4 The thesis of the banality of evil is based on a series of observations by Hannah Arendt during her coverage of the April 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, the man in charge of the deportation of Jews to the Third Reich death camps, for the New Yorker. So what should we conclude about Arendt’s claim that Eichmann (as well as other Germans) did evil without being evil? All Rights Reserved. By taking a narrow legalistic, formalistic approach to the trial – she emphasised that there were no deeper issues at stake beyond the legal facts of Eichmann’s guilt or innocence – Arendt automatically set herself up for failure as to the deeper why of Eichmann’s evil. We cannot guarantee that the personal information you supply will not be intercepted while transmitted to us or our marketing automation service Mailchimp. The controversy continues to the present day. Lacking this particular cognitive ability, he ‘commit[ted] crimes under circumstances that made it well-nigh impossible for him to know or to feel that he [was] doing wrong’. © 1981 Society for History Education Hannah Arendt is newly popular – her 1951 book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, has been flying off the shelves. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. This only underscores the banality – and falsity – of the banality-of-evil thesis. insightful professional analyses of traditional and innovative teaching techniques. Photo by Michael Siluk/UIG/Getty, After losing his sight, a skateboarder takes an unexpected path to realising his dreams, Algorithms associating appearance and criminality have a dark past, Algorithms are sensitive. The question is a puzzle because Arendt missed an opportunity to investigate the larger meaning of Eichmann’s particular evil by not expanding her study of him into a broader study of evil’s nature. No physical or electronic security system is impenetrable however and you should take your own precautions to protect the security of any personally identifiable information you transmit. This work marks a shift in her concerns from the nature of political action, to a concern with the faculties that underpin it – the interrelated activities of thinking and judging. (18) Banal does not presuppose that the evil has a commonplace in everyone. Arendt coined the term 'banality of evil' from her observation of Eichmann during his trial, and her realisation that, far from being evil, with a unique kind of intelligence, in fact he was in her view quite stupid and unthinking. And though Arendt never said that Eichmann was just an innocent ‘cog’ in the Nazi bureaucracy, nor defended Eichmann as ‘just following orders’ – both common misunderstandings of her findings on Eichmann – her critics, including Wolfe and Lipstadt, remain unsatisfied. If playback doesn't begin shortly, try restarting your device.  Her thesis is that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths , but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal . To access this article, please, Access everything in the JPASS collection, Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep, Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep. The Banality of Evil : Hannah Arendt On How To See Evil And Survive It In 1961, The New Yorker commissioned Arendt to report on the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem Hannah Arendt (October 14, 1906–December 4, 1975) understood that evil does not announce itself with fanfare and a … In this way, Arendt successfully avoids undermining the evil action performed in the Holocaust. The History Teacher is the most widely recognized journal in the United States devoted to more effective teaching of history in pre-collegiate schools, community colleges and universities. This was the puzzling question that the philosopher Hannah Arendt grappled with when she reported for The New Yorker in 1961 on the war crimes trial of Adolph Eichmann, the Nazi operative responsible for organising the transportation of millions of Jews and others to various concentration camps in support of the Nazi’s Final Solution. When Hannah Arendt wrote about the concept that she called “the banality of evil,” she was referring to people who are engaged in evil but who actually believe that are engaged in good. Arendt’s major focus in her book Eichmann of Jerusalem revolves around a famous concept of hers, the “banality of evil”. Arendt wrote works on intellectual history as a philosopher, using events and actions to develop insights into contemporary totalitarian movements and the threat to human freedom presented by scientific abstraction and bourgeois morality. Published in association with We will use the email address you provide to send you daily and/or weekly emails (depending on your selection). You may request a copy of the personal information we hold about you by submitting a written request to email@example.com We may only implement requests with respect to the personal information associated with the particular email address you use to send us the request. Standing up to evil’s banality. (Whereas Eichmann held a series of conven-tional jobs in Argentina-managing a farm, working for a citrus business and at an automobile plant, Josef Mengele, the mephitic doc-tor at Auschwitz, is reportedly