View
239
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 1/15
Hannah Arendt Reconsidered: On the Banal and the Evil in Her Holocaust Narrative
Author(s): Dan Diner and Rita BashawSource: New German Critique, No. 71, Memories of Germany (Spring - Summer, 1997), pp.177-190Published by: New German CritiqueStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488563 .
Accessed: 28/01/2015 06:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to New German Critique.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 2/15
HannahArendt
econsidered: n the
Banal
and
theEvil
inHer Holocaust
Narrative
Dan
Diner
Few workson
the destruction
f
EuropeanJewry
ave
elicited s
much ontroversialiscussion
nd fewhave
ttracteds much
ttention
as Hannah
Arendt's
ichmann n
Jerusalem.
iscussion
of
Hannah
Arendt's rial
report
n the
banality
f evil was
so
intense
hat t
became a kind of icon
in
the
discourse
urrounding
uschwitz
nd
related rimes.
n
short,
he
oncept
f
the
banality
f
evil now
consti-
tutes
career
n
itself,
oth
n
the realm f
public
debate nd
in
the
confines f academic isciplines.t hasbecome cipher or hehistori-
cal and moral valuation f National
ocialist
rimes s
well as for he
possibility
f
ystematic
assmurder
n
themodem ra.
The
followingssay
s not
concerned
ith n
empirical
xamination
of HannahArendt's heses
n National
ocialism nd the Holocaust.
This
examination
lready
ook
place
shortly
fter he
ppearance
f her
trial
eport.
t that ime hewas
faulted
or er
rresponsible
andling
f
the acts nd
for
er lantednd
polarizing
nterpretation
f
he
event.1
Discussion f Arendt's ichmannnJerusalemid notremainimply
on a level of
polemical
epartee.
rendt's
hallenge ngendered
erious
1.
Die Kontroverse.annah
Arendt,
ichmannnJerusalem
nddie
Juden,
d. F.
A. Krummacher
Munich:
ymphenburger,964).
For ecent ork n
Hannah
rendt,
ee
Seyla
Benhabib,
Thinking
nd
Judging:
ereading
ichmann
n
Jerusalem,
he
Reluc-
tantModernism
fHannah
rendt
Thousand
aks:
Sage,
1996)
173-84.
t
should uffice
to
note
ust
one
of
the
many
works n
the ichmann
ook,
Jacob
obinson's 965
reatise
with he
nigmatic
nd
triking
itle nd he
Crooked
hall
Be Made
Straight,
hich s not
any
ess
polemical
n
tone,
houghmpirically
s well s
systematicallyery
ubstantial.
See
Jacob
Robinson,
nd
he
Crooked hall Be
Made
Straight:
he
Eichmann
rial,
he
Jewish
atastrophe,
ndHannahArendtsNarrative
New
York:
Macmillan,
965).
177
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 3/15
178
Hannah
Arendt
econsidered
research
nd
gave
rise
o
significant
nvestigations.
er
provocative
nd
in somerespects efamatoryttacksgainst epresentativesf Jewish
institutions
nd
eading
Jewish
igures
t the ime f
the
Holocaust,
er
rash ccusations
f
Jewish
ouncils
accused f
betraying
heJewish
people
nd of
collaborating
ith
heNazis
-
led not
only
o an
outcry
of
ndignation
ithin heJewish
ommunity
ut lso culminated
n
Isa-
iah Trunk's
round-breaking
tudy
f theJewish ouncils.2
iterature,
too,
took
up
this heme f
alleged
Jewish ollaboration.
or
instance,
Leslie
Epstein
wrote
henovel
Kingof
the
Jews nd focused n
the
fate
of
he odz
ghetto
nd ts
oldest
ew,
aimRumkowski.
HannahArendt'srial eportn thebanalityfevil scandalizednd
polarized
he
Jewish
ommunity
nd
led
to heated
onfrontations
ut-
side
the
Jewish
ommunity
s well.Yet it remains
oubtful
hether
her
provocative
heses
such
as the characterization
f Adolf
Eich-
mann
s a
merely
mediocre
unctionary
f
death nd
allegations
f
Jew-
ish
cooperation
ith
he
enemy
were
enough
o
unleash
uch
an
extreme
eaction n
their wn.
Clearly,
his
controversy
onsisted
f
more
han n
agitated
ebate
ver
facts,
istorical
ccuracy,
nd
proper
interpretation.nfact, urthertudyf Arendt'seportntheEichmann
trial
n
Jerusalemeads
to
the
mpression
hat
t is an
apocryphal
ext
whose
cope
goes
far
eyond
heNational
ocialistmurder
f
he
Jews.
The entire
tructurend
design
f
this rial
eport
n
the
banality
f
evil
suggest
subtext
hat
s
highly
diosyncratic.
his subtext arbors
within
t traces f almost
ll relevantnd
existential
uestions
f
post-
emancipatory
ewish
xistence,
endered ore
cute,
f
course,
iven
the
experience
f the
Holocaust.
Whenread n
this
manner,
rendt's
work
resents
n
encoded extual
asis for
what s
in
principle
n
ever-
recurringewish iscourse. hat s,questionsre raised oncerninghe
opposition
etweenJewish
articularism
nd universalism
ithin nd
beyond
Judaism,
ssimilation
nd
Zionism,
ndividual
ndependence
and ollective
esponsibility.
