But the liberal tradition is much more historically self-conscious, more savvy about the uses and abuses of power, and has a much more complex view of the self than Halberstam's Kantian emphasis upon rational autonomy would allow.
Put in disciplinary terms: Halberstam needed more intellectual history and less history of philosophy in his discussion. As a type of thinker who used history to illuminate politics and vice versa, Arendt sits more comfortably in the company of Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Burke and Machiavelli than she does alongside Kant or Heidegger.
And her thought is all the more compelling for it. Finally, there are problems with Halberstam's approach to Arendt's work itself. Though Arendt's first work, Origins of Totalitarianism , was 'about' what its title indicates, Halberstam tends to repair to The Human Condition or even The Life of the Mind for concepts relevant to his analysis of totalitarianism, specifically her ideas of 'world' and 'judgement.
But much changes in Arendt's thought between and or between and In short, it does matter from which Arendt text one is quoting. Moreover, by relatively ignoring Origins , a work saturated by history, Halberstam never has to deal with issues that get washed out when he focuses on Arendt the philosopher.
Halberstam scarcely mentions Arendt's analysis of the rise of anti-Semitism or racism. Yet it was just the point of Arendt's political-historical analysis that, first, modern racism and anti-Semitism were different and more virulent than their precursors; and, second, that the ethnic and racial state was profoundly destructive of the Enlightenment-based republic of citizens.
Arendt could certainly be critical of the Enlightenment tradition, but her formulation of a new political ideal -a political community in which everyone had 'the right to have rights'-retained Enlightenment terminology and goals. He does discuss it in terms of Hegel's thought and raises, quite interestingly, the concept of the 'sublime' as relevant to the topic at hand. But the specific historical role of the 'camp system' in the maintenance of totalitarianism hardly gets a mention.
Something deeply philosophical and religious was at stake there-the nature of human nature. It was in the camps, Arendt claimed, that the conception of personhood itself was specifically undermined and all but destroyed. The camp system was a giant experiment in attempting, as she put it,' the transformation of human nature.
Indeed, the problem of evil itself would seem worth discussion in this context, but Halberstam stays away from it, except for some comments on Eichmann.
Nor does Arendt buy the notion, as Halberstam seems to imply pp. What the history of Nazism revealed to Arendt was that race not the state was the highest good of National Socialism. The power of the state was ultimately less important than the creation of a purified Aryan race. The state was a means rather than an end in itself. Thus, again, it is impossible to discuss Nazi totalitarianism without saying something fundamental about race or to discuss Soviet totalitarianism without saying something about class and Party.
By not confronting concepts of 'race' and 'class' philosophically, Halberstam's Totalitarianism and the Modern Conception of Politics, for all of its real strengths, helps perpetuate the isolation of political philosophy from the concepts that were so central to modernity and continue to shape our lives.
Skip to main content. Totalitarianism and the Modern Conception of Politics. Cleveland, OH. Meridian Books, , pp. Back to 2 Ibid. Back to 3 June There was essentially a massive rejection of the existing political system as ineffectual and self-serving. The fall of protecting class walls transformed the slumbering majorities behind all parties into one great unorganized, structureless mass of furious individuals who had nothing in common except their vague apprehension that the hopes of party members were doomed, that, consequently, the most respected, articulate and representative members of the community were fools and that all the powers that be were not so much evil as they were equally stupid and fraudulent.
How does a totalitarian government harness this attitude of the masses? This feeling is what totalitarianism figured out how to manipulate by random terror that severed any form of connection with other human beings. Totalitarianism does not have an end goal in the usual political sense.
Its only real goal is to perpetuate its own existence. There is no one party line that, if you stick to it, will save you from persecution. Remember the random mass murders. Stalin repeatedly purged whole sections of his government — just because. The fear is a requirement. The fear is what keeps the movement going. This battle with truth is something we see today. Opinions are being given the same weight as facts, leading to endless debates and the assumption that nothing can be known anyway.
It is this turning away from knowledge that opens the doors to totalitarianism. These fabrications form the basis of the propaganda, with different messages crafted for different audiences. What does totalitarian rule look like? These states are not run by cliques or gangs. There is no protected group getting rich from this control of the masses.
And no one is outside the message. Why no clique? We definitely need to focus on certain issues more than others. But I would argue you are overstating things by saying there is no point in discussing anything else. In fact, we may learn some things in these other discussions that may aid us in solving the first problem just as discoveries in math have helped us solve problems in science, history, philosophy, and politics.
I admit to a degree of rhetorical excess, fair point. Your posts steer carefully clear of such exaggerations, and they are not being engaged either. Your reference to global warming seems useful. The marriage of violent men and knowledge could topple civilization before lunch today. The immediacy of that threat seems to create a compelling argument for it being a priority. Remember, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. I see the continuation of such an unproven process in the face of mortal danger to represent either a lack of clarity, or a defeatist admission that there is nothing we can do, so we might as well do what we enjoy.
If that is true, the logical outcome of such a decision seems to me to be the coming end of intellectual inquiry, and all the sophisticated papers on complex topics. If the office building you are writing from catches on fire, you have to deal with that before you can begin to write your next paper. For example: Is Barack Obama or Donald Trump responsible for the deaths of 40, civilians during the bombing of Mosul?
The financial crisis brought home to many people, including this poster, the degree to which hyper-rich people are sucking our society dry with impunity, because they are smart enough and rich enough to buy off the political structures that are supposed to be constraining their greed.
The film does a good job of explaining the degree to which the global economic system is built upon faith in the United States government, a kind of high risk ponzi scheme enterprise which solves problems simply by creating mountains of new money out of thin air.
This is where totalitarians come from, corrupt democratic systems which lose the confidence of the people they are supposed to be serving. The Washington Post reports that…. Point being, our economic and political does not serve the average citizen, it serves the rich. As more and more people come to understand this, the threat of totalitarianism will continue to rise. It is the corrupt plutocracy that is responsible for creating the totalitarian option. The alternative option would be a progressive strategy to overthrow the corrupt plutocracy and restore democracy.
Lacking that it has been lacking for two generations proto-totalitarian Trumpism is both inevitable and a precursor of something much worse. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser. Sign in Join. Sign in. Forgot your password? Create an account. Sign up. Password recovery.
Recover your password. Blog of the APA Join the discussion. Get help. March 22, Philosophy and Technology. Recently Published Book Spotlight. Philosophy as a Way of Life. Climate Matters. Socially Sustainable, Thoroughly Democratic Power. Dear Phil, Thanks for your comment. I have one thought and one question for you. Best, Nathan Loading Hi Nathan, My apologies. Dear Nathan Eckstrand, I strongly agree that totalitarianism always will be a great danger to contemporary societies, whether communist, fascist, or democratic.
Or maybe more so… By my definition, a totalitarian society would be one in which 1 a single monolithic party, whether communist, fascist, or democratic, monopolizes both 2 the legitimate methods of exercising violence military, police, courts etc. EDM Loading Dear Eric and Phil, Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments engaging my work.
Hi again Nathan, I admit to a degree of rhetorical excess, fair point. Their Humanitarianism Is a Sham. Mehdi Hasan April 2 , p. And so on… Loading One more try….. Comment: Please enter your comment! Advanced search. Posts You May Enjoy. He includes perspectives from a range of traditions, Caring for Democracy Caring for Democracy January 8, Caring for Democracy July 18, Go to mobile version.
0コメント