alive in Paraguay, actively engaged in This wasn’t Arendt’s first, somewhat superficial impression of Eichmann. Access supplemental materials and multimedia. For Arendt’s critics, this focus on Eichmann’s insignificant, banal life seemed to be an ‘absurd digression’ from his evil deeds. There was no particular intention or obvious evil motive: the deed just ‘happened’. Intellectually, she was an independent thinker, a loner not a "joiner", separating herself from schools of thought or ideology. Yet in her writings before Eichmann in Jerusalem, she actually took an opposite position. Arendt rejecting the “scapegoat theory” which held that the Gentiles-always-hated-the-Jews-for-no-good-reason hence the holocaust was some inevitable end-point in history. Courtesy the Wellcome Collection, Fiddlesticks Country Club, a gated community in Fort Meyers, Florida. Arendt was a thinker, but her thinking was different which led her to become the face of huge controversy not only in the local community, but among her own people. Be the first one to write a review. “Under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not…. Become a Friend of Aeon to save articles and enjoy other exclusive benefits, Aeon email newsletters are issued by the not-for-profit, registered charity Aeon Media Group Ltd (Australian Business Number 80 612 076 614). The email address/es you provide will be transferred to our external marketing automation service ‘MailChimp’ for processing in accordance with their. Go to Table There were no purely good innocents nor and purely evil … Eichmann was not an amoral monster, she concluded in her study of the case, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). But what did … of Contents. The History Teacher We will try and respond to your request as soon as reasonably practical. He acted without any motive other than to diligently advance his career in the Nazi bureaucracy. Mary McCarthy, a novelist and good friend of Arendt, voiced sheer incomprehension: ‘[I]t seems to me that what you are saying is that Eichmann lacks an inherent human quality: the capacity for thought, consciousness – conscience. Arendt never did reconcile her impressions of Eichmann’s bureaucratic banality with her earlier searing awareness of the evil, inhuman acts of the Third Reich. We have taken reasonable measures to protect information about you from loss, theft, misuse or unauthorised access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions What is the 'metaphysical' question that Arendt is trying to answer with the phrase 'banality of evil'. This Email Newsletter Privacy Statement may change from time to time and was last revised 18 May, 2020. To Arendt’s critics, it seemed absolutely inexplicable that Eichmann could have played a key role in the Nazi genocide yet have no evil intentions. Other recent critics have documented Arendt’s historical errors, which led her to miss a deeper evil in Eichmann, when she claimed that his evil was ‘thought-defying’, as Arendt wrote to the philosopher Karl Jaspers three years after the trial. Drawing on audiotapes of interviews with Eichmann by the Nazi journalist William Sassen, Stangneth shows Eichmann as a self-avowed, aggressive Nazi ideologue strongly committed to Nazi beliefs, who showed no remorse or guilt for his role in the Final Solution – a radically evil Third Reich operative living inside the deceptively normal shell of a bland bureaucrat. Instead, her attention to the ubiquity of evil forces readers to confront their own capacity for evil and trains them to recognize flickers of it in others, before it’s too late. Rightly understood these experiments allow us to make sense of Arendt's phrase "the banality of evil" without concluding, as Wolin does, that this commits us to regarding the Holocaust itself as banal. It proves, Lipstadt asserts in The Eichmann Trial (2011), that Arendt’s use of the term ‘banal’ was flawed: Lipstadt further argues that Arendt failed to explain why Eichmann and his associates would have attempted to destroy evidence of their war crimes, if he was indeed unaware of his wrongdoing. Hannah Arendt and the Banality of Evil. Arendt, in studying Adolph Eichmann, after covering his trial in Israel, wrote a book on him and coined the term, “banality of evil.” She broke new ground in the study of the evil mind by arguing that, contrary to popular understanding, evil does not only reside in those who crave power and spend their lives hurting people to get it. Arendt did not mean that banality is itself evil, nor did she assert that evil is always banal. depiction of the File-clerk’ ordinariness the atrocities committed in the Nazi of Eichmann was unacceptable to those A Defence of the Banality of Evil as a Call regime. But then isn’t he a monster simply?’. Arendt concluded that the banality of evil results from the failure of human beings to fully experience our common human characteristics_thought, will, and judgment_and that the exercise and expression of these attributes is the only chance we have to prevent a recurrence of the kind of terrible evil … Eichmann ‘never realised what he was doing’ due to an ‘inability… to think from the standpoint of somebody else’. No more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation.”