4 ms·

Arendt was very specific though, her book was called Eichmann in Jerusalem. It wasn't 'mid-level German bureaucrat in Jerusalem'. After all, the railway workers

Arendt was very specific though, her book was called Eichmann in Jerusalem. It wasn't 'mid-level German bureaucrat in Jerusalem'. After all, the railway workers (well, the unforced ones, since the Nazis did not have any compunction about slavery) who kept the trains running were fairly banal participants in the Holocaust, but we don't focus on them as the architects of it for a reason. Eichmann had every reason to present himself as a boring- somewhat clueless - bureaucrat as opposed to an architect of horrors of which he understood the full and gruesome extent. The right person in the wrong place can make all the difference. I'd have to read her responses to the criticism she got again, I believe she did walk back the extent of her claims, but could be wrong (and in saying this, I'm sure someone will correct me if I am misremembering ;))

toyg 5y ago
Of course, Arendt was a journalist so her work starts from an event. Not every Nazi member was trialled, Eichmann wad just one of the high-profile ones. The point is that from the particular situation we get a more generalised theory of the development of "evil" at the mass level, that works better than "people just like to abuse others, because the devil or something".
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  The problem really comes down to this: is Nazism something which we are all capable of quickly becoming, i.e. inherent to human nature, or do we only become this horrible when small groups of intelligent elites cynically exploit our psychology and concretely plan for us to become brainwashed slaves (the opposite of banality)? Perhaps a bit of both, but at some point someone definitely isn't a banal and clueless bureaucrat. You can probably see how option A is a propaganda win for Nazism (and fascism in general). 'See, you're not so different to us!'. Was it the German people who became Nazis overnight, or did the Nazi elites (such as Eichmann) instigate what amounted to major social engineering campaigns?
  - toyg 5y ago
    The point is that in most cases you don't need any major social-engineering. The elements of efficiency and obedience to the hierarchy are already there, built-in in most orderly societies. You just need to veer the actual aims a little bit, and you are effectively in a regime not very different from the nazi one. That's why seemingly democratic societies can turn into regimes almost overnight.
    - bigDinosaur 5y ago
      This is discounting all the times people fight back against fascism though. Lots and lots of people absolutely do not accept some natural link between orderly conduct and fascism, and so that goes back to my original point about Eichmann making Nazism seem banal as a goal for the Nazi ideology - if we're basically one step away from becoming Nazis at any point, is what they did really so bad? Well, yes it was, because it was engineered. The Nazis never won a majority in any election, but once they were in power they were famous for their social engineering and propaganda. They're a classic example of how a minority of people in a population can absolutely gain control over everyone else and bend the majority to their will using highly cynical but intelligent tactics.
      - toyg 5y ago
        > This is discounting all the times people fight back against fascism though. That's a personal interpretation. In fact, in many ways it doesn't discount it but actually inspires them, asserting that without such efforts society is likely to backslide into fascism fairly easily. Which tbh, if you've lived in the US from 2001 to 2005, or today in Russia or Hungary, you've basically experienced already.
        bigDinosaur 5y ago
        I think it's correct to say that a lot of people are relatively passive and will eventually go along with whatever a government desires, but the crux of the 'banality of evil' argument was that Nazis at the highest level were also that kind of passive, bureaucratic evil, as opposed to being very explicit and knowledgeable in their plans. The critique of Arendt wasn't that there was no banality of evil, just that it didn't exist at the levels she claimed (Nazi leadership). They knew full well what they were doing. It's important to recognise this since otherwise you might say that the people in power aren't important as they're purely products of societal values etc.

toyg 5y ago

Of course, Arendt was a journalist so her work starts from an event. Not every Nazi member was trialled, Eichmann wad just one of the high-profile ones. The point is that from the particular situation we get a more generalised theory of the development of "evil" at the mass level, that works better than "people just like to abuse others, because the devil or something".

bigDinosaur 5y ago
The problem really comes down to this: is Nazism something which we are all capable of quickly becoming, i.e. inherent to human nature, or do we only become this horrible when small groups of intelligent elites cynically exploit our psychology and concretely plan for us to become brainwashed slaves (the opposite of banality)? Perhaps a bit of both, but at some point someone definitely isn't a banal and clueless bureaucrat. You can probably see how option A is a propaganda win for Nazism (and fascism in general). 'See, you're not so different to us!'. Was it the German people who became Nazis overnight, or did the Nazi elites (such as Eichmann) instigate what amounted to major social engineering campaigns?
- toyg 5y ago
  The point is that in most cases you don't need any major social-engineering. The elements of efficiency and obedience to the hierarchy are already there, built-in in most orderly societies. You just need to veer the actual aims a little bit, and you are effectively in a regime not very different from the nazi one. That's why seemingly democratic societies can turn into regimes almost overnight.
  - bigDinosaur 5y ago
    This is discounting all the times people fight back against fascism though. Lots and lots of people absolutely do not accept some natural link between orderly conduct and fascism, and so that goes back to my original point about Eichmann making Nazism seem banal as a goal for the Nazi ideology - if we're basically one step away from becoming Nazis at any point, is what they did really so bad? Well, yes it was, because it was engineered. The Nazis never won a majority in any election, but once they were in power they were famous for their social engineering and propaganda. They're a classic example of how a minority of people in a population can absolutely gain control over everyone else and bend the majority to their will using highly cynical but intelligent tactics.
    - toyg 5y ago
      > This is discounting all the times people fight back against fascism though. That's a personal interpretation. In fact, in many ways it doesn't discount it but actually inspires them, asserting that without such efforts society is likely to backslide into fascism fairly easily. Which tbh, if you've lived in the US from 2001 to 2005, or today in Russia or Hungary, you've basically experienced already.
      - bigDinosaur 5y ago
        I think it's correct to say that a lot of people are relatively passive and will eventually go along with whatever a government desires, but the crux of the 'banality of evil' argument was that Nazis at the highest level were also that kind of passive, bureaucratic evil, as opposed to being very explicit and knowledgeable in their plans. The critique of Arendt wasn't that there was no banality of evil, just that it didn't exist at the levels she claimed (Nazi leadership). They knew full well what they were doing. It's important to recognise this since otherwise you might say that the people in power aren't important as they're purely products of societal values etc.