The
underlying
ssue
of the
Eichmann
rial
eport
an
be
systemati-
cally
formulated
s
follows:
n
the text-icon
ichmann
n
Jerusalem,
dissimilar
and,
n
effect,
ltogetherpposing
narrativesf
Jewish
experience
nd Jewish
elf-understanding
re articulated
nd
thereby
2. For cholars' eactionso Hannah rendt'sharges gainstheJewishouncils,
see Isaiah
Trunk,
Judenrat:
The JewishCouncils
in
Eastern
Europe
Under Nazi
Occupa-
tion
Lincoln:
U
of
Nebraska
,
1972).
See
also
Lucy
.
Dawidowicz,
he
Holocaust
nd
the
Historians
Cambridge:
arvard
P,
1981)
138.
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 4/15
Dan Diner
179
come
into
onflict
ith
ach other. he
concern s
withnarratives
f
theJewishatastrophen the wentiethenturyhat recloaked npic-
tures,
ymbols,
etaphors,
nd
nterpretations.
A
systematic
ook at
thefundamental
roblematicresented
n
Han-
nah
Arendt's rial
report
onfirms
he
supposition
f a dichotomous
structure
f
the
discourse.
his can be seen
nitially
n Arendt's nter-
pretation
f the
crimes ommitted
y
the
Nazis. Is thetrial
eport
on-
cerned
with hese
rimes
ursuant
o
the sraeli
bill of
indictment,
hat
is,
crimes
gainst
he
Jewish
eople,
r is
it
concerned
ith he
matter
of
crimes
gainst
umanity?
annahArendt dvocates
roadening
he
criminal tatementf fact. Her universalistnterpretationf Nazi
crimes,
ncluding
hose
gainst
Jews,
eaches
o far
hat
he seeks
to
universalize
nd
expand
he
concept
f
humanity
hat
lready
ncom-
passes
more
han
specific
eferenceo
the
Jewish
eople.
She reaches
the conclusion
hat
unishment
hould
e delivered
or
rimes
gainst
thehuman
ace
Menschheit],
ot
gainst
umanity
Menschlichkeit].
Characterizing
azi
crimes s crimes
gainst
hehuman ace allows
Arendt's
niversalist
ritique
o
encompass
hatwhich s
procedural
s
well.
Although
rendt
elieves hat
n
international
ourt f
aw
s
by
far
the
more
ppropriate
ower
o determinehemannerf
punishing
azi
crimes,
he nevertheless
ccepts
Jewish
urisdiction
hrough
he
mecha-
nism
fthe
sraeli
ourt.
he
does
so,
however,
ore
or
ractical
easons
than
s a
matter
f
principle.
ccording
o Hannah
Arendt's niversalist
outlook,
he
authority
nd
urisdiction
f an international
ourt
f
law
would
have
beenmuch
more
n
keeping
ith henature
fthe rime.
Further
rguments
f
Arendt's
an be adduced
rom
hisuniversalist
perspective
egarding
eeds and
perpetrators,
uch
as,
for
nstance,
he
remarkhatwhile he crimes adindeed eencommittedyGermans,
others
ere
apable
of
perpetrating
imilarriminal
cts.The
generaliz-
ing
gesture
nvolved
n
expanding
he
notion
f what
onstitutes
crimi-
nal act
referso
Arendt's
oncept
f
totalitarianism
s much
s
it
does
to
an
historical
erspective
hatevaluates
ast
occurrences
y
situating
them
n
such
a
way
that ertain
onstellations
ecome
possible
n the
future.
his also
applies
o her
repeated endency
n
the
trial
eport
o
blur
he
xistential
ifferencesetween
ictimsnd
perpetrators,
hereby
drawing
he victims nto
collaboration ith
he
perpetrators.
rendt
reproachedot nly heJewishouncilsndJewisholicebut, atherro-
tesquely,
lso
the
pecial
Jewishommando
nits
nside
hedeath
amps.
Such
examples
make
it
clear
that
uestions
f
Jewish
elf-understanding
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 5/15
180
Hannah
Arendt
Reconsidered
are
lways
tworkwithinhese eal r
putative
mpiricalroblems.
This extreme niversalisms nottheonlybasisfromwhichHannah
Arendt
rgues
her rial
eport
n Eichmann.
t is
supplemented
ith
no
less radical
Jewish
articularism,
otto mention
ationalism.
hat
is
peculiar
here
s thatArendt's ationalismometimes
ntersects ith
more
extreme tances
of
Zionism,
without
ecoming
denticalwith
them.
When
assessing
Jewish
ctions
n
light
f National
ocialism,
Arendt
ssumes,
n
a
way
similar
o Raul
Hilberg,
he
existence f a
fully
egitimate
ewish
ollective,
Jewish
eople.
Here,
Jewish
eo-
ple
refers o an
onlyslightly roblematicategory
nsofar s
it
pro-
vides a non-binding escriptionf various intensereligiousand
cultural
memberships
nd affiliations.
owever,
hen he
ubject
tself
is the
Jewish
eople,
when he heme t hand s one of collective
oliti-
cal
transactions,
f
resistancer
even
military
ction,
hen his
ategory
becomes
highly roblematic.
or this
necessarily
upposes
he exist-
ence
of a
communitySolidargemeinschaft],
hich,
n
light
of the
national,
inguistic,
nd cultural
omposition
f the differentewish
groups
n
Europe, ppears
s an nsinuation
irectly
elevant
o action.
