Hannah Arendt Was Really a Prophet Against Conformity

Hannah Arendt Was Really a Prophet Against Conformity

Hannah Arendt Was Really a Prophet Against Conformity

To the question of how totalitarian methods could ever draw the compliance of free citizens, she replied: through the enchantment of success.


Hannah Arendt did more than anyone else to give the idea of totalitarianism the importance we accord it today. But like her contemporary George Orwell, in her subtlest trains of thought Arendt was seldom writing about the “-ism,” the social and political entity. She was more concerned with the implications of the adjective “totalitarian.”

There was, she believed, a totalitarian germ in the Western liberal political order. The instruments for the total control of opinion existed in every advanced technological society—and some of those instruments were already at work in America, even if selectively and half-buried under pretexts and euphemisms. Arendt accordingly devoted considerable energy in her final years to exposing the consolidation of state power here in the US—especially the war powers that could be turned back and deployed against citizens at home, but also the manufacture of mass opinion and the expanding cooperation between government, think tanks, and corporations that profit by their connection with the state.

In Germany, Arendt had seen firsthand the effects of a totalitarian order. The Holocaust was the end one should have expected from such a beginning; and yet the crimes of those who invented the death camps were of a peculiar kind. By their very magnitude, they could neither be properly punished nor forgiven. Jews, Roma, Communists, and homosexuals under Hitler’s regime—as well as all who deviated from the changing policies of the party under Stalin’s regime—were proscribed, and from one day to the next were transformed into virtually stateless persons. A different exclusionist tendency lay hidden in the path of commercial democracy, where the worst abuses would be slower to appear and less dramatic.

For the North Atlantic states exhibited a good many of the symptoms that, during the Second World War, had left stateless persons exposed and unprotected. Some of Arendt’s most memorable observations, in Part Two of The Origins of Totalitarianism, dealt with this unprecedented class of the marooned and helpless. What Enlightenment thinkers called “the natural equality of mankind at large”—a phrase from Burke that might as well have come from Kant—had referred to the human rights of persons everywhere. This version of equality was an homage to “our unchangeable and unique nature,” as Arendt put it. But the tendency of equality is to press toward uniformity. (If we are not the same, how can we be sure that we are equal?) Rights for stateless persons in any case would require a resoluteness and an economic sacrifice the world of nations was unwilling to deliver. So, for decades after 1945, such oppressed individuals would be thrown back on the variable rights of persons under the existing code of powerful states.

How could totalitarian methods ever draw the compliance of free citizens? A cause of the peril, Arendt believed, quite apart from propaganda and coercion, was the enchantment of success. A government that could exact apparent agreement with one radical change after another was given legitimacy by the mere fact that it was never stopped. What Germany witnessed in the mid-1930s, she wrote in “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” was not simply the corralling of a stupefied populace by the promises of a master demagogue. More remarkable was the apparently sincere

overnight change of opinion that befell a great majority of public figures in all walks of life and all ramifications of culture, accompanied as it was by the incredible ease with which lifelong friendships were broken and discarded. In brief, what disturbed us was the behavior not of our enemies but of our friends who had done nothing to bring this situation about. They were not responsible for the Nazis; they were only impressed by the Nazi success and unable to pit their own judgment against the verdict of History, as they read it.

This belief in a determined trajectory, an irresistible and progressive arc of History toward an assured goal, was the metaphysical fallacy against which Arendt’s political criticism was always directed. To the person who says “Put yourself on the right side of History,” the candid and self-­respecting answer can only be “You are asking me to be irresponsible.” But appeals for proscription and censorship on behalf of “safety,” even in a tolerant democracy, always return us to a single temptation: the demand that we concede an ever-­engrossing prerogative to the powers that be, in the cause of comity, or stability, or a less troubled consensus. When, in early December 2022, liberal-­corporate journalists heard that the old regime of Twitter in 2020 had received and followed regular advice from the FBI and chose to greet the startling news with silence, indifference, or a knowing sarcasm, they were showing themselves charmed by success. “Working together” (they must have concluded), “Twitter and the FBI succeeded. And they were on the right side of History.”

By her background and personal experience, Arendt was associated with a group of refugee scholars whose presence accounted in large measure for the quality of humanistic study in mid-century America. Erwin Panofsky, Ernst Cassirer, Erich Auerbach, Rudolf Wittkower, Franz Neumann—beyond Arendt’s own circle of friends and editors, these were her intellectual compatriots, and they shared certain beliefs so closely held that they seldom required articulation: a distrust of the modern myth of the state and a dedication to preserving the uniquely modern privilege of personal consciousness and conscience. The latter they cherished as a gift—being neither the private possession of an individual nor the collective asset of society—that comes with inseparable responsibilities. The capacity to think, like the ability to judge, is part of the human inheritance, and the largest duty of the thinker is to embody a wisdom that looks backward to ancestors as a condition of looking forward to posterity.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy