190

Methodological Shortcomings in Hannah Arendt’s Conceptualization of By Antony Kalashnikov

Abstract: The political philosopher Hannah Arendt was partly responsible for popularizing the term 'totalitarianism'. In doing so, Arendt followed a historically- grounded, analytical approach, methodically deriving the concept from the cases of and Stalinist Russia. This essay will argue that Arendt’s conceptualization of totalitarianism is imperfect, because of some crucial methodological shortcomings in her analysis. In demonstrating this, I will briefly explicate Arendt's methodology and argument, and critique her concept in so far as it is: grounded in too few cases, the cases are dubiously linked, and the analysis is heedless of a functionalist understanding of ideology.

Totalitarianism as a term came into concept from the cases of Nazi being in the mid-1920’s in Mussolini’s Germany and Stalinist Russia. This Italy, and implied the total control of essay will argue that Arendt’s society by the state.1 Nowadays, the conceptualization of totalitarianism is media uses the concept in much the imperfect, because of some crucial same way, applying it to regimes methodological shortcomings in her exhibiting a high degree of analysis. In demonstrating this, I will – such as Alexandr briefly explicate Arendt's methodology Lukashenko’s Belarus.2 The political and argument, and critique her concept philosopher Hannah Arendt was partly in so far as it is: grounded in too few responsible for the term’s cases, the cases are dubiously linked, popularization, but her usage of the and the analysis is heedless of a term is different. In her book Origins of functionalist understanding of ideology. Totalitarianism, she does not approach the term in a definitional way – creating Arendt characterizes Origins of an artificial concept that can be applied Totalitarianism as “[giving] a historical to phenomena. Rather, Arendt follows a account of the ‘elements’ which historically-grounded, analytical ‘crystallized’ into totalitarianism... approach, methodically deriving the followed by an analysis of the ‘elementary structure’ of totalitarian movements and domination itself.”3 To 1 Stanley G. Payne, : Comparison a certain degree, then, the structure of and Definition (London: University of the book expounds her argument in Wisconsin Press, 1980), 73. reverse: methodologically speaking, 2 James Brooke, “Analysts: Belarus Moves one must first find out ‘what from Authoritarian to Totalitarian,” Voice of totalitarianism is’ before its historical America, May 3, 2011, accessed May 22, 2011, http://www.voanews.com/english/news/euro 3 Seyla Behabib, The Reluctant Modernism pe/Belarus-Moves-From-Authoritarian-to- of Hannah Arendt (Thousand Oaks: Sage Totalitarian-121162964.html. Publications Inc., 1996), 64.

The Agora: Political Science Undergraduate Journal Vol. 2 No. 2 (2012) 191 origins can be discerned. The essence totalitarianism – ideology. In Arendt’s of totalitarianism, thus, is the keystone understanding, it was crucial that the of her project. Importantly, her concept concentration camps, terror, purges, of totalitarianism is analytical, not etc. served no utility-function, either in definitional, and is derived in the terms of social use or in silencing of following way. Struck by the opposition.7 On the contrary, the unprecedented character of two 1930’s teleological, self-consistent totalitarian regimes – Nazi Germany and Stalinist ideology derives one Law of Movement Russia – Arendt contends that they fail of human history and applies it directly to satisfy any of the traditional regime to society – in particular, either Social classifications, such as tyranny, Darwinism or Marx’s class struggle. , and .4 Indeed, Through totalitarian power institutions they were entirely novel in having (most importantly, terror), the Law of “transformed classes into masses, Movement becomes realized – the supplanted the party system, not by weak are proved weak by being one-party dictatorships, but by a mass exterminated, people necessarily movement, shifted the centre of power become class enemies if they are from the army to the police, and accused of it by the Party.8 Totalitarian established a foreign policy openly ideology also seeks to create a One directed toward world domination.”5 Man out of a society of individuals – so Crucially, they introduced the “radical that the hope and freedom implicit in evil” of the concentration camp system, the birth of an individual can be which “meant the same inexorable eliminated for the unfettered function of doom for human beings as the use of the Law of Movement.9 Indeed, the hydrogen bomb would mean the ideology is the motivating force of doom of the human race.”6 In this way, totalitarianism, the unprecedented and Arendt puts forward a presumptive case definitive feature which separates it for why Nazi Germany and Stalinist from previous tyrannical forms of Russia should be taken apart and . analyzed to glean the elements of the new, totalitarian, regime-type. Reflection may reveal, however, some methodological shortcomings in Mass propaganda, authoritarian Arendt’s analysis. The paucity of cases organizational features of society, she uses in building her argument is secret police, and the use of problematic, methodologically indiscriminate terror were found in both speaking. Her analysis is entirely based regimes, and already hint at strong on two historical regimes, Nazi similarities. But Arendt’s analysis Germany and Stalinist Russia reaches beyond these phenomena and (respectively lasting only 12 and 24 shows them to be merely a years), from which she derives manifestation of the essence of necessary categories like the Law of Movement, non-utilitarian terror, etc. In 4 Hannah Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Brace & World Inc., 1966), 7 Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, 440, 460. 444-445. 5 Ibid. 8 Ibid, 462-465. 6 Ibid, 443. 9 Ibid, 465-466.