During hewar,HannahArendt dvocated he establishmentf a
Jewish
rmy.
n
the United tates he
cooperated,
f
only
for short
time,
with
ight-wing
ewish
roups
hatwere ven
at
that
oint
ccus-
ing
Jewish nd Zionist
eadership
f
betrayal.
When
heKastner ffair
stirred
p
emotions
n
Israel
n
the
1950s,
HannahArendt
rticulated
positions
hat oincided
with
hose
f the
extreme
ight.
n
her
cover-
age
of theEichmann
rial,
he celebratedheheroic
ualities
f theJew-
ish resistance ithout ritical
istance,
espite
he fact
that he had
correctly
ismissed
he
presumptuous
uestion,
Why
did
you
not
revolt? withwhich hief sraeliprosecutorideonHausner hal-
lenged
ewish itnesses
uring
he rial
as cruel nd
illy.
HannahArendt's ssessmentf the
Holocaust eveals
deep
schism.
On the one
hand,
he
indulges
n
an
almostboundless
niversalism,
and on the
other,
er
arguments
re,
to a
large degree,
marked
y
nationalism. ow are we to understandhis
ype
f
contradiction?he
answer s as
simple
s it s
complex:
annahArendt's
olocaust arra-
tive ontains most
isturbing essage,
ne
n
which
ational
nd uni-
versalist adical lements
mutually
einforceach other.
he
result
s
an
apparentlyynthetic
oncept
of Jewish
elf-understanding
om-
prised,
n the one
hand,
of
the
experience
f German
Jewry
nd
the
pat-
terns f Jewish
mancipation
n the
West,
withthe ndividual s citizen
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 6/15
Dan
Diner
181
of a
communitytanding
n
the
enter,nd,
n
the
ther,
f a
collective
understandingf Jewishxistence.he ssue, herefore,s that f a self-
definition,
hichHannahArendtmade her
own
certainly
uring
he
war and then ven more
mphatically
n
light
f theHolocaust. o be
sure,
hers s not
fully eveloped
ionist
nderstanding
f
the
Jewish
people,
but
t
is
still nfluenced
y
Zionism,
nd nformed
y
aspects
of
a
Jewish
onception
f self that
relyprincipally
pon
the
experi-
ences
fJews
n
central
nd astern
urope.
It
is
HannahArendt's
essimism
bove
all
which s to blamefor he
adoption
f a
specifically
astern
uropean
Jewish
elf-understanding
and national arrative,pessimismhat earsuponherreflectionsn
the
promises
f
universal,
nd
consequently
bstract,
uman
ights.3
Marked
y
the
xperience
f
persecution
ndthe
Holocaust,
rendt
ec-
onciles herselfwitha
Jewish
olitical
ubjectivityhrough
oncepts
influenced
y
Zionism. his
political hilosopher
ith
German-Jew-
ish
background
ccepts
he dea of the
existence f a
Jewish
ation,
and the
Jewish
ight
o a homeland.
pon
closer
examination,
er
important
peech, Right
to have
Rights,
ecomes a
universalist-
encodedmeditationpon heJewish ate.nthis espect, rendt an be
identifieds
a
Zionist
y
Reason
Vernunftszionistin],
play
on
the
phrase, Republican y
Reason
Vernunftsrepublikaner],
reated ur-
ing
the
Weimar
Republic.
ut
in
spite
f
all
acknowledgments
o the
Jewish
eople,
this
Zionism
by
reason
Vernunftszionismus]
elies
upon
abstract, niversalist,
nstitutional,
nd
therefore
epublican
al-
ues.
The
principles
f a
community
r
polity
hus
ppear,
which
re
based
upon
demos nd not
upon
ethnos.
f
one takes hebasis of Jew-
ish
self-conception
o be the distinctionetween emos and
ethnos,
thenHannahArendt aces erious ifficultiesndeed.
Difficultiesrise
hrough
hefact hat
he
western
oncept
f an
insti-
tutional,
epublican
olity
iffers
ignificantly
rom
hemore thnic elf-
image
of the
majority
f eastern
uropean
Jews.For east
European
Jews,
elf-perception
as
to
a
large
xtent
ationally
arked ue
to
a
homogenous,
ollective
memory.
fterhe
Holocaust,
he ast
European
Jewish
xperience
ecamethe
virtual
quivalent
f
an
obligatory
nd
homogenizingeneralist
ewish
arrative.
his s also the
point
f the
highly
ryptic essage
Gershom
cholem,
German-Jewish
onvert o
3.
See the
powerful
ubchapter
n
part
wo of
Elemente
nd
Urspriinge
otaler
Heerschaft,
Die
Aporien
er
Menschenrechte,
52f.
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 7/15
182
Hannah
Arendt
econsidered
Zionism,
elivered
henhe
charged
annah
Arendt,
n
a
public
etter,
with lack of Ahavatsrael,thats, loveofJewishness.4n so doing,
he
wished o
express
hat he
did
notfeel
obligated
o theJewish th-
nos,
an assertion
ith
which
Arendt
id
not
disagree.
n
her
reply
o
Scholem,
rendt
epeatedly
mphasized
er
oyalty
o the
value
of ndi-
vidual
ndependence
nd
ndividual
udgment
nd
rejected
ll collective
claims
hat elied
upon
ancestry.5
ears
before,
urt
Blumenfeld,
er
paternal
ionist
riend,
ad
already isputed
uchmatters ithher.
n
view of
her definitive
reatise
riticizing
ionism,
which
ppeared
n
the
Menorah ournal
n
1946,
Blumenfeld
ad
also made learhow
dis-
appointednd disillusionede was thatHannahArendt idnot share
his national
oyalties.
n
addition,
his
eading
epresentative
f German
Zionism
eproached
imself or
having
nfluenced
rendt,
ontrary
o
herown
nclinations,
n thedirectionf a national
ewish
osition
nd
away
from
assimilation,
s he and others
ike
him
disparagingly
termed
ndividual
mancipation.6
What,
hen,
re he ffects
f he arious
istorical
resumptions
fJew-
ish
emancipation
or
he
epresentation
f Hannah
rendt'srial
eport
n
thebanalityfevil?Whatnarrativef historicalmancipationndwhat
type
f narrative
tructure
re
brought
o
bearhere?How doesArendtell
the
history
ftheJewish
atastrophe?
hat s
her
tandpoint
ndwhat re
her
patterns
f
perception?
r,
expressed
ore
metaphorically,
hat
re
the
positions
ndmemorieshat
nform
annah rendt's
nterpretation
f
the
history
f
the
Holocaust?
rendt's otion f
banality,
hich
was
met
with uch
hysterical
utbreaks
ithinheJewish
ommunity,
eveals
per-
spective
hat omes
quite
lose
to
that
f
the
collective
erman
xperi-
ence. At first
glance,
this is a
highlyproblematic
laim. Some
methodologicalonsiderationsrenecessarynorderomaketplausible.
Proceeding
rom he
ssumption
hat istorical
xplanations,nterpre-
tations,
nd effortst
understanding
re not o be
regarded
s
objective
approaches
n
thescientificensebutshould ather e viewedwithout
exception
s a
biased
narrativetructure eant o
interpret
collective
memory,
his
ategory
f collective
memory
hen
olds
pistemological
4.
Scholem nd
Arendt,'Eichmann
n
Jerusalem'.
in
Briefwechsel
wischen
Gershom
cholem nd
Hannah
rendt,
ncounter
Jan. 964):
51-56.
5. Scholem ndArendt,5.
6. Kurt lumenfeldo
Martin
osenbliith,
etter
rom
7
Jan.
946,
m
Kampf
m
den
Zionismus,
riefe
us
finfJahrzehnten,
ds.
Miriam
ambursky
ndJochanan
inat,
(Stuttgart:
eutsche
erlags-Anstalt,
976)
197f.
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 8/15
Dan
Diner 183
meaning
or
historiography.
t
thereforeollows hat
history
nd mem-
ory re notcontrarynstancesfnarrated emory.History ecomes
a
methodologically
irected
onstruction,
hat
s,
an
arranged,
eflexive
expression
f
collective
memory.
When
onsidering
he
presentation
f the
National
ocialist
ra and
particularly
hemass nnihilation
onnected ith
t,
hehistorians
con-
fronted
ith
vexing henomenon.
n
German
memory,
he
xperiences
of this
ra andthe
ncriminating
vents ssociated
ith
t manifest
hem-
selves
differently.
o be
more
precise, hey
everberate
n
a
way
that
conflicts
ithJewish
memory.
he historical
eality
f the
period
n
questionbecomes - so it seems - a matter f dissimilar erception,
that
s,
the
respectiveositions
re oriented
n
opposite
irections.he
historian
ust
eep
n mind
uch
omplex
nd
objectively
ituated
eth-
ods
of
understanding
hen
econstructing
he vents
n
their
ntirety.
A
certain
henomenon
ecomes
highly
videntwhenone considers
the
perspective
f
the
perpetrators:
he
conception
f events
isperses
into
manifold
eparate rocesses.
his
can
plausibly
e attributed
o
the
practicalities
ssociated
with he
implementation
f
policies
of mass
extermination.f one disregardshemasskillingsmmediatelyarried
out
during
heHolocaust's
irst
hase,
hen hedestruction
f
European
Jewry
ecomes,
o
a
large
xtent,
heresult f
the
organized
nd
mper-
sonal
division
f
abor,
bureaucratic
nd ndustrial
rocedure.
ithout
a
doubt,
his
ype
f
massmurderntails
hat hose
ctively
nvolved
n
its
mplementation
ossess
consciousness
n
which
heoverall
icture
of
events
s well as
a
corresponding
wareness
f
specific
ndividual
guilt
become
disjointed
nd neutralized.
he awareness
f
personal
responsibility
nd
guilt
s
dissolvedwith
ll the
consequences
or
ater
prosecutionnd punishmentf thecrimes y criminalaw that his
implies.
urthermore,
he vents
ppear
o disconnected
hat he
ndivid-
ual
pieces
that
onstitute
he crime
n
its
totality
ecessarilyppear
banal.
