DOCSLIB.ORG

Eichmann in New York: the New York Intellectuals and the Hannah

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eichmann in New York: the New York Intellectuals and the Hannah Eichmann in New York: The New York Intellectuals and the Hannah Arendt Controversy Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/octo/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/016228704774115735/1751113/016228704774115735.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 ANSON RABINBACH The Eichmann controversy, occasioned by Hannah Arendt’s five-part series that appeared in The New Yorker from February 16 to March 16, 1963, was certainly the most bitter public dispute among intellectuals and scholars concerning the Holocaust that has ever taken place. It was also the first time that both Jews and non-Jews were witness to a controversy over Jewish memory, an affair that took place largely, but not exclusively, among Jews. The controversy elicited over a thousand published responses. It lasted almost three years from the initial burst of reactions to Arendt’s articles and book in 1963, gradually subsiding only after her response to Jacob Robinson’s book-length disputation, And the Crooked Shall Be Made Straight, more than two years later.1 The animosity and rancor of the dispute was so extreme that more than two decades later Irving Howe could write that “within the New York intellectual world Arendt’s book provoked divisions that would never be entirely healed.”2 To varying degrees almost all her critics took up Arendt’s most controversial points: her characterization of Eichmann as a thoughtless and “banal” cipher of totalitarian rule, her judgments of the behavior of the Jewish leaders and Zionist officials in Eastern Europe, her analysis of the legal charges against Eichmann, and her accusation that the court proceedings were, in effect, a “show trial.” But as Richard I. Cohen has shown in his comprehensive rezeptionsgeschichte (reception history) of the controversy, despite a good deal of overlap concerning the main themes of Arendt’s work, substantial distinctions among different audiences and responses can be discerned. If, for example, German-Jewish critics tended to focus on Arendt’s alleged misrepresentation of the role of German-Jewish community leaders, most prominently Leo Baeck, survivors tended to focus on her underesti- mation of the significance and extent of the resistance, while Israeli and Yiddish writers more forcefully dissented from her assessment of Jewish councils, and 1. A partial bibliography is included in Randolph L. Braham, The Eichmann Case: A Source Book (New York: World Federation of Hungarian Jews, 1969), pp. 141–74. 2. Irving Howe, A Margin of Hope: An Intellectual Autobiography (New York: Harcourt, Brace, ,Jovanovich, 1982), pp. 273–74. OCTOBER 108, Spring 2004, pp. 97–111. © 2004 October Magazine, Ltd. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 98 OCTOBER emphasized her lack of knowledge of Jewish history and sources.3 Ironically, only a few writers concerned themselves with Arendt’s central preoccupation, the capacity for justice to confront “unprecedented” crimes of “administrative massacre” for which no positive law exists.4 Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/octo/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/016228704774115735/1751113/016228704774115735.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 By far the most intense explosion over Arendt’s book, the ground zero of the controversy, occurred in New York and its environs. The loudest salvos in the dispute were fired in periodicals like Partisan Review, Midstream, and Commentary by partici- pants who were already—with the exception of Robinson—well-known figures in the New York literary scene: Lionel Abel, Marie Syrkin, Howe, Daniel Bell, Robert Lowell, Dwight Macdonald, Mary McCarthy, and William Phillips. So impassioned were the accusations and counter-accusations that even among that group of seasoned professional polemicists the intensity of dispute exceeded all previous bounds. Howe aptly called the Eichmann controversy “a civil war that broke out among New York intellectuals.”5 That a mere “report,” as she called it, could give rise to such passions was initially “incomprehensible” to Arendt. She agreed with Karl Jaspers’s remark that she had “stumbled into an ambush”: “Everything proves in retrospect to have been a trap,” she wrote.6 She was convinced that she had become the hapless victim of an orchestrated “political campaign led and guided in all particulars by interest groups and governmental