The Agora: Political Science Undergraduate Journal Vol. 2 No. 2 (2012) 192 several respects, her conceptualization theorist John L. Stanley uses Arendt’s is tied down, narrow, and constrained, own categories to show how 19th forfeiting any further heuristic use for century Zulu despotism under King political science. Indeed, in her 1966 Shaka, for one thing, could fit under the “Introduction” to Origins of definition of totalitarianism. In brief, Totalitarianism, Arendt is apprehensive Shaka’s regime had a self-contained, even about labelling the Chinese survivalist ideology, a monopoly on communist regime as ‘totalitarian’ – as power and knowledge, a cult of it does not entirely fit her list of criteria personality, indiscriminate terror, entirely derived from the two historical eugenic and genocidal practices – a cases.10 Other more malleable veritable . 14 Interestingly, definitions of authoritarian state forms, Arendt cites his extermination of one by contrast, allow for re-application to million other tribesmen in her work, but the current world, such as political does not go further to label it as an theorist ’s concept of example of totalitarianism.15 Of course, “inverted ” in corporately- there were important differences as dominated USA.11 Arendt herself writes well, but that is just the point: if about the ‘permanent revolution’ totalitarianism is not an unprecedented mechanism (whereby the structure of a break with the past, its conceptual totalitarian system is constantly categories should be wider, being reinvented) – which would imply the based on a broader analysis. As it is, need for a broader conceptualization of Arendt’s concept of totalitarianism risks totalitarianism.12 Given that Arendt was becoming applicable only to historical writing in the late 1940’s, if one accepts studies. her contention that totalitarian regimes were an unprecedented phenomenon, it Another methodological is understandable that her analysis is shortcoming in Arendt’s analysis is the based on only the first few dubious link between her two main manifestations. However, the novelty of cases – German Nazism and . the totalitarian form is not a given. The Critics (such as sociologist Michael political scientist Eric Voegelin, for Bittman) have been quick to point out example, disputes Arendt’s assumption, the political benefits of conflating arguing for the “essential sameness” of Hitler’s abhorrent regime with totalitarianism with similar catastrophes in the past.13 In the same vein, political

Arendt (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier 10 Ibid, x-xii. University Press, 1989), 28-29. 11 Sheldon Wolin, “Inverted 14 John L. Stanley, “Is Totalitarianism a Totalitarianism,” , May 1, 2003, New Phenomenon: Reflections on Hannah accessed May 22, 2011, Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism,” in http://www.thenation.com/article/inverted- Hannah Arendt: Critical Essays, eds. Lewis totalitarianism. P. Hinchman and Sandra K. Hinchman 12 Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, (Albany: State University of New York 389-408. Press, 1994), 19-26. 13 Shiraz Dossa, The Public Realm and the 15 Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism, 192- Public Self: The Political Theory of Hannah 193.