This
phenomenon
f the
perpetrator
s alienated
rom hecrime
is whatHannah
Arendt
as
in
mindwhen he states
hat he horrors
and crimes
xecuted
y
theNazis were
beyond uilt,
hatNazi offenses
had lost their riminal
nd
penal significance.7
azi
actions
were
beyond
oth
he
alidity
nd he ffectivenessf
ustice ystems.8
7.
Hannah
Arendtnd
Karl
Jaspers,riefwechsel
Munich:
iper,
993)
90.
8. See Herbert
ager,
erbrechennter otalitarer
errschaft:
tudien
urnation-
alsozialistischen
ewaltkriminalitdt
Frankfurt/Main:
uhrkamp,967).
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 9/15
184
Hannah
Arendt
econsidered
All of this s as
convincing
s
it
s
simple.
However,
hese iewsdo
notcoincidewith heexperiencesf Nazi victims. n thecontrary,he
victims
f directmassacres such s those arried
ut
by special
om-
mando
nits as
well
s the ictimsf
dministrativend ndustrialill-
ing
experienced
he
process
f
dying
s
violent
nd
cruel,
s a
physically
experiencedeality
hat ries ut for tonement.
or
them,
vil
was not
themere esult f
an
administratively
tructured
ccumulation
f
banali-
ties,
ut
ather
psychologically
nd
physically
xperienced
onstrosity.
Both he
phenomena
f
an
implementation
hat
isperses
nto
anali-
ties
-
accompanied
s it is
by
a
seeminglyqually
rivial oss of an
awareness f
wrongdoing
n the
part
f the
perpetrators
and thevic-
tims'
experience
f the execution f these ctions
s monstrous
epre-
sent
conceptions
f
history
nd
consequently
ive
rise to
opposing
perspectives
n
the
presentation
f the Final
Solution.
he
overarch-
ing
conception
f
historyppears
o
have
disintegrated
nto
dualism
of
perceptions,
nto
banality
nd
monstrosity.
othtendencies
f
per-
ception,
nd thereforef
perspective,
re true nsofars
they
an each
refer
ack o
pure xperience.
TheestablishedraditionsonstitutinghehistoriographyftheHolo-
caust
reflect
his
ivalry
etween
unctionalistsnd ntentionalists.lti-
mately,
he one
emphasizes
he
depersonalized
ffects f
bureaucratic
mechanisms
nd the
consequent
nnulmentf individual
uilt
and
responsibility
hile heother uilds
upon
more r
less
ideologically
oriented
eadiness,
n a will to action
nd thus n a
thoroughly
uilty,
criminal ehavior. he
structuref these
opposing
historiographical
conceptions
ecomes
vident.
hey
follow
juridical
discourse. he
one
-
the functional
pleads
criminal
negligence,
while the
other
the ntentionalistpleadsguilty.
In his introduction
o the
new
edition f Hannah
Arendt's
eport
n
the
Eichmann
rial,
Hans Mommsen
levated he
discursive onstruct
banality
f
evil
to a
conceptual
rameworkor n
entire
irectionf
research.9 he
structural or as it
is also
called,
the functional
school,
Mommsen
ays,
n the nd
referso
the
understanding
f mass
extermination
hat
Arendt's
hrase
epresents.
ccording
o
him,
Han-
nah
Arendt's rial
eport
herefore
epresents
omething
f a
milestone
9. Mommsen's refaceo thenewGerman dition fArendt's ook s entitled,
Hannah
Arendt ndder
Prozef
egen
ichmann.
ee
Mommsen,
reface,
ichmannn
Jerusalem:
ein
Bericht
von der
Banalitdt
der
Bosen,
by
Hannah
Arendt
Munich:
Piper,
1986)
i-xxxvii.
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 10/15
Dan Diner
185
in
the
transition rom
perspective
hat
has
its
historical
bject
anchoredntherealm findividualesponsibilityndguilt o onethat
concentrates
n
depersonalized
tructures.
Without
oubt,
AdolfEichmann
as the
prototype
f a
functionary
of death.
His
ideological
onvictions
layed
subordinate
ole in his
actions.
His anti-Semitism
as also
based
only
o
a
limited
egree
n
inner onviction.
rendt
uccessfully
raws
deeply
onvincing or-
trait
f
Eichmann
as a social
engineer,
s a mere technician
f
deportation
or xtermination.
With
hischaracterization
f the
accused,
HannahArendt
trove o
undo the depiction hat sraeli chiefprosecutor ausnersought o
sketch
orJewish
istory.
ausner's
raming
f the
narrativef Jewish
history
ppeared
o Arendt
s
nothing
ut
propaganda,
ince
Hausner
adhered
o a nationalistic
nterpretation
f
history
hat he
rejected.
he
Eichmann
rial
was to make his
nterpretationbligatory
or
Jews,
ut
even
more o
for he sraeli
nation. hisnarrative
resented
ewish is-
tory
s
an unbrokeneries
of
suffering
nd
persecution,
nd
set
the
Holocaust
s its
negative
potheosis.
or
Hausner,
his
xplanation
f
thenegativeourse f Jewish istoryntil hemoment f
the founda-
tion
of the
state f Israel eemed
o
require
he
person
f
Adolf
Eich-
mann
s the mbodiment
f
evil.