. This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Many of you may have heard of the term ‘The Banality of Evil’ - in passing, or perhaps mentioned in a book somewhere. Hannah Arendt coined the term “banality of evil” while covering the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official charged with the orderly extermination of Europe’s Jews.Arendt herself was a German-Jewish exile struggling in the most personal of ways to come to grips with the utter destruction of European society. Her view on evil’s banality suggests its antidote begins in active thinking. But this view changed when Arendt met Eichmann, whose bureaucratic emptiness suggested no such diabolical profundity, but only prosaic careerism and the ‘inability to think’. What is the basic confusion behind it? Photo by Ralph Crane/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty, Physiognomies of Russian criminals from The Delinquent Woman (1893) by Cesare Lombroso. https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-the-banality-of-evil The Society for History Education, Inc., an affiliate of the American Historical Instead, he performed evil deeds without evil intentions, a fact connected to his ‘thoughtlessness’, a disengagement from the reality of his evil acts. Wolfe argued that Arendt concentrated too much on who Eichmann was, rather than what Eichmann did. Reply. But this we shall never know. Episode #136 ... Hannah Arendt - The Banality of Evil. Arendt dubbed these collective characteristics of Eichmann ‘the banality of evil’: he was not inherently evil, but merely shallow and clueless, a ‘joiner’, in the words of one contemporary interpreter of Arendt’s thesis: he was a man who drifted into the Nazi Party, in search of purpose and direction, not out of deep ideological belief. The controversial journalistic analysis of the mentality that fostered the Holocaust, from the author of The Origins of Totalitarianism Sparking a flurry of heated debate, Hannah Arendt’s authoritative and stunning report on the trial of German Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann first appeared as a series of articles in The New Yorker in 1963. Adolf Eichmann at his 1961 trial. Published By: Society for History Education, Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. By declaring in her pre-Eichmann trial writings that absolute evil, exemplified by the Nazis, was driven by an audacious, monstrous intention to abolish humanity itself, Arendt was echoing the spirit of philosophers such as F W J Schelling and Plato, who did not shy away from investigating the deeper, more demonic aspects of evil. 287 Views . In addition to her major texts she published a number of anthologies, including Between Past and Future(1961), Men in Dark Times (1968) and Crises … They aren’t evil people, Arendt said, just good people who are unwittingly engaged in evil. comment. is a Wiley Journal contributing author, whose philosophical and theological writings have appeared in print and online. In the final analysis, Arendt did see the true horror of Eichmann’s evil. Arendt’s notion of the banality of evil encapsulates ideology and obedience alike, alongside a large range of patterns of behavior, propaganda, clichés, stereotypes, automatic psychological feelings (such as self-victimization) and everything that facilitates the normalization of evil. The essay Arendt published about Eichmann had the title “The Banality of Evil,” which summarizes her view that “Evil” is nothing we should be “afraid” of, since it does not exist prior or outside of human existence or moral evaluations, which makes it banal at last. Arendt is trying to establish whether our 'capacity for conscience' is 'connected to our faculty of thought' - not whether 'thoughtless' men are capable of committing truly evil actions (which she would not deny). ABBYY GZ … Check out using a credit card or bank account with. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, she argued that the evil of the Nazis was absolute and inhuman, not shallow and incomprehensible, the metaphorical embodiment of hell itself: ‘[T]he reality of concentration camps resembles nothing so much as medieval pictures of Hell.’. Moreover, Arendt died in 1975: perhaps if she had lived longer she could have clarified the puzzles surrounding the banality-of-evil thesis, which still confound critics to this day. We also send occasional donation requests and, no more than once a year, reader surveys. Though Eichmann’s motives were, for her, obscure and thought-defying, his genocidal acts were not. Arendt found Eichmann an ordinary, rather bland, bureaucrat, who in her words, was ‘neither perverted nor sadistic’, but ‘terrifyingly normal’. 5 Favorites . Achetez neuf ou d'occasion Amazon.fr - Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil - Arendt, Hannah - Livres By being sensitive to different viewpoints and scrutinizing everything we might otherwise adopt or … In Arendt’s telling, Eichmann reminds us of the protagonist in Albert Camus’s novel The Stranger (1942), who randomly and casually kills a man, but then afterwards feels no remorse. Select the purchase Eichmann faced 15 charges for war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people, and crimes against humanity, and the … Thus we are left with her original thesis as it stands.