Arendt-Theory of Totalitarianism Essay

Hannah Arendt is widely regarded as hotshot of the nigh important, unique and influential judgments of political philosophy in the twentieth century. Arendt was greatly influenced by her mentor and hotshot time lover, Martin Heidegger, whose phenomeno coherent method would wait on to greatly shape and frame Arendts consume persuasion. Like Heidegger, Arendt was nescient of the metaphysical tradition which tended towards abstr fiddle impressionual reasoning ultimately at odds with the reality of valet de chambre lived experience.Consequently, Arendt was highly dubious of being referred to as a philosopher, as she felt philosophy was, by its own heart and soul, confine to the proverbial ivory tower. She believed political life was at the apex of gentles experience and so she identified as a political thinker/actor. Her emphasis on the phenomenological systemal character of the lived political experience permeates her lifes works and perhaps tramp be said to constitute he r own distinct brand of political philosophy.Arendts early publication, Ideology & timidity A Novel engineer of Government, is a profound elucidation of the constitution of the on that pointtofore curious (she argues) phenomenon of despotism and its origins elements and functioning A Novel Form of Government Arendt posited that the undemocratic pull ins of organisation and domination (Arendt. 03) which characterised the Nationalist Socialist companionship in Germany and Stalins oppressive regime in Soviet Russia, which cut systematic genocide and terror visited upon literally millions of innocent race, were unprecedented in the history of political systems, and were non mere modern manifestations of ancient forms of baseless government such as despotism or tyranny. She went further even, to apprise that undemocratic systems had drop offed the very foundations upon which traditional ideas and presuppositions of government rested.Although undemocraticism seemed to barricade elements of tyrannical or despotic forms of government i. e. terror, violence, absolute causality etc Arendt contended that totalitarian regimes differed in important ways which rendered them qualitatively distinct. Tyranny and dictatorships, she argues ar tag by Arbitrary power, unrestricted by justness, yielded in the interest of the pattern and hostile to the interests of the governed, on one hand, fear as the article of faith of action, namely fear of the people by the approach patternr and fear of the ruler by the eople (Arendt. 306) scare, according to Arendt, has traditionally been used as a means to an end, or tool for tyrannical regimes, namely the end of maintaining and sustaining a position of power over its subjects. undemocratic systems however, do not function in this way, ideologicly at least, According to Arendt. total terror leaves no arbitrary jurisprudencelessness behind it and does not rage for the sake of some arbitrary provide or for the s ake of despotic power of one man against all. (Arendt. 311) scope and ContentIn order to understand the nature (if there is one) of undemocraticism forms of government, it is important first to understand both their historical contexts and the Ideologies which underpin them, as agreeitarian regimes, are by their nature ideological, as Arendt shows. Take for lesson National Socialism, the political ideology which took root in Germany during the 1930s, characterised by martial nationalism and overtly inherent racism. The context in which the Nazi party rose to prominence was the extreme devastation, debt and resulting poverty and hunger left in Germany in the wake of the First World War.It can indeed be argued that Adolph Hitlers demagoguery and flair for rousing public sympathy with his penetrating speeches, was withal crucial to the widespread proliferation, acceptance and support for Nazi ideology, at a time when people yearned for a clear solution to their subscribe and p overty. Hitlers bellicose rhetoric displayed a typical trait of ideologies a final solution, the idea that the answer to all of lifes problems can be understood and solved by following a special(a) stringent row of action restrictd by a one unambiguous worldview. Ideologies-isms, which to the satisfaction of their adherents can explain everything and every occurrence by deducing it from a single premise (Arendt. 315) Nazi Ideology had at its core, a politically and indeed racially motivated perversion of the Darwinian concept of a natural hierarchy of species, in which the stronger/more successful species would postulates replace the weaker ones.Darwins profound insight into the ways in which organisms spring up was warped and misrepresented by the Nazis, who filtered it through their racist and nationalist worldview, freeing the experimental extinction of Jews and other supposed degenerate races by claiming they were following and indeed implementing a even upeousness o f spirit. In Darwin, Arendt explains, the Nazi party had found what they saw as an unbending cancel Law, the very arising from which positivistic (manmade) laws had been traditionally derived. further from being lawless, it goes to the sources of authority from which positive laws received their ultimate legitimation (Arendt. 307) Arendt argues that this Law of character was taken to be a suprahuman edict which was used justify their campaign of terror and genocide, and furthermore usurp any positive laws which were counter- productive to their cause. Nature itself mandated the extermination of lesser degenerate races according to Nazi ideology. And so the carrying turn out and indeed hastening of the process of this Natural decree was the end which the Totalitarian regimes whirlpool to effect.In fact, Totalitarian ideology sought for the factual social avatar of these supposed Laws of history and nature, and asserted that by the strict implantation and of these laws, a uto pia on Earth would be realised. the Law of Nature or the law of tale, if properly executed, is expected to produce mankind as its end product (Arendt. 307) Arendt is highly critical of this cerebration which she describes as particular to Totalitarian government. sensation of the or so obvious critiques which she makes is the nail down disregard in this line of thinking for basic anthropological concerns i. e. ow humans actually tend to be lease and function.It applies the law directly to mankind without bothering with the behaviour of men Totalitarian policy claims to change the human species into an active unfailing carrier of a law to which human beings otherwise would merely passively and reluctantly be subjected (Arendt. 307) holy terror as the midpoint of Totalitarian rule Built into the notion of executing the Laws of nature and history is an inherent eschewing of the legitimacy, importance and even relevance of manmade or positive laws, which are intended to govern and ease the functioning of societies in which people participate.The self-denial of positive laws and their replacement with the bringing into effect, a Law of Nature or indeed a Law of History as per Totalitarian ideology, is, Arendt argues largely what separates Totalitarian regimes from despotism and tyranny. Because they drew their justification from the very source of all positive laws i. e. Natural law, Totalitarian regimes were able to substantiate this denial of the legitimacy of positive laws by claiming that in aiming to produce the perfect rule of Natural Law on earth, that mankind itself would become the very chassis of the law (Arendt. 