agencies.”7 To explain why the Jewish “establishment,” as she called it, would go to such extremes, she imagined an extensive intrigue to cover up the connections between the Zionist politicians in Europe such as Rudolf Kastner. Kastner had negotiated with Eichmann in Budapest (and was assassinated after his condemnation in a 1955 trial). Arendt also questioned the role of Zionist leaders in the yishuv: “The Jewish leadership . has much more dirty laundry to hide than anyone had ever guessed.”8 In one respect she was not entirely off the mark, since Arnold Forster, the general consul of the New York Antidefamation League (ADL), had in fact prepared guidelines to counter her “value judgments” concerning Jewish passivity and the integrity of the Jewish leaders.9 Robinson’s detailed refutation first appeared as a special ADL brochure that was distributed to most Jewish organizations, and was 3. Richard I. Cohen, “Breaking the Code: Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem and the Public Polemic: Myth, Memory and Historical Imagination,” in Michael: On the History of the Jews in the Diaspora 13 (Tel Aviv: TAU, 1993), pp. 46–60. 4. See Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (New York: Viking, 1965), p. 288. 5. Howe, A Margin of Hope, p. 290. 6. Hannah Arendt to Karl Jaspers, October 20, 1963, Correspondence of Hannah Arendt and Karl Jaspers 1926–1969, ed. Lotte Kohler and Hans Saner, trans. Robert and Rita Kimber (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1992), pp. 522–24. 7. “Hannah Arendt to Mary McCarthy,” October 3, 1963, Between Friends: The Correspondence of Hannah Arendt and Mary McCarthy 1949–1975, ed. Carol Brightman (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1995), p. 151. 8. Arendt to Jaspers, October 20, 1963, Correspondence, p. 524. 9. Cohen, “Breaking the Code,” p. 45. Eichmann in New York 99 rapidly translated into French and German. Further evidence of the campaign against her, she believed, was the Partisan Review’s choice of Lionel Abel as reviewer, since he had been hostile to her earlier work, and of Judge Michael Musmanno by the New York Times (who had testified at the trial, and is mentioned in Arendt’s Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/octo/article-pdf/doi/10.1162/016228704774115735/1751113/016228704774115735.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 book). Feeling “the power of the image makers,” she saw all of these forces at work “to create an ‘image’ which eventually will cover the real book.”10 Arendt’s friend Mary McCarthy wrote to her that the onslaught was “assuming the proportions of a pogrom,” and Dwight Macdonald concurred that the choice of Abel was clear proof that Partisan Review editors William Phillips and Philip Rahv had hired a “hit man” who was malicious and acting out of “Jewish patriotism.”11 In her reply to Arendt’s critics, entitled “The Hue and Cry,” McCarthy did little to calm the waters by underscoring what she saw as a pattern of Jewish bias against Arendt and by asserting that she and her gentile friends, as she put it, lacked the “special pair of Jewish spectacles” required to make the controversy’s “true purport” visible: “As a gentile I don’t ‘understand.’ Neither do any of my gentile friends and rela- tions, who speak about it to me in lowered voices.”12 Sensing that McCarthy was not doing her friend any great service by “ethnicizing” the controversy, Macdonald observed that he was not convinced by her claim that despite a few exceptions, reviews by gentiles were generally favorable, while reviews by Jews were negative.13 Nevertheless, he too conceded in the end that “the hostile reviews I’ve read do seem motivated less by rationality than by Jewish patriotism—goys like [Richard] Crossman and [Michael] Musmanno might be called honorary Semites.”14 These efforts by Arendt’s friends largely backfired, only exacerbating the conviction on all sides that criticism of Arendt was a “Jewish monopoly,” and that Jews were “particu- larly sensitive about everything connected with the ‘dark’ chapter in their history,” as Phillips observed.15 One of the most damaging reviews was in fact by a non-Jew, Judge Musmanno, who, having attended the trial, asserted that her description of the proceedings was so often at variance with the facts that “it can hardly be accepted as an authoritative historical work,” and that her “scorn” for Israel and Prime Minister Ben-Gurion was evidence of “purely private prejudices.”16 And it was of little consequence that Daniel Bell defended her in a lengthy article, or that Alfred Kazin spoke up for Arendt at the New York forum at Town Hall sponsored by Dissent, though admittedly only after Howe’s repeated efforts to solicit a single pro- Arendt speaker were met with silence.17 10. Arendt to McCarthy, September 20, 1963, Between Friends, p. 147. 11. McCarthy to Arendt, September 24, 1963, p. 149. In Michael Wreszin, A Rebel in Defense of Tradition: The Life and Politics of Dwight Macdonald (New York: Basic Books, 1994), p. 385. 12. Mary McCarthy, “The Hue and Cry,” Partisan Review 1 (Winter 1964), p. 82. 13. Macdonald in Wreszin, Dwight Macdonald, p. 385. 14. Dwight Macdonald, “Eichmann and the Jews,” Partisan Review 2 (Spring 1964), pp. 265–66. 15. William Phillips, “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” Partisan Review 2 (Spring 1964), p. 279. 16. M. A. Musmanno, “A Man with an Unspotted Conscience,” New York Times Book Review, May 19, 1963, pp. 1, 40–41. 17. Irving Howe, “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” Partisan Review 2 (Spring 1964), p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reading Arendt's on Revolution After the Fall of the Wall
    Keeping the Republic: Reading Arendt’s On Revolution after the Fall of the Wall Dick Howard Introduction: From where do you speak, comrade? Two decades after the fall of the Wall seemed to announce – by default, as an unexpected gift – the triumph of democracy, optimism appears at best naïve, at worst an ideological manipulation of the most cynical type. The hope was that the twin forms of modern anti-politics – the imaginary planned society and the equally imaginary invisible hand of the market place – would be replaced by the rule of the demos; citizens together would determine the values of the commonwealth. The reality was at first the ‘New World Order’ of George H.W. Bush; then the indecisive interregnum of the Clinton years; and now the crass take over of democratic rhetoric by the neo-conservatives of George W. Bush. ‘Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains,’ wrote Rousseau at the outset of The Social Contract; how this came about was less important, he continued, than what made it legitimate: that was what needed explanation. So it is today; what is it about democracy that makes it the greatest threat to its own existence? In this context, it is well to reread Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution, published in 1963. On returning recently to my old (1965) paperback edition, I was struck by the spare red and black design of the cover, which was not (as I thought for a moment) a subtle allusion to the conflict of communism and anarchism for the realization of ‘true’ democracy, but simply the backdrop against which the editor stressed these sentences: ‘With nuclear power at a stalemate, revolutions have become the principal political factor of our time.
    [Show full text]
  • Hannah Arendt Controversy
    Eichmann in New York: The New York Intellectuals and the Hannah Arendt Controversy ANSON RABINBACH The Eichmann controversy, occasioned by Hannah Arendt’s five-part series that appeared in The New Yorker from February 16 to March 16, 1963, was certainly the most bitter public dispute among intellectuals and scholars concerning the Holocaust that has ever taken place. It was also the first time that both Jews and non-Jews were witness to a controversy over Jewish memory, an affair that took place largely, but not exclusively, among Jews. The controversy elicited over a thousand published responses. It lasted almost three years from the initial burst of reactions to Arendt’s articles and book in 1963, gradually subsiding only after her response to Jacob Robinson’s book-length disputation, And the Crooked Shall Be Made Straight, more than two years later.1 The animosity and rancor of the dispute was so extreme that more than two decades later Irving Howe could write that “within the New York intellectual world Arendt’s book provoked divisions that would never be entirely healed.”2 To varying degrees almost all her critics took up Arendt’s most controversial points: her characterization of Eichmann as a thoughtless and “banal” cipher of totalitarian rule, her judgments of the behavior of the Jewish leaders and Zionist officials in Eastern Europe, her analysis of the legal charges against Eichmann, and her accusation that the court proceedings were, in effect, a “show trial.” But as Richard I. Cohen has shown in his comprehensive rezeptionsgeschichte (reception history) of the controversy, despite a good deal of overlap concerning the main themes of Arendt’s work, substantial distinctions among different audiences and responses can be discerned.
    [Show full text]
  • Nathan Glazer—Merit Before Meritocracy - the American Interest
    Nathan Glazer—Merit Before Meritocracy - The American Interest https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/04/03/nathan-glazer-... https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/04/03/nathan-glazer-merit-before-meritocracy/ WHAT ONCE WAS Nathan Glazer—Merit Before Meritocracy PETER SKERRY The perambulating path of this son of humble Jewish immigrants into America’s intellectual and political elites points to how much we have overcome—and lost—over the past century. The death of Nathan Glazer in January, a month before his 96th birthday, has been rightly noted as the end of an era in American political and intellectual life. Nat Glazer was the last exemplar of what historian Christopher Lasch would refer to as a “social type”: the New York intellectuals, the sons and daughters of impoverished, almost exclusively Jewish immigrants who took advantage of the city’s public education system and then thrived in the cultural and political ferment that from the 1930’s into the 1960’s made New York the leading metropolis of the free world. As Glazer once noted, the Marxist polemics that he and his fellow students at City College engaged in afforded them unique insights into, and unanticipated opportunities to interpret, Soviet communism to the rest of America during the Cold War. Over time, postwar economic growth and political change resulted in the relative decline of New York and the emergence of Washington as the center of power and even glamor in American life. Nevertheless, Glazer and his fellow New York intellectuals, relocated either to major universities around the country or to Washington think tanks, continued to exert remarkable influence over both domestic and foreign affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • A Special Supplement: Reflections on Violence by Hannah Arendt | the New York Review of Books
    A Special Supplement: Reflections on Violence by Hannah Arendt | The New York Review of Books EMAIL Tweet Share A Special Supplement: Refections on Violence Hannah Arendt FEBRUARY 27, 1969 ISSUE I These reflections were provoked by the events and debates of the last few years, as seen against the background of the twentieth century. Indeed this century has become, as Lenin predicted, a century of wars and revolutions, hence a century of that violence which is currently believed to be their common denominator. There is, however, another factor in the present situation which, though predicted by nobody, is of at least equal importance. The technical development of implements of violence has now reached the point where no political goal could conceivably correspond to their destructive potential or justify their actual use in armed conflict. Hence, warfare—since times immemorial the final merciless arbiter in international disputes—has lost much of its effectiveness and nearly all of its glamor. “The apocalyptic” chess game between the superpowers, that is, between those that move on the highest plane of our civilization, is being played according to the rule: “if either ‘wins’ it is the end of both.”1 Moreover the game bears no resemblance to whatever war games preceded it. Its “rational” goal is mutual deterrence, not victory. Since violence—as distinct from power, force, or strength—always needs implements (as Engels pointed out long ago),2 the revolution in technology, a revolution in tool-making, was especially marked in warfare. The very substance of violent action is ruled by the question of means and ends, whose chief characteristic, if applied to human affairs, has always been that the end is in danger of being overwhelmed by the means, which it both justifies and needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Congress Is Weak Because Its Members Want It to Be
    CommentaryJULY/AUGUST 2018 DOUBLE ISSUE Congress Is Weak Because Its Members Want It to Be BY YUVAL LEVIN Game of Peacock Thrones BY SOHRAB AHMARI Should Jews Flee Europe? BY MELANIE PHILLIPS Commentary How Israel Became a JULY/AUGUST 2018 : VOLUME 146 NUMBER 1 146 : VOLUME 2018 JULY/AUGUST TV Powerhouse BY HANNAH BROWN Philip Roth’s My Time Among Joyless the Exuberance Anti-Israelites BY RUTH R. WISSE CANADA $7.00 : US $5.95 BY ARDIE GELDMAN We join in celebrating Israel’s 70 years. And Magen David Adom is proud to have saved lives for every one of them. Magen David Adom, Israel’s largest and premier emergency medical response agency, has been saving lives since before 1948. Supporters like you provide MDA’s 27,000 paramedics, EMTs, and civilian Life Guardians — more than 90% of them volunteers — with the training, equipment, and rescue vehicles they need. In honor of Israel’s 70th anniversary, MDA has launched a 70 for 70 Campaign that will put 70 new ambulances on the streets of Israel this year. There is no better way to celebrate this great occasion and ensure the vitality of the state continues for many more years. Please give today. 