HannahArendt elieved
hat
Hausner's
arrative
resented highly
distorted
iewof Jewish
istory,
ndshe therefore
ether wn
nterpre-
tation
gainst
t.
WhileArendt's arrative
s
fragmented,
t
s no less
a
pointed
nd
polemical
istorical
arrativehan
hat
ffered
y
Hausner,
her
dversary.
rendt ets
type
f radical niversalism
gainst
Haus-
ner's
nationalism,
ne whichdeviates
romhistorical
ealityust
as
much.AccordingoArendt'sersion, uschwitz ouldhavebeenpos-
sible
anywhere
ven
though
t
was
realized
nly
n
Germany.
he
ten-
dency
o contrast
ast
historical
eality
with universal
ossibility
t
the
expense
f the
past
underlies
annahArendt's
eemingly
nlight-
ened
argument.
his
tendency,
hichdemands
hat he evidence
f
a
past
reality
e
repeatedly
econstructed,
ecessarily
urts he
feelings
of
the
victims. onsidered
n
this
ight,
ne can
reach hehistorical
on-
clusion
hatArendt's
ine
of
argumentation
as more
n
common
with
justifying
he
perspective
f the
perpetrators
han
t
does with he
view-
point,markedy uffering,f he ictims.
The abovereferenceo
Arendt's
hoice
f
perspective
hould ot
give
the
mpression
hat he
presentssay
dheres
o the ld front
ines f the
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 11/15
186
Hannah Arendt
econsidered
Eichmann
ontroversy
n
order o
support pponents
f
the
philosopher.
This is by no means the case. Rather, hese reflectionsre intended o
historicize,
rom n
appropriate
istance,
his
significant,
ven founda-
tional
documentof a
public coming-to-terms
ith the
mass crimes of
National Socialism
against
the
European
Jews.
Especially today,
uch a
historicization
f the
polemical
nterventionichmann
n Jerusalem
has
much
to
offer,
nd not
only
because of
the advanced state
of current
Holocaust
research.The
present ssay attempts
o
contributeo the cur-
rent nd
increasing
eadinessof the
discipline
o
investigate
istory
n
the basis of its
underlying
arratives,
arratives
hat
resent conception
of
history
nformed
y
thehistorian'snclinationsnd biases.
If all the above is
applied
to
an
examination f Hannah
Arendt's
polemical
treatise,
then the
following picture
arises. Arendt's trial
report
on the
banality
of evil is
the
result of an unusual
intellectual
stance
n
the
period
after
he Holocaust.
Having emerged
from he rich
soil
of the
values of the German-Jewish
mancipation xperience,
Han-
nah
Arendt's
position
is
torn
by
inner conflicts
between,
on the one
hand,
the demands
for a reconciliation
bearing
the distinct raits f
Vernunftszionismus with a completelynew reality,and, on the
other,
he
high
standards f an
idealistic, verdrawn,
nd
strangely og-
matic
Jewish niversalism.
Beyond
the conflict f these two world views
and
self-conceptions
which can be rendered
ompatible nly
with
great difficulty
the
following
s
made
evident
by
further
extual
nalysis.
Two
idiosyncratic
conditions
hat are situated
elatively ndependent
f one
another ein-
force each other
n
the work of
Arendt;
hey
are
pre-rational
nd are
consistentwith her
unusual
stance
regarding
Jews and the
Holocaust.
One element is her German-Jewishackground nd its concomitant
story
of
emancipation.
onnectedto this s her instinctive
ejection
of
the east
European
Jewish
experience
nd its
narrative,
s well
as the
rash
acceptance
withwhich Arendt
dopted
the
differently
ituated nd
idiosyncratic
tances
of
persons
who were
close to her and who
had a
different
tory
o tell based on their
ackgrounds
nd
memories.
Arendt
seemed
hardly
apable
of
extricating
erself rom his
ttraction.l0
10.
Ernest
Gellner
iscusses his
problematic
n
his review f
Elisabeth
oung-
Bruehl's biography fArendt,Hannah Arendt:For the Love ofthe World New Haven
and London: ale
UP,
1982).
See
Gellner,
From
Kbnigsberg
o
Manhattan
or
Hannah,
Rahel,
Martinnd
Elfriede
r
ThyNeighbor's
emeinschaft),
ulture,
dentity,
ndPol-
itics
New
York:
Cambridge
P,
1987)
75-90.
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 12/15
Dan Diner
187
This
ast
argument
n
particular
ust
e conducted ith
tmost au-
tion,to a great xtent ecause the scandalous epiction f Hannah
Arendt's
elationship
o Martin
eidegger
as
ead to
readings
hat
may
serve
nappropriaterguments
ased
upon
the
claim of an
intellectual
elective
ffinity.
hat s to
say,allegations
ased on
Hannah
Arendt's
love-life ill not
be
pursued
ere.
All
the
more eason o
point
o the
circumstances
f Hannah
Arendt,
who,
given
her
background,
er
highly
nusual
history,
nd the
complex onception
f
self
necessarily
tied to
this
history,
as been made intoa
representative
f various
views nd
opinions
hat annot
nequivocally
e calledher
wn.
