'The banality of evil’ – The courageous stand of Hannah Arendt , a Jewish Philosopher :

The Twentieth century produced two of the most virulent, depraved and maniacally totalitarian regimes the history of Mankind has ever recorded or seen: “Stalinism” and “Hitlerism”. In Man’s long struggle to achieve a dominant society, these two regimes represent the farthest end of the spectrum – a manifestation of pure Evil.  At this distance, it is simply unthinkable that a government apparatus could exterminate millions of people as a matter of principle without scant regard for basic rudiments of morality and ethics. But yet, it was done, and the ghastly details of the process could fill a whole library; and the men who propelled and organized these initiatives were for most part decent people who led quiet private lives with families, but were willing to suspend their ability to think and make moral judgments when it came to executing “orders” from a hierarchy over which they had no control, much less of moral scruples over the gravity of their actions. They were merely cogs in the wheel without personal responsibility of good or bad. This is the trademark of “Totalitarianism”; - a unique cocoon of an organization, where Man loses his value as a person, and most importantly abdicates his reasoning capacity; which is a necessary precursor to make any moral choices. The Nuremberg trials after the second world war and subsequent enquires on captured Nazi commanders, came as a surprise to Intellectuals, philosophers and social historians alike; - when they found that none of the convicted officers, who held key positions in the perpetration of the horrific holocaust that wiped away close to a six million Jews across Europe - had even a trace of compunction or remorse for what they had done or committed. It was not that they did not understand the gravity of their crimes, but they simply failed to acknowledge their “personal” involvement in the extermination. They had lost all sense of individuality; and owed their actions to the mighty machine of a regime, which left them with no choice but to follow orders. Obviously, it is difficult for us to understand such a defense. How can one, we would argue, not think about the consequences of an action that would lead to merciless, inhuman extirpation of innocent Men, women and children. But then, we don’t live in such a regime that enforces such a behavior on us, and hence, we ask this question from a moral stand point that is far removed and tangential to the times when these crimes were committed. We would want these war criminals to be brought to justice - hanged; only then, according to us – will the scales be balanced. The enormity of the crimes involved would make us believe that these Nazi officers were ‘personally’ liable and responsible, no matter what arguments to the contrary can be afforded.

Hannah Arendt is widely regarded as one of the most important western philosophers of the twentieth century. Born a Jew, raised in the fervent intellectual atmosphere of Pre-war Germany; Studied under Martin Heidegger, who awoke in her the fire of Philosophical enquiry about the “thinking self”; found a lifelong friend in Karl Jasper, a existentialist, who helped shape her identity as an Intellectual and Moral philosopher; fled to Paris and then to America when Hitler’s regime started hounding Jews across the continent; Worked her way to become the  first ever full time female Professor of Philosophy in Princeton and a visiting lecturer with many other reputed universities; found time to write the most comprehensive work of Totalitarianism that traced the evolution of such ideas across history and its painful consummation in Hitler’s Germany. Hannah was the Cynosure of Jewish intellectualism, until she volunteered to cover the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi commander, for the reputed “Newyorker” magazine in 1961. The editorial board was overjoyed that a philosopher of such stature as Hannah, with the added advantage of being a Jew, would be ready and willing to report on this important case which was to be held in the heart of Israel – Jerusalem. Little did they realize, that it is often dangerous to allow a philosopher to act as a journalist? Hannah attended the trial and watched the pitiful state of Eichmann as he stuttered his way in court, completely lost, with no individuality whatsoever, not able to think beyond his little role in the machinery of Nazism, unable to perceive and distinguish between his acts and their repercussions. Hannah painfully noted that Eichmann did not feel good or bad about the Jews; in fact, he had no opinion at all. All that he kept emphasizing and iterating throughout the 56 day trial was that he was following orders implicitly. Of course with the weight and gravity of the crimes for which he was being tried, he could not and did not expect the sympathy or pardon of his judges; and 1962, he was sentenced to death by the Israeli tribunal.

Hannah came back to the United States hoping to reconcile what she heard, felt and understood; with what was expected of her – which is to produce a report that crucifies Eichmann. But the thinker in her wouldn't allow such a slip to happen. She had seen the worthlessness, the mediocrity, the utter fragility of Eichmann. To hold him responsible as a ‘person’ (as the world wanted to), for the crimes was not only wrong but unfair. Eichmann was tried as an ‘individual’ for crimes and not as part of the system that used him to commit them; and that to Hannah was not morally right. She deliberated on her report for some months, and then wrote a series of five articles, which later was published as a book titled “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. Not surprisingly, she became an outcaste in her intellectual circle, and friends started drifting away from her; accusing her for being a “Nazi” sympathizer. Nothing could have been further from the truth than this. Hannah Arendt believed that regimes such as those of Hitler are a calamity, but she held society and the conditions in which such a regime could flourish as equally responsible. She held the Zionist community led themselves into this catastrophe because they did not have a sensible direction or a leader who could pull them out of the dirt into which they were being thrown.  She surmised that Totalitarianism can only grow in a soil where all necessary conditions are ripe and can thrive; and that includes the Victims as well. This was a dangerous stand to take. But Hannah stood by it. 

After the trial and publication of her book, Hannah continued to grapple with the problem of “Evil” throughout her life. When she died in 1975, she left a legacy of independent thought and expression to some of the deepest issues of Man. Such are the stuff Philosophers are made of…

For those of us who want to quickly know about her without going through the trouble of reading her, I suggest the 2012 biopic by Margarethe von Trotta in German, casting Barbara Sukowa as Hannah Arendt.  A brilliant movie that captures the essence of Hannah’s thoughts and her role in the Eichmann trial. Good food for thought…

God bless….