352 Seventh Avenue, Suite 400 New York, NY 10001 Toll-Free 866.632.2763 • [email protected] www.afmda.org Celebrate Israel’s 70th anniversary by helping put 70 new ambulances on its streets. FOR SEVENTY Celebrate Israel’s 70th anniversary by putting 70 new ambulances on its streets. please join us for the ninth annual COMMENTARY ROAST this year’s victim: JOE LIEBERMAN monday, october 8, 2018, new york city CO-CHAIR TABLES: $25,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Arendt's Violence/Power Distinction and SARTRE's Violence/Counter-Violence Distinction: the Phenomenology of Violence in Co
    CHAPTER SIX ARENDT’S VIOLENCE/POWER DISTINCTION AND SARTRE’S VIOLENCE/COUNTER-VIOLENCE DISTINCTION: THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF VIOLENCE IN COLONIAL AND POST-ColonIAL CONTEXTS Kathryn T. Gines The theme of violence can be traced throughout Hannah Arendt’s major political writings such as The Human Condition and On Revolution where she draws connections between war, violence, and necessity (or libera- tion from necessity); The Origins of Totalitarianism where she examines Europe’s uses of violence in concentration camps, as well as massacre and imperialism in Africa; and, of course, On Violence where she condemns the violence of the Black Power movement and of anti-colonialism. The essay that follows will take as its starting point the violence/power dis- tinction and then the appropriate uses of violence versus non-violence as presented in Arendt’s On Violence. I argue that this distinction between violence and power is misapplied in Arendt’s critique of Jean-Paul Sar- tre and Frantz Fanon’s analyses of anti-colonial revolutionary violence in Algeria. Arendt wrongly interprets Sartre and Fanon’s analyses of violence and counter-violence in The Wretched of the Earth and Critique of Dialecti- cal Reason and her critique of violence proves to be unbalanced. On my view, she rejects their analyses because they argue for the use of violence by the oppressed to overcome the violent system of colonialism. I con- tend that it is because they argue for revolutionary violence (or counter- violence) against their oppressors that Sartre and Fanon are accused of glorifying violence for violence’s sake. In the concluding section of the essay, I briefly consider the possibil- ity that while Arendt’s critique of anti-colonial violence is misguided, her analysis might prove helpful when applied to the post-colonial context in which former anti-colonial leaders fighting for independence strike out violently against the people.
    [Show full text]
  • Rabinbach, Anson. Staging the Third Reich
    Copyright © 2020. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Group. All rights © 2020. Taylor & Francis Copyright Rabinbach, Anson. Staging the Third Reich : Essays in Cultural and Intellectual History, edited by Stefanos Geroulanos, and Dagmar Herzog, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=6235713. Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2020-07-01 17:45:52. Contents “The attraction of fascism itself”: Anson Rabinbach’s writings on Nazism and its opponents 1 STEFANOS GEROULANOS AND DAGMAR HERZOG PART I Nazism 19 1 The Beauty of Labor: The aesthetics of production in the Third Reich (1976) 21 Appendix: No angel from hell: The collapse of the Speer myth (2006) 42 2 Organized mass culture in the Third Reich: The women of Kraft durch Freude (1986) 58 3 The emotional core of fascism in its most virulent psychic manifestations (1989) 66 CO-AUTHORED WITH JESSICA BENJAMIN 4 The reader, the popular novel, and the imperative to participate: Reflections on public and private experience in the Third Reich (1991) 83 5 Nazi culture: The sacred, the aesthetic, and the popular (2005) 108 6 The humanities in Nazi Germany (2006) 138 CO-AUTHORED WITH WOLFGANG BIALAS Copyright © 2020. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Group. All rights © 2020. Taylor & Francis Copyright Rabinbach, Anson. Staging the Third Reich : Essays in Cultural and Intellectual History, edited by Stefanos Geroulanos, and Dagmar Herzog, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=6235713. Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2020-07-01 17:45:24.
    [Show full text]
  • Reports the Maozedongism of Chinese Politics and the Xi Factor
    Reports The Maozedongism of Chinese Politics and the Xi Factor *Stein Ringen 26 April 2018 Al Jazeera Centre for Studies Tel: +974-40158384 [email protected] http://studies.aljazeera.n [Getty] As part of his critical paradigm of political systems in the West as well as in the East in the 21st century, sociologist and political scientist Stein Ringen proposes another nuanced reflection of a two-part study of the challenges of global democracy. Back in February, the first paper “When America’s Democracy Needs a Health-Check: Polarization and the Trump Factor” focused on the Trump factor in the decline of American democracy. Now, the second paper addresses how China has proceeded with its own political transformation in 2018. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has decided to add Chinese President Xi Jinping’s political thought and the National Supervision System into the country’s constitution.(1) As Ringen wrote in a recent publication, “the modern Chinese state does not rely on being forbidding to its people in their daily lives. Indeed, ordinary Chinese now have many freedoms that no one interferes with. But the state has its red lines and does forbid what cannot be accepted: interference in Party affairs and organizing outside of the Party apparatus.”(2) According to the author, Xi Jinping has proved himself the most formidable leader in China after Mao. The first bastion for Xi to topple was pragmatism. Under his watch, all the reins of dictatorship have been tightened. The second bastion to fall was collective leadership. At the Party Congress in October 2017, he had his “thought” inscribed in the Party’s Constitution, lifting himself on to the pedestal previously occupied only by Mao.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoconservatism Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative Hberkc Ch5 Mp 104 Rev1 Page 104 Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative Hberkc Ch5 Mp 105 Rev1 Page 105
    Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_103 rev1 page 103 part iii Neoconservatism Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_104 rev1 page 104 Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_105 rev1 page 105 chapter five The Neoconservative Journey Jacob Heilbrunn The Neoconservative Conspiracy The longer the United States struggles to impose order in postwar Iraq, the harsher indictments of the George W. Bush administration’s foreign policy are becoming. “Acquiring additional burdens by engag- ing in new wars of liberation is the last thing the United States needs,” declared one Bush critic in Foreign Affairs. “The principal problem is the mistaken belief that democracy is a talisman for all the world’s ills, and that the United States has a responsibility to promote dem- ocratic government wherever in the world it is lacking.”1 Does this sound like a Democratic pundit bashing Bush for par- tisan gain? Quite the contrary. The swipe came from Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center and copublisher of National Interest. Simes is not alone in calling on the administration to reclaim the party’s pre-Reagan heritage—to abandon the moralistic, Wilsonian, neoconservative dream of exporting democracy and return to a more limited and realistic foreign policy that avoids the pitfalls of Iraq. 1. Dimitri K. Simes, “America’s Imperial Dilemma,” Foreign Affairs (Novem- ber/December 2003): 97, 100. Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_106 rev1 page 106 106 jacob heilbrunn In fact, critics on the Left and Right are remarkably united in their assessment of the administration. Both believe a neoconservative cabal has hijacked the administration’s foreign policy and has now overplayed its hand.
    [Show full text]
  • Albert Camus As Moral Politician
    Articles The Passion and the Spirit: Albert Camus as Moral Politician Jan Klabbers* TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. Introduction. – II. A manifesto. – III. On Camus. – IV. Camus and the virtues. – V. A smouldering continent. – V.1. Financial crisis. – V.2. Refugee flows. – V.3. Russia and Crimea. – V.4. Refer- enda, governance, responsibility. – VI. To conclude. ABSTRACT: This essays addresses the curious circumstance that for all their visibility on blogs, twitter and the 'op-ed' pages of newspapers, public intellectuals offer remarkably little ethical guidance regarding current events and crises. These intellectuals may offer their expertise (explanations, predictions), but do not provide much ethical inspiration, almost as if 'right' and 'wrong' have be- come meaningless categories. Things were different a few generations ago, when the likes of Al- bert Camus would search their souls in order to figure out how to live. This essay portrays Camus as private citizen and public moralist, and briefly discusses current political events in a mindset inspired by Camus. KEYWORDS: Albert Camus – virtue ethics – political crisis – Europe – public intellectuals. “… for us Europe is a home of the spirit where for the last twenty centuries the most amazing adventure of the human spirit has been going on”.1 I. Introduction Europe is, if not on fire, at least smouldering. The last couple of years alone have seen the continent confronted with the unabashed annexation of the Crimea; the shooting down, accidental or otherwise, of civilian aircraft; a financial crisis and a country on the brink of bankruptcy; and an influx of refugees seen as threatening in its own right, and which threatens to bring down the European Union (EU) and threatens to turn Europe * Academy Professor (Martti Ahtisaari Chair), University of Helsinki, and Visiting Research Professor, Erasmus Law School, Erasmus University Rotterdam, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal System of Hannah Arendt: a Structure Built Upