Hannah Arendt- Seminar Paper

Hannah Arendt’s ‘The origins of totalitarianism’ were published in 1951, following the ending of World War II and Hitler was pronounced dead. Arendt wanted to give her readers a sense of phenomenal reality of totalitarianism, its appearance in the world as a terrifying and completely new form of the government. If we remind ourselves of what totalitarianism is; it is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator and not restricted by a constitutions, laws or oppositions. The idea of what totalitarianism is closely linking with the discussions in the book on Hitler and Stalin and their forms of power within a country.

This seminar paper will focus on the first part of the book; Arendt shares hidden elements in modern ant-Semitism and European imperialism that coalesced in totalitarianism movement. Arendt then moves on to look at the organization of those movements, looking at the power of Nazism and Stalinist Bolshevism. This paper will also focus on the final part of Arendt book titled ‘totalitarianism’ focusing on the movement and the key aspect of the entire book.

So who is Hannah Arendt? Born in 1906 in Germany, her childhood was dark and miserable, her father died from paresis when she was young. As she grew up, there were battles between Russia and Germany, and these battles took place near her home. She became a political activist in 1933, her writing appeared in Jewish Journals such as ‘Jewish social studies’ and also featured in the magazine ‘Jewish Frontier’. In these writings she argued on behalf of the Jewish army and stated that she hoped Arabs and Jews might live together in Post war Palestinian state.
From her writings such as these and her book ‘The origins of totalitarianism’ made her an intellectual celebrity in the early years of the cold war. The book is impressive in tracing the steps towards the distinctive ‘tyranny’s’ of Hitler and Stalin and what human status itself had become due to totalitarianism. The human status had showed racism was embedded in central and western society.

The feeling of ‘Radical evil’ drove through this time as there was a huge number of prisoners in death camps marked horrifying discontinuity in European history itself, the impact will always be apparent, and will be in the future to come for those that look on history within education or other means.

In chapter two titled ‘Jews, the nation and the birth of Anti-Semitism’ Arendt discusses the issues around the nation state and the rights of Jews. The idea of the nation state was the new view on what the nation could be. It initially is a community which is organized under one government according to what a whole nation wants, however there is still much control from those in the government and a nation-state is usually ran within a so called neighbourly way in other words, amongst a society that is all the same, such as in religion or beliefs. Hannah Arendt describes the nation state as being a ‘nation within a nation’ and within the discussion of Jews the nation-state granted the Jewish people equality of rights. Linking to the statement made before of a ‘nation within a nation’ therefore the Jewish restrictions had to be abolished. Although the idea of equality seems to be growing Arendt makes it very clear that the only reason for these restrictions being lifted was because the Jewish people were needed for their skills to help with those who were in the nation of equality, not necessarily involving the Jewish people in this state. This distinction of the Jews not belonging to the nation was to do with the force on which they did not have a class or status of their own within society.
In Germany at the time the class system that was put into place mean that the ‘status’ of the individual was defined in his own class and relationship to another, however the only exception this rule was the Jews as they did not form a class of their or belong to any other class, as Hannah Arendt points out ‘the fact of being born a Jew would either mean that one was privileged, under special protection from the government or under-privileged therefore lacking certain rights and opportunities which were withheld from Jews in order to prevent their assimilation’.

The word ‘emancipation’ is thrown around a lot in this section of her book, the meaning trying to obtain certain rights such as equality for a disenfranchised group such as the Jews.

It appears from this that she writes very much against the Jews, as if she is not a Jew herself and is talking about another class she is in, however she is a Jew, therefore the way she talks about it appears shocking to those who read her book, possibly many that have read it today, I know it had shocked me.
In part three of Arendt’s ‘origins of totalitarianism’ sums up the main focus of book on totalitarianism and the discussion between the powers of Hitler and Stalin. These two figures had obviously much power within their times over people. She refers to Nazism and Stalinism throughout this chapter, Nazism is the ideology practice of the Nazis party and Nazis Germany which was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and by biological racism referring to scientific ways of finding differences among the human race, therefore can be used against to Jewish people according to Hitler who wanted a pure society of what his world should be. Stalinism which is also used throughout refers to the policies and governmental philosophy of Joseph Stalin who was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1953. He was a dictator for his state and through Stalinism meant that his rule was not restricted by a constitution of laws or other opinions of his own view points.
These two figures in history had their power through totalitarianism. What allowed a successful state of totalitarianism from these two men? Stalin main key in success with power was that he could manipulate the propaganda which is a key source of media, again linking to the idea of how the media contains power. Similar with Hitler who possessed the same skills and who had fascination to which allegedly no one was immune and who after his defeat in the war and his death today is so fully forgotten that he scarcely plays any roles in our lives today. This showing how there is an early link to media, power and the masses. One quote from Arendt’s book which initially stood out was that suggested that these figures ‘Contaminating their subjects with the especially totalitarian virus’ suggesting that those under control were quickly sub come to this virus and had no other choice in which to oblige.
An appealing view point that Arendt had about the totalitarianism and one that I found rather interesting was that of its success. Taken from her books she states ‘the disturbing factor of the success of totalitarianism is rather the true selflessness of its adherents’.

According to Hannah the success of the totalitarianism movement only worked due to the masses. Its main order was to organise and control people in some ways into an acceding straight line in which everyone looks the same and says the same thing, this remind of you of anything? Hitler’s idea of a perfect world full of blonde hair and blue eyed people is very much like this line that is trying to be created. ‘The totalitarian movement aims at and succeed in organizing masses, not classes, like the old interest parties of the continental nation state; not citizens with opinions about, interest in, the handling of public affairs, like the parties of the Anglo-Saxon countries’ basically a world was wanted where everyone is the same, say the same things. ‘Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir’.

The one thing driving the totalitarian movement was the sheer might and force of numbers, the number of people willing to help, or brain washed to help.
Many thoughts on totalitarianism when put into practice what had been imagined only in medieval depictions of hell. Arendt shows similarities between Hitler and Stalin however there was much doubt as they had obvious ideological conflicts, most obvious they differed as in beliefs through state, Hitler hating communism and Stalin being for it. However together they were distinctively similar they were both dictators and at one point they joined forces until Hitler attacked Stalin. They both used their power to inflict force of people and both killed many people on their road to creating their own nations.

Arendt’s view which is discussed in the final section of her book, her view is an expression of the masses. She states that there is an expression of the masses as one, the feeling of disgust, violence, prejudice and loss of responsibility as a whole and this is how a mass could be used for power. It appears to be based on a social experience of lacking power or strength, loss or loneliness within a state. Change results in weakness of power on the individual. The other idea which is clarified is of leadership by having a ‘firm and sincere belief in human status’ but can there be a strong belief in the human status, when concerning human experience of it?’ . This point is made very clear by Arendt when she notes that while the historical conditions of mass authorisation where provided by the Nazis. Stalin had to create a society by his own initiative. Collapse of the social world and those things valued which reduce the masses of passivity. Therefore there would be no control with any mass to drive it.

Totalitarianism propaganda and some totalitarian institutions answer the needs of the new homeless masses from some analysis Arendt viewed totalitarianism as some historical accident but an event whose conclusion of possibly been promoted by the specific dynamics of bourgeois modernity, she had unveiled the political questions of this historical moment and a phenomenal of general and continuing relevance for the future of modernity. The ‘dynamics of Bourgeois’ is a thought by Marxist, meaning you conform, therefore to totalitarianism you are conformed to one, your dictator. Could this be a link to what Hitler wanted?

Arendt says that racism was the main trait of colonist imperialism this characterized by its unlimited expansion. She examines ‘continental imperialism’ and the emergence of ‘movement’ substitutions themselves to the political parties. Nazism and Stalinism were totalitarian movements that aimed to destroy state. Arendt discusses the use of front organization, fake governmental agencies, and esoteric doctrines as a means of concealing the radical nature of totalitarian aims from the non-totalitarian world.

We can briefly mention the works of John Carey and his book ‘The Intellectuals and the masses’ Carey talks of the ‘Superman’ linking to the idea on human status, talks of the masses and the rise of it as a democracy and the idea of intellectual snobbish behaviour which can link nicely to Hitler who believed in a intellectual hierarchy. There is also the discussion on social status and how those of the intellectual sort made art more difficult to understand so that there would not be the threat that in their eyes, those that are beneath them could not walk over the line and be in the same accordance as those intellectual beings. Personally, this sounds quite pathetic and Carey suggest this too. According to Carey ‘the masses are bacteria, plague or virus. The masses are not alive; they behave like savages in large crowds’. The masses as people did not exist, they were controlled. I am found of the way John Carey talks in his book about the social class and the links between Virginia Woolf, T.S Elliot which bring in good examples for the topic.

From all of this, Hannah gives the impression that the holocaust was normal? Is she naïve and How can it be conceived as normal? These are the question which I asked myself straight away. Over the process of looking into Hannah Arendt, as I have found her dictation on the ‘Jews’ and totalitarianism quite shocking to the fact that she almost goes against her own heritage in a way to say that the holocaust was a very normal things to happen? This is very confusion, especially for one today that has learnt all about the history of this period and the pain and death that was inflicted on one social class in society.

How can it be normal where people are murdered, separated from their families, their hair shaved off, their belongings taken from them; glasses, clothes, toys and even fake arms and legs if peopled had them, piled high, hidden from the rest of the world. And not so long after those people entered those camps they would be piled high dead as if thrown out like their belongings were treated as they arrived.
How it possible that someone would could get away with such an evil plan, but if looked at a bit closer, it has been identified that most people had a part to play in it. Or had Hitler magically hypnotised a nation to not notice. People that drove the trains, made phone call, were on behalf of Hitler and some citizens simply took jobs to feel involved in the ‘new Germany’ but will it ever be certain of if people really knew what they were getting involved in, this becomes a organised mass murder by the masses of a society. Very much like the media today having power over different groups in society, can we say this is a similar thing? Could the media eventually have so much power that it could convince the masses to carry out a command?

As mentioned in our recent lectures its like saying ‘instead of helping people we should just kill them’ an example such as like people who are gypsies in today’s society, should we just kill them and get rid of them?
It clearly opened my eyes on how something that appears to be horrific to so many, can surely be talked about as if it happens every day to everyone and it’s a normal thing. Or maybe it’s me that has missed something, possibly my view of the history of the Jews and holocaust is wrong. Maybe some things are needed to be left, and not understood.