Itmay trike ne as overlyrgumentativer evenhair-splitting,ut
in
some
places
traces of
an
outside nfluence n Hannah
Arendt
become
noticeable hat
may
havecontributedomewhato
the
develop-
ment
f
the
banality
f evil thesis. or
nstance,
arl
Jaspers egins
letter ated 13 December
963,
by remarking
hat New York friend
of the
Bliichers
ad
told
him that he term
anality
f
evil
could be
traced ack to
her
husband, einrich,
ho was
consumed
with
elf-
reproach
ecause
his wifenow had
to
face the
consequences
or
he
finemesshehadgottenernto.11
The
extent
f
Bliicher's
nfluencen
HannahArendt
hould
notbe
underestimated
nd
certainly
equires
urtheresearch.
vidence
f his
intellectual
nd
personal
nfluences
striking
n
Arendt's
ork.This s
especially
rue
wherenarrativetructurend
interpretive
ontent
evi-
ate
significantly
rom heusual Arendtian
anner
f
presentation,
hat
is,
where bvious
ystematic
reaks ccur.
The
most
ogent
nd,
n terms
f the
ystematicity
f
her
work,
he
most
consequential
nfluence
f
Arendt's
usband,
einrich
Blticher,
can be seen in the third artof Elements nd Originsof Totalitarian-
ism.
HannahArendt
erself as commentedn how much
he owes
to
discussions
withher
husband
pecifically
n this
portion
f the
book.
This nfluence
annot,
owever,
e understood
n thebasis of conversa-
tions
nly.
Rather,
he
mpact
f Heinrich
liicher's
iography
nd his
political xperience
each
deeply
nto
he work's structurend
influ-
enceArendt's
undamental
tatements
n
the
heme
f
totalitarianule.
WhereasHannah
Arendt
howed n
understanding
f
thebasic
dif-
ference etween
oncentrationnd death
amps
n her
ground-breaking
11.
Jaspers
ontinues:
I
think
t
n
excellent
dea,
nd
hits
he
mark
s a
book itle.
For his
ype
f
evil
s
banal,
ot vil tself.
ee Arendtnd
Jaspers,
riefwivechsel
78.
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 13/15
188 Hannah Arendt econsidered
and
independently
uthored
ssay,
Social
Science
Techniques
nd the
Study f Concentrationamps, 12he blurred hisdistinctiono the
point
f
a
systematic
ack
of
differentiation
n
Elements.
Whateverhe
discussions
n
questions
f
National
ocialism nd Stalinism n
the
Bliichers'
ome
may
have
been,
he
renegade
tance hat
lticher,
s a
German
x-Communist,
eld to
in
all
likelihoodwas
very
different
from he
one
generally
aken
y
a German ew
uch s Arendt ith n
ideological
utlook
hat
was
agnostic
t
best
and who
came
from
social
democratically
nclined
amily ackground.
or if one
follows
the
outline f thethird ection f
Elements,
t
becomes
pparent
ow
theconceptualizationnd systematizationf similaritiesetween he
phenomena
f
Nazism nd
Stalinism
dhere o
a
real
type
articularly
well
suited o thecharacteristicsf
Stalinism.
owever,
ts
applicabil-
ity
s
equally
imited
ith
espect
o
both orms f rule.The Nazi real-
ity
for ethnicGermans
was,
for
nstance,
ar ess
of a
totalitarian
structure
hanStalinism as
for
Soviet itizens. n theother
and,
significantualitative
ifferencexists
n
theNazis' nakedmurder f
persons
is
vis
the
oviet
ystem
f
amps.
Tracesof the nfluencere,at anyrate, pparentnArendt's ich-
mann ook.Even
BlUcher's tance
oward
ews
ua
Jews
was notfree
of resentment.annah
Arendt,
ho
was
quite
reticent hen
t
came to
her
husband's
emarksn her
origins,
mentionedo
Jaspers
n
a
letter,
full
f
respect
nd
disguisedrony,
hat
Blticher's
opinion
f
theJew-
ish
people
s
not
lways
he
way
onewould
wish
t
o
be. 13
Karl
Jasper's
nfluence
n
HannahArendt's
tance
n
her
rial
eport
on
the
banality
f
evil is
also
palpable.
More than
few of
Arendt's
explanations
nd
nterpretations
f
ustice
nd moral
rinciples
is
a
vis
themasscrimes fNational ocialism an be traced ack to cautious
indications
y
her
teacher,
aspers.
ccording
o the
correspondence,
t
was
Karl
Jaspers
who
repeatedlyepresented
he
opinion
against
Arendt's
rgumentatively
elaying
esistance that
while srael
may
hold
Eichmann
n
custody,
court f
ustice
would
finally
ubordinate
theconcern
verEichmanno a
concern ith
he
urisdiction
f
human
rights.
or,
ccording
o
Jaspers,
n
the
nd
Eichmann id
what
he did
not
against
he
Jews,
butrather
gainst
he
essence
f
humanity.
n
Israeli xecution f Eichmann ould
practically
rivialize
ichmann's
12.
Jewish ocial Studies
12
Jan.
950):
49-65.
13.
Arendtnd
Jaspers,riefivechsel
47.
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 14/15
Dan Diner 189
actions
in
theminds
fthe
eople
ndwould ot
llow hem o
be
prop-
erly nderstood.14s for he diosyncraticnner-Jewishnimositiesnthe
part
f
Hannah
Arendt,
aspers
isplayed
o inhibitions
n
allowing
im-
self o
be
swept
longby
them.
WhenArendt
xpressed
o
Jaspers
er
highpraise
for he
German-born
udges
on
the
one
hand,
nd her
own
resentful
istaste
or east
European
Jewson
the
other
these
chiefly
directed
gainst
sraeli hief
rosecutor
ideon
Hausner,
homArendt
labeled
typical
alician
Jew,
robably
one of thosewho does not
speak
ny anguages.
he
closing
rgument
as
artificial,
yperlegalistic
with
crude
mistakes, isrupted y emotions 15),aspers esponded
promptly:
Oppressive.
opefully
he hree erman ews ill
win. 16
These
and a number
f other
emarks
n
culturallypecific diosyn-
crasies
nd resentments
o not
n
the east essen
he ntellectual
ual-
ity,
the
sagacity,
nd
the
impressive
udgment
f
Hannah
Arendt.
Nevertheless,
t s
disturbing
nd
to
someextent
pportunistic
hen,
n
her
etters
ommenting
n
the
Jewish nd Israeli tate f
affairs,
he
takes
on a
critical
anguage
hat
s
clearly atterned
fter
he
post-
National
ocialist
German
iscourse.
hus,
n
her ntention
o
explain
whyher heses nEichmannnd theconductf Jews n theHolocaust
unleashed
uch a furor
n
theJewish
ublic,
Arendt
tates
hat
very-
where and above
all
in
Israel,
ormer ewish ouncilors
Judenritler]
[occupied]
high
nd
top-level ositions. 17
he fact
hat
he decisions
made
by
Israeli
udges
regarding
astner uited erviews
may
till
be
understandable.ith
emarks
f
the
kind
hat
mplied
en Gurion id-
napped
Eichmann
nly
because
the
reparationsayments
o
Israel
were
nding
nd
one wished
o
exert
enewed
ressure
n
Germany
or
continued
ayments, 18
rendt
choed sentiments
n
Germany
hat
couldonlywith reat ifficultye reconciled ith hebiographyf the
author
f
he
Aporia
fHuman
ights.
Hannah
Arendt's
eport
n
the
Eichmannrial
s
an
important
ocu-
ment
f
Jewishelf-reflection
pon
Auschwitz.
n
addition,
t
s
a
docu-
ment
of
deep
ambivalence.
hrough
n
analysis
of
the
person
nd
function
f Eichmann
n
the destructionf
German
Jewry,
n
entire
cosmos
of
Jewish
elf-conception
pensup
-
a
conception
hat s
torn
14.
Arendtnd
Jaspers,riefwechsel
57f.
15. ArendtndJaspers,riefwiechsel72.
16. Arendtnd
Jaspers,riefwechsel
73.
17.
Arendtnd
Jaspers,
riefwechsel
46.
18. Arendtnd
Jaspers,riefwechsel
21
.
This content downloaded from 193.205.136.30 on Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:44:45 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Critiche Arendt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/critiche-arendt 15/15
190 Hannah Arendt econsidered
between
radical
niversalist,
umanisticorizon n the
one
hand,
nd
particularistesistances n theother, othofwhich re validated s
well as
intensified
y
the
catastrophe.
he
questions
elated o these
issues
keep recurring:
id
theJewsbecomevictims f
the
Nazis
qua
Jews
or
qua
human
beings?
Were the crimes f mass
annihilation
crimes
gainst
he Jewish
eople
or were
they
xecuted
s
crimes
against
umankind
s
such?
Was the
xistentialifference
etween
er-
petrators
nd victims o blurred
y
Nazi
deeds that
he
current oral
and
criminological
ines
fdemarcationosetheir
alidity?
When
onfronted
ith
tatementshat ookher
universalism
iterally
and n so doing elied pon literalnterpretationfher rial
eport
n
Eichmann,
rendt
withdrew
s if
by
reflex
o
the
argumentum
d
nationem,
hat
s,
to
a
position
ased on the
particularist
etermination
of
narratives.his withdrawal
s
documented
n
her 1964
correspon-
dence
with
Hans
Magnus Enzensberger.
hen
Enzensberger's
ook
Politics
and Crime
ppeared,
e
wanted
he revered
hilosopher
o
review
t within he
pages
of the
Merkur.
annah
Arendt
eclined
o
do
so. The
ensuing
orrespondence
etween he
wo
regarding
rendt's
refusal as then ublishednthatournal.
Hannah
Arendthad taken
particular
ffense
t
one of Enzens-
berger's
entences,
hich
would,
n
turn,
ecome haracteristicor n
entire
eneration's
ttitude
oward heNational ocialist
ast:
Fascism
is not erribleecause he
Germans
racticed
t,
butbecause
t
s
possi-
ble
everywhere.
n
reply,
rendt rote
o
Enzensberger:
If
everyone
is
guilty,
hen
o
one
is
guilty.
he
particular
s
again
ost n the
disor-
der
of the
general.
his s
far
more
roblematic
hen
tated
y
a
Ger-
man.For
then t means:
not
our
parents
utrather
umanity
aused his
catastrophe.his ssimplyot rue. 19
Translated
by
Rita
Bashaw
19.
Correspondence
etweenHannah
Arendt nd Hans
Magnus Enzensberger,
Merkur
Apr.
1965):
80-85.
Recommended