuthorityfthelawor do what hey o inobedience o the aw. he claims hattotalitarianawfulnessxecutes he awofHistoryr ofNaturewithoutranslatingt nto tandardsfrightrwrong orndivid-ualbehavior,ndthatncontrast ith ny onstitutionalegime


5/13


6/13

452 SOCIAL RESEARCHthat he content f deologys not mportant;owhoweverhetakes eriouslyoth Marxism nd Darwinism.n both of thesedoctrineshe detects logical onstructionhat eveals heir de-ological meaning independentof their doctrinal content.Althoughhey idnotdraw rom henotion f lawofHistoryrNature he mperativehatmen become their xecutors,heselawsnonethelessbear the seeds of totalitariandeology incethey lready isclose he ssence f deology hichs the ogic fan idea.

Let us brieflyecall the three haracteristicsf an ideology.First,t mplies he claimofa total xplanationf the historicalprocess, ith he endencyoexplain otwhat s butwhat ecomes-,second,t s mperviousoany bjectionsrawn romxperience;third, t starts rom n axiomaticallyccepted premise nddeduces verythinglse from his remise, hich s tosay hat tproceedswith consistencyhat xists owheren the realm freality.It issignificanthatArendtwriteshat what its he dea intothisnewrole s ts wn ogic, hats, movementhich s thecon-sequence fthe dea tselfndneedsno outside actor oset t nmotion. he adds, the movementfHistorynd thelogicalprocess fthenotion resupposed ocorrespondo eachother,so thatwhateverappens, appens ccordingo the ogicofanidea. WhatArendtuggestss that the awofmovements botha lawofHistoryr Nature ndalso a lawofthinking. hesug-gests hat hetotalitarianegime orrespondso a new egimefthinking.t s not nexaggerationoconclude hatdeology earsthe markof an intellectualerrorism hereby e are con-fronted ith way fthinkinghat liminatesll theargumentsthatwould ontradicthe dea similaro away fgoverninghatconsists feliminatingll actual rpotentialnemies.


7/13

THINKING WITH AND AGAINSTARENDT 453I want o claim that here s a gap betweenntellectualndpoliticalerrorism,ince deologyn itself asno power o trans-formeality.owcan oneexplain he hift romne to the ther?Arendt's nswer s disappointing.ccordingoher, ach totali-tarianeaderwas ttached o hisrespectivedeologyndaccepteditwith eadly eriousness. ne tookpride nhis upreme ift orice-coldeasoning Hitler),nd theother ridedhimselfn the

mercilessnessfhisdialectics Stalin).Arendt oeson towritethat the tringentogicalityhat ermeateshewhole tructureftotalitarianovementndgovernmentasexclusivelyheworkofHitler nd Stalin. nexpectedlye seehere he udden ntru-sionoftheoldtheoryfthe greatmen nHistory.Let meemphasizehat heArendtianotion f deologys notclear.Atfirstheargues hat he deologysrequired y he awofmovementnorder oprepare veryoneoplay herole ofbothexecutionerndvictim;ater heclaims hat he awofmovementis derived rom he deology.venthoughArendt ends opre-sent he aw ofmovements if tblindedmen and forced hemintounending error,t s clearthat he doesnot believenthislaw.Thus we expectthat he willarguethat communism rNazism s guidedbya myth. ather han ettinghis aw at thefoundationfa newkind f tate,heshouldhave dmitted hatit s nvoked o ustifyhepoliticaline oftheparty,speciallyheterror,ust as the creation f a new world nd a newman isinvokednthe ervice f total omination.Why oes Arendtnsist n thenotion fmovemento such nextent hat t becomesmorepowerfulhanthepolitical ctors?Thisquestion eems o me to be tightlyinked o another ues-tion:Why oes Arendt bstain romnyreferenceotherole oftheparty? ssuminghat hetotalitarianegimexhibits mon-strousretensionogoback o the ource f uthority,ne mustindicate heorgan nwhich his uthoritys invested.n a totali-tarian egime ower esidesn theparty.he party,owever,snot the mainorganizationn the socialfield; ather tpresentsitself s aboveallbyreason f tsmonstrousretensiono be an


8/13

454 SOCIAL RESEARCHemanation f hepeople nd also thatwhich auses hepeopletobe a unity, people s One.Its ontrol xtends oall sectors f ctivity.ecertainlyreenti-tled tosaythat t sets verythingnmotion, hat t createsneworganizations,nd that testablishesheobjectivesftheir evel-opment. et hese ariousppearancesfmovemento notmaskthepermanencyf the tructurend the piritf theparty.hepartytselfs not taken ntothemovement,ince no event analter tsnature, espite he nternaltrugglesnd thecapitula-tions fwhich t s the theater. he partys a body losed nonitself,t is not ocalizablen spaceand time.As Orwell o bril-liantlyoted, hepartyasan immortalody, mysticalody on-nectedwith tsrealorgans,which re itsvisible ierarchy.hisstrange henomenons certainly ore trikingn a communistregimehanna fascistne,which s a sign hat ommunismoesfurthernachievinghetotalitarianroject.n theSovietUnion,thepartyucceeded n establishingset of microbodies fromtrade nions o associationsf nykind inwhich hepatternfa substantialommunity,arried utbystrict ontrol verthebehavior f ndividuals,sreproducedo that o independentrspontaneousctionwouldbepossible.

*By makingmovementheessential eature f the totalitariansystem, rendtwants o reduce thenotionof movemento aprocess onceived ffrom tsbeginnings orientatedowardnend,suchthat t eachstepone has togo forwardn only nedirection.n doingthis he does notsee what smasked yherconcept f he deologyfmovement.he deologyfmovement

attemptsodeny hat istorysopentounpredictablevents;hisideologymakesmpossibleny hangenthe tylef xistence,nsocial elationships,r nwaysf hinking. hile rguinghat hedestructionfpositiveaws s at the ervice f theproductionf


9/13


10/13


11/13

THINKING WITH AND AGAINST ARENDT 457sequenceofthe full ffirmationfthe aw ofhistory.hus shefails oobserve heSovietUnion's ndeavor o elaborate newframeworkf aws. hispart fher nterpretations inked o thatofterror.n theyears hat ollowed heOctoberRevolution,er-rorwas xercised otonly gainsthe nemies ftheRevolution:all theparties hathad participatedn therevolutionaryove-mentwere eliminated,ncludingMensheviks,evolutionarysocialists,narchists,orkers'ommittees,outhmovements,ndfeministmovements.t thesame timethe tradeunionsweremadesubject o theruling artynd freedom f thepresswasabolished. searlys 1918, enin aunched he logan ThePartyaboveeverythingwhich s to say, bove the aws.Terrorwasdecreed yLenin o clear heRussianandof nyharmfulnsects.ConsideringheLeninisterror,nemight ay hat tdevelopedinaccordancewith hedescriptionhatArendtmakes f a fren-ziedmovementhatnever eases.Nonetheless,ater n thepur-suit fterrorequireduridicalmeans or nstitutionalization.n1924a penalcode was elaboratednd thenmodifiedn 1928.Thiscodecontinued obeapplieduntil heKhrushchevra, o itwas n effect or pproximately0 years. ts famousArticle 8(concerninghevarious iolations f aw)bearsthe mark f anextraordinaryombinationfthe awfulndthe rbitrary.Rather handenouncing hedestructionf law,we shouldspeakofitsperversion. lthough heSovietregimedispensedwith consensusuris, s Arendt ightlynderlines,tsought omake tselfonsistentymeans f he ppearance f egality.newouldbewrongoreduce his ew ode toan instrumentalunc-tion hat id not ffecthe haracteristicsf heregime; athertsproduction as ssentialnorder oconstitutenew ocial rder.On theonehand tpermittedhe ssignmentf numberf ivilservantsithhe pecial harge f dministratingustice,whichstosay, egulatingerror. eanwhile,tprovidedheregimewithgrid hrough hich rimes ere ubject odefiniteanctions;hecommissarsere llowed oestablish,nfact ofabricate,dossiercorrespondingo each case.Henceforth,hesecommissarselt


12/13

458 SOCIAL RESEARCHthemselveso be carryingn a trade.The administrationfus-ticeparticipatednthe tabilizingrocess f he ocial rder. neobserves hat he elaboration f thepenalcode coincidedwiththeformationf bureaucratictate.On theotherhand, he accusedwere nmeshedna bureau-cratic etwork.achpersonwhowas rrestedecame supposedculprit howasobliged oplead guilty,nd moreovero collabo-ratewith heexaminingmagistrateygiving roof f hisguilt.The repertoryf crimes ook nto ccountnotonly ctions utintentionsrsupposedntentions;he bstainingfdoing ome-thing n a particularircumstance;hefailure o denounce aguilty erson,nd so forth. he codegave he mage f peopleentirelyubmittedo anarbitraryower. s have lready oted,arbitrarinessoeshand nhandwith fantasticormalism.herewasnothingfthis indntheNazisystem.

*If have nsisted n thefeaturesfthetreatmentfthe aw ntheSovietUnion, t is to contrast communistegimewithdemocraticne.The udicialprocedureserive rom heprinci-plesof a regime.n a democraticegime,he administrationf

justice mplies hepresumptionf nnocence nd therighto adefense; debateon the facts nd on theauthenticityf testi-monies; heroleofa udgewhose uthoritysbeyond heprose-cution nd thecounsel, n authorityndependent,nprinciple,from tate ower. llofwhich stosay hatustice s administeredinthenameof Third.hismodel s naccordancewith societythatmakes placefor hepluralityfconflictingnterestsndopinions, nd that dmits n ultimateuthorityhathas beenlegallystablished.heThirdmarks he ntrusionfthe aw ntosocialrelationships.ts egitimacyoes notdetachtself romheguaranteef thefreedomsfmovement,xpression,nd infor-mation.What s characteristicf the communistegimes the


13/13

THINKING WITH AND AGAINSTARENDT 459absenceof theThird. fthepartys aboveeverything,hen hatalso means hatnothings outside heparty thats,outside hestate,fwhich hepartys the ncarnation.onsequently,here sinthe dministrationfusticeno neutralctor. herelationshipbetween heaccuser nd the accused s a dualrelationship;heThird s foreclosedincethe accuser peaks n the name of theparty.hisdualrelationshiperives rom logicof ncorporation.Moreover,hedualrelationshipemands obereproducedn theaccused ubject, hohas to dentifyimself ith he ccuser. elf-denunciationfthe ccusedreaches tshighest ointwhenhe orshe s a communist.heMoscowrials,nparticular,llustratehisphenomenon. owever,t sreproducednthe nnumerableia-loguesbetween commissarnd an accused. olzhenitsynrites,Alwayshe ame eitmotifepeatednendless ariations.ou andme,weare communists. e adds, Whatwouldyoudo ifyouwere nmy lace? t s for his eason hat spokeofa perversionofthe aw.HannahArendtwaswell ware f theunprecedentedhenome-non that otalitarianismonstituted.evertheless,n searchingfor ts rigin,ithernthe deologiesnd thenew onceptionfhistoryhat ppearednthenineteenthentury,r ntheprocessof he tomizationf ndividualshatent tselfo the tomizationofmassesnthebeginningf the twentiethentury,he did notpay ttentiono thenew tructuref he ocial, articularlyntheSovietUnion.Shedenounced hemythf theOne withouton-sideringhe cheme f a new ymbolicrder. hat s thereasonwhyhe has notmeasured heabyss hat eparateswo ormsfsociety:otalitarianismnd modern emocracy.

Documents

Thinking with and against Hannah Arendt.pdf