The Agora: Political Science Undergraduate Journal Vol. 2 No. 2 (2012) 193 communism.16 Although Arendt is Historians Robert Waith and Rudolph certainly not a propagandist, there may Binion, by contrast, take a be a bias present in her psychohistorical approach to the Hitler’s comparison. Indeed, on a superficial Germany – arguing that the leader’s level, The Origins of Totalitarianism is “neurotic psychopathy, oedipal conspicuously lop-sided, which most complex, monorchism, disturbed discussion/examples deriving from the adolescence, and psychic traumas” case of Nazi Germany.17 This hints at determined the trajectory Nazism the deeper issue of whether the took.19 In terms of Stalinist Russia, the comparison with Stalinist Russia is historian Isaac Deutsher, for example, acceptable at all. Arendt’s comparison holds that Stalin’s terror and purges hinges on the presumptive similarities – served a utilitarian, anti-opposition the concentration camps, the secret character, in line with centuries-old police, the aim for world-domination – Russian political culture.20 Economist from which her analysis discerns the Alec Nove, in turn, has argued that the ideological commonalities of the two terror and use of coercion which regimes (which is the point of her accompanied Stalinism’s anti-kulak argument). A brief look at any campaign and forced industrialization historiographic studies of the two made economic sense, given that the regimes reveals the complexity in country felt threatened and needed to making such comparisons. The rapidly build a powerful modern arms exclusive importance and ‘agency’ of industry.21 The point here is not to ideology is severely doubted in several resolve the historical debate, but rather interpretations, which instead look to to recognize that the comparability of multiple factors as being efficacious Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia within the regimes. The structural- may not be a given. Superficial functionalist school of the Third Reich, commonalities like concentration camps including historians such as Hans and secret police do not necessarily aid Mommsen, argues that Nazi policy did Arendt’s analysis if one regime was the not correspond to any ‘ideological expression of a psychopathic maniac, intent’, but was rather dominated by and the other a cruelly-calculating bid contradictory and erratic, socio- for rapid industrialization. Although economic interests of various elites. Arendt does advance certain Hitler’s National-Socialist vision, arguments to prove the ideological accordingly, was no more than a motivation for policy (such as the Red propagandistic appeal to the masses.18 Army purges which nearly lost Stalin the Russo-Finnish war), given the scope of her work and her professional 16 Michael Bittman, “Totalitarianism: The Career of a Concept,” in Hannah Arendt: (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), Thinking, Judging, Freedom ed. Gisela T. 78-79. Kaplan and Clive S. Kessler (Sydney: Allen 19 Ibid, 71-72. & Unwin, 1989), 58. 20 Walter Laqueur, The Fate of the 17 Michael Bittman, “Totalitarianism: The Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History Career of a Concept,” 65-66. from 1917 to Present (New York: 18 Ian Kershaw, The Nazi : Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987), 98. Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation 21 Ibid, 108.

The Agora: Political Science Undergraduate Journal Vol. 2 No. 2 (2012) 194 area, she is not in advantageous some other motives. However, there is position to participate in the debate of an asymmetry between Nazi Germany historians. In such a way, Arendt’s and Stalin’s Russia in this argument. methodology, which relies on an Methodologically, it may be fair to draw intrinsic similarity between the two Nazi ideology from Hitler’s actions – at cases to conceptualize totalitarianism, least because it would be very hard (or may not be justified. even impossible) to analytically separate the two, being created by the It is understandable why Arendt same person. In the case of Stalin, argues that the essence of however, it is less complicated, totalitarianism is ideology. After all, both because he had to work within the the Nazi and Stalinist regimes framework of Marxism-Leninism; his professed to be ruled by their ideology. policies can be measured against it. To In that sense, it is only too easy to take say that Stalinism was governed by their rhetoric at face value, deducing, Marxism’s ideological conceptions of for example, the inherent totalitarian class struggle as the Law of Movement, aim of world-domination because as Arendt does, would necessarily “evidence that totalitarian imply that Marxism inevitably leads to it. aspire to conquer the globe and bring Of course, Stalinism’s ideological all countries on earth under their polemics paid much lip-service to domination can be found repeatedly in Marxism and its ideals, claiming, Nazi and Bolshevik literature”.22 This indeed, to be its only true expression. It suggests yet another shortcoming in would be a rather narrow minded view, her analysis – the lack of a functional however, to take this at face value, if appreciation of ideology. For, having only because countless others streams established the presumptive similarities of Marxism have emerged (and already between Nazi Germany and Stalinist had at the time of Arendt’s writing) to Russia, Arendt’s analysis interprets contest this, both ideologically and them as an expression of a deeper practically. Trotskyites were writing intrinsic commonality – ideology. against and fighting the Stalinist legacy. However, the two regimes policies’ may Other communist regimes such as have had other motivations; ideology Tito’s Yugoslavia both politically may have served just another function distanced themselves and exhibited an (legitimation of the Party elite, for alternate institutional form from example). We thus return to the Stalinism. Perhaps, most importantly, previous debate, which undermines Marxist USSR was able to repudiate Arendt’s claim that the importance of Stalinism almost immediately after his ideology is a clear fact.To Arendt’s death and remain Marxist.23 Thus, there defence, it may be said that whether or is a much more compelling case to not ideology was functional is a moot Stalinism’s use of ideology in the point. If Hitler and cronies carried out a functionalist and rhetoric-value light, policy, it will never be known whether and not as an inevitable consequence they were ‘carrying out the instructions of Marxism. This, of course, is yet of the ideology’ or were governed by another shortcoming to Arendt’s

22 Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 23 Bittman, “Totalitarianism: The Career of a 415. Concept,” 67.

The Agora: Political Science Undergraduate Journal Vol. 2 No. 2 (2012) 195 methodology, and by extension, her which limits the heuristic value of her concept of totalitarianism in which concept of totalitarianism to political ideology is the essential feature and science. The cases themselves are ‘agent’. dubiously linked, not accounting for the historiography which threatens the In such a way, this essay has validity of Arendt’s methodological sought to reveal some of the conflation. Lastly, her analysis is problematic areas of Arendt’s heedless of a functionalist conceptualization of totalitarianism by understanding of ideology (which is the revealing crucial methodological more historically plausible), threatening shortcomings in her analysis. Her the centrality of ideology in her analysis is grounded in few cases, conceptualization of totalitarianism.

The Agora: Political Science Undergraduate Journal Vol. 2 No. 2 (2012) 196

Bibliography:

Arendt, Hannah. Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Brace & World Inc., 1966.

Behabib, Seyla. The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 1996.

Bittman, Michael. “Totalitarianism: The Career of a Concept.” In Hannah Arendt: Thinking, Judging, Freedom, edited by Gisela T. Kaplan and Clive S. Kessler, 56- 68. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1989.

Brooke, James. “Analysts: Belarus Moves from Authoritarian to Totalitarian.” Voice of America, May 3, 2011. Accessed May 22, 2011. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Belarus-Moves-From- Authoritarian-to-Totalitarian-121162964.html.

Dossa, Shiraz. The Public Realm and the Public Self: The Political Theory of Hannah Arendt. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1989.

Kershaw, Ian. The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Laqueur, Walter. The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to Present. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.

Payne, Stanley G. Fascism: Comparison and Definition. London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980.

Stanley, John L. “Is Totalitarianism a New Phenomenon: Reflections on Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism.” In Hannah Arendt: Critical Essays, edited by Lewis P. Hinchman and Sandra K. Hinchman, 19-26. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.

Wolin, Sheldon. “Inverted Totalitarianism.” The Nation, May 1, 2003. Accessed May 22, 2011. http://www.thenation.com/article/inverted-totalitarianism.

The Agora: Political Science Undergraduate Journal Vol. 2 No. 2 (2012)