critiche arendt

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 [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/488563?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/488563?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngc



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







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.









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









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









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.









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.









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).









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.









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









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.









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.









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.









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

.









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.

critiche arendt

Documents