Take a photo of a barcode or cover
books_ergo_sum 's review for:
The Origins of Totalitarianism
by Hannah Arendt
reflective
slow-paced
So… bad news. The origins of totalitarianism are already here. And Arendt would say it has little to do with a certain 🍊 trying to be a dictator in this 1951 book.
Because for Arendt (a Jewish German philosopher who survived the concentration camps), totalitarianism is a social milieu. Not something imposed on society by a totalitarian leader.
This social milieu involves:
▪️ a culture of loneliness
▪️ erosion of the distinction between true and false /reality and fiction
▪️turbulence + a nation of superhumans
A lot’s been said about the presence of the first two in our society. So when Arendt explains, for hundreds of pages, EXACTLY HOW loneliness is “the essence of totalitarian government” and how the “ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi… but people for whom the diction between fact and fiction… no longer exist.”
Umm, yeah. F-ing Terrifying.
What I think we’ve grappled with less—yet is no less present in our culture—is the superhuman part. This is the part of our culture that looks at inhumane treatment, detentions, homelessness, neoliberal “soft” imperialism, or genocide; shrugs its shoulders and says “it’s bad, but what can you do?” 🤷🏻♀️
Because underneath the shrug is someone who doesn’t feel ‘merely human’ anymore. The badness doesn’t make them panic because their group/race/nation will be fine (maybe?). Even if (or especially if) it’s their own government doing it.
It’s this ‘seeing but looking away’ / ‘worried but self-soothing’ that Arendt spends the most time on. The early 20th century European social and psychological response to exploitation, colonial massacres by Western governments, discrimination against post-WWI European refugees, racist scapegoat pile-ons…
Which rhymed SO MUCH with how our culture currently responds to wealth inequality, exploitation in the developing world, genocide in Gaza, mass incarceration, migrant detention, etc.
Scarily accurate. Yet oddly empowering. Because we can impact culture, right?
A note on reading this: Hannah Arendt has a very specific philosophy writing style: she always puts her thesis statements, topic sentences, and definitions at the end (of the chapter, section, or literally the entire book). I think she wants the arguments to speak for themselves and she’d rather you feel her argument in your bones than fill your mind with abstract generalizations. Admirable—but frustrating. My advice: go into an Arendt book with spoilers. Read a summary, watch a lecture on YouTube (I watched a six-part lecture series by Theory&Philosophy), and if you ever have a “where are we going with this Arendt?!” moment while reading, flip to the end of the section and read the last paragraph—that’s your answer.
Because for Arendt (a Jewish German philosopher who survived the concentration camps), totalitarianism is a social milieu. Not something imposed on society by a totalitarian leader.
This social milieu involves:
▪️ a culture of loneliness
▪️ erosion of the distinction between true and false /reality and fiction
▪️turbulence + a nation of superhumans
A lot’s been said about the presence of the first two in our society. So when Arendt explains, for hundreds of pages, EXACTLY HOW loneliness is “the essence of totalitarian government” and how the “ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi… but people for whom the diction between fact and fiction… no longer exist.”
Umm, yeah. F-ing Terrifying.
What I think we’ve grappled with less—yet is no less present in our culture—is the superhuman part. This is the part of our culture that looks at inhumane treatment, detentions, homelessness, neoliberal “soft” imperialism, or genocide; shrugs its shoulders and says “it’s bad, but what can you do?” 🤷🏻♀️
Because underneath the shrug is someone who doesn’t feel ‘merely human’ anymore. The badness doesn’t make them panic because their group/race/nation will be fine (maybe?). Even if (or especially if) it’s their own government doing it.
It’s this ‘seeing but looking away’ / ‘worried but self-soothing’ that Arendt spends the most time on. The early 20th century European social and psychological response to exploitation, colonial massacres by Western governments, discrimination against post-WWI European refugees, racist scapegoat pile-ons…
Which rhymed SO MUCH with how our culture currently responds to wealth inequality, exploitation in the developing world, genocide in Gaza, mass incarceration, migrant detention, etc.
Scarily accurate. Yet oddly empowering. Because we can impact culture, right?
A note on reading this: Hannah Arendt has a very specific philosophy writing style: she always puts her thesis statements, topic sentences, and definitions at the end (of the chapter, section, or literally the entire book). I think she wants the arguments to speak for themselves and she’d rather you feel her argument in your bones than fill your mind with abstract generalizations. Admirable—but frustrating. My advice: go into an Arendt book with spoilers. Read a summary, watch a lecture on YouTube (I watched a six-part lecture series by Theory&Philosophy), and if you ever have a “where are we going with this Arendt?!” moment while reading, flip to the end of the section and read the last paragraph—that’s your answer.