Evil // Current

The Banality of Evil? Critics say Arendt used Nazi sources for her book

Will we ever be able to think of Hannah Arendt in the same way again? Two new and damning critiques, one of Arendt and one of her longtime Nazi-sycophant lover, the philosopher Martin Heidegger, were published within 10 days of each other last month. The pieces cast further doubt on the overinflated, underexamined reputations of both figures and shed new light on their intellectually toxic relationship.

My hope is that these revelations will encourage a further discrediting of the most overused, misused, abused pseudo-intellectual phrase in our language: the banality of evil. The banality of the banality of evil, the fatuousness of it, has long been fathomless, but perhaps now it will be consigned to the realm of the deceitful and disingenuous as well.

The first of the two new reports—and the one most overlooked here in America, perhaps because it's not online—appeared in the sober pages of London's Times Literary Supplement on Oct. 9. It was titled "Blame the Victim—Hannah Arendt Among the Nazis: the Historian and Her Sources." Arendt—the German-born refugee intellectual, author of the influential The Origins of Totalitarianism and the controversial Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil—has come under fire before for "blaming the victim" in her Eichmann trial book, but the author of the TLS piece, the distinguished British scholar Bernard Wasserstein, breaks new ground here with material I found shocking.

In a long, carefully documented essay, Wasserstein (who's now at the University of Chicago), cites Arendt's scandalous use of quotes from anti-Semitic and Nazi "authorities" on Jews in her Totalitarianism book.

Wasserstein concludes that her use of these sources was "more than a methodological error: it was symptomatic of a perverse world-view contaminated by over-exposure to the discourse of collective contempt and stigmatization that formed the object of her study"—that object being anti-Semitism. In other words, he contends, Arendt internalized the values of the anti-Semitic literature she read in her study of anti-Semitism, at least to a certain extent. Wasserstein's conjecture will reignite the debate over Arendt's contemptuous remarks on certain Jews who were victims of Hitler in her Eichmann book and in her letters.

Could these revelations help banish the robotic reiteration of the phrase the banality of evil as an explanation for everything bad that human beings do? Arendt may not have intended that the phrase be used this way, but one of its pernicious effects has been to make it seem as though the search for an explanation of the mystery of evil done by "ordinary men" is over. As though by naming it somehow explains it and even solves the problem. It's a phrase that sounds meaningful and lets us off the hook, allows us to avoid facing the difficult question.

It was the banality phrase—and the purported profundity of it in the popular mind—that elevated Arendt above the ranks of her fellow exile intellectuals in America and made her a proto-Sontag figure, a cerebral star of sorts and a revered icon in cultural-studies departments throughout America. It was the phrase that launched a thousand theses.

To my mind, the use of the phrase banality of evil is an almost infallible sign of shallow thinkers attempting to seem intellectually sophisticated. Come on, people: It's a bankrupt phrase, a subprime phrase, a Dr. Phil-level phrase masquerading as a profound contrarianism. Oooh, so daring! Evil comes not only in the form of mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash types, but in the form of paper pushers who followed evil orders. And when applied—as she originally did to Adolf Eichmann, Hitler's eager executioner, responsible for the logistics of the Final Solution—the phrase was utterly fraudulent.

(much more at link)Will we ever be able to think of Hannah Arendt in the same way again? Two new and... more

hpseaton
added this
4 days ago
|
2 comments

United Kingdom Talk Video Tuesday 10th November 2009

Tuesday's edition of my three times a week talk show.Watch the show here on CURRENT TV... more

ChrisReardon
added this
5 days ago
|
0 comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0kTQchokko

unclepete813
added this
6 days ago
|
0 comments

Say NO to "islam"

This is something I expected. It was in the cards. Non-Islamic countries are falling... more

BanIslam
added this
6 days ago
|
0 comments

Bite It, Jack Black

Jack Black and Michael Cera ponder the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

chapinyoung
added this
11 days ago
|
0 comments

Disney to air Naruto Shippuden

Disney has struck a deal with Viz Media to bring the anime series "Naruto Shippuden"... more

animebelle
added this
1 month ago
|
4 comments

Justice Scalia: Champion of the "Right" to Torture Animals

Antonin Scalia thinks people's "right" to giddily watch animals rip each other apart is more important than those animals' right not to be ripped apart. http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/animal_torture_the_supreme_court_and_absurdity_from_the_nyt_and_lat

From Reuters:

Justice Antonin Scalia said the court needed to consider "the right of people who like cockfighting, who like dogfighting and who like bullfighting to present their side of the debate."

From AP:

Justice Antonin Scalia was having none of it. In the area of free speech, Scalia said, "it's not up to the government to decide what are people's worst instincts."

Scalia also pointed out that opponents of animal fighting may feel more free to use the images to express their views than proponents. "People who like bull fighting, who like dog fighting, who like cock fighting ... that side of the debate is entitled to make its point as forcefully as possible," he said.

Their "side of the debate"? "Entitled to make its point as forcefully as possible"? A Supreme Court justice thinks there's a debate about whether humans should be sadistically training animals to maim and kill each other for humans' amusement, about whether we should pit animals against each other and cheer and bet money on their suffering and gruesome, violent deaths.

A Supreme Court justice thinks that those who enjoy encouraging violence and inflicting extreme suffering on those more vulnerable are "entitled to make [their] point as forcefully as possible" by selling videos of that violence, to show how fun it really is.

You know what, Scalia? There are also people who truly believe that acts of pedophilia don't really hurt children. Should they be able to make their point "as forcefully as possible" too? Are their "rights" as people who like molesting children something we should consider when we make laws meant to protect children?

But according to these initial reports, it doesn't appear the other justices are falling all over themselves to stand up for animals either. No decision is expected until next year, but it doesn't look good. I'll be interested to read (and will pass along) the more detailed accounts of, and reactions to, what went on today later...Antonin Scalia thinks people's "right" to giddily watch animals rip each other apart... more