08) By claiming to actualise and bring into effect fundamental laws which determine the inevitable course of history by establishing the perfect rule of Natural law on earth through use of terror, Totalitarian regimes taint at the same time traditional notions of government and likewise notions of the utility program of terror.Terro r was no longer merely an arbitrary tool of oppression, (although it was of course the methodology with which the terrible ideology of Totalitarianism was realised) Terror was itself the embodied form which submission to the supposed Law of Nature took, or as Arendt puts it Terror as the execution of a law of movement Arendt. 311) Terror was in fact now the end goal itself as such Terror is indeed Totalitarianisms meat. Arendt uses a good analogy to illustrate this point. the absence of crimes in any society does not render laws redundant just, on the contrary, signifies their most perfect rule-so terror in totalitarian government has ceased to be a mere means for the suppression of competition, though it is also used for such purposes. Terror becomes total when it becomes independent of all opposition it rules supreme when nobody any longer stands in its way.If lawfulness is the essence of non-tyrannical government and lawlessness is the essence of tyranny, then terror is the essence totalitarian domination Dangerous Ideology What made national socialism and Stalinism so dangerous, according to Arendt, were not merely the ideas which characterised their respective ideologies i. e. racism and dialectical materialism, but the logic which one could arguably follow from these types of thinking. If Ideologies are the logic of ideas, (which they are ) then it is the seemingly logical implications of these ideas, which made them dangerous.To put it simply, if one concludes that there are suprahuman forces which determine the very course of history, as espoused by Nazism and Stalinism, then one must be bound to follow the logical steps which lead from this idea. Whoever agreed that there are such things as dying classes and did not draw the consequence of cleanup their members, or that the right to live had something to do with race and did not draw the consequence of killing unfit races, was plainly either stupid or a coward. (Arendt. 318)The dangers of cargo to the logic of ideas bviously are determined by the extremity of the ideas themselves, however as Arendt rightly points out, it is this ice cold reasoning which both Hitler and Stalin were very fond of which gave their ideologies a trajectory of power and an pseudo-scientific guise which legitimated them. Rather than a principle of action aimed at some common good or societal benefit such as the prevention of crime, this logicality of ideological thinking (Arendt. 321) is what makes Totalitarian government tick. Isolation, The Phenomenology of Terror As we have seen, terror is the essence of Totalitarianism.But it is important to realise exactly what this means for the experiencing subject of Totalitarian rule. Terror, Arendt explains, destroys the ability to engage in any public life. Isolation is the most salient feature of terror. Terror wrought isolation has been used throughout the centuries by tyrannical rulers to inhibit political agency and thus destroy the possibility of revolt terror can rule absolutely only over men who are isolated against each other and that, therefore, one of the primary concerns of all tyrannical government is to bring isolation aroundIsolation and impotence, that is the fundamental inability to act at all, have ever been characteristic of tyrannies. (Arendt. 321-322) The final way in which Totalitarian governments differ from those regimes of tyranny, which have also employed terror as a tactic, is for Arendt, the destruction by terror of the private sphere of human life. Total terror, as it were, is not content with merely destroying the public life of people and their ability to interact. Total terror permeates the mind and destroys the faculties of creativity and mental autonomy.Totalitarianism seeks to destroy the intact ability for people to create something new and bring it into the world. While it simply needs to destroy the ability of political life, it also enforces utter in-person isolation (loneliness) on th e mind of the individual, so that he or she has no outlet vent and indeed no ability to form ideas of their own. In isolation, man remains in contact with the world as the human artifice only when the most elementary forms of human creativity, which is the capacity to chalk up something of ones own to the common world, are destroyed, isolation becomes birthday suit unbearableTotalitarian government, like all tyrannies, certainly could not constitute without destroying the public country of life, that is, without destroying, by isolating men, their political capacities but totalitarian domination as a form of government is new in that it is not content with this isolation and destroys private life as well. It bases itself on loneliness, on the experience of not belonging to the world at all, which is among the most radical and desperate experiences of man. (Arendt. 24) The phenomenological and anthropological implications of this total terror are for Arendt the complete breakdow n of the human actor.She argues that humans are essentially social beings who need social interaction to function and live as we are hardwired to do so our complete sense of who we are and what our world means ultimately derives from our experience of interacting with others. For the confirmation of my identity I depend entirely upon other people (Arendt. 324)In conclusion I think it may be prudent to summarise the central elucidations which Arendt makes in Ideology and Terror. . Totalitarian governments were unprecedented governmental forms before the early 20th century. 2. Totalitarian governments are ideological in nature and functioning, and derive their justifications from suprahuman Laws of Nature and History and implement the logic of these ideas through use of terror. 3. Terror is the primary tool and also the essence of Totalitarian governments, i. e. Total terror becomes the actual embodied form of the Laws of History and nature made manifest 4.Totalitarian governments des troy the ability to act politically as all tyrannies do, but also they destroy the realm of private life as well, rendering human existence a miserable one in attempting to make each person the actual embodiment of Natural and Historical Laws Arendts masterful work has drip light on one of the darkest periods in human history and it also lends insight into the nature of government, society and the human subject more in general speaking. She remains a seminal figure in the discipline of political philosophy and continues to inspire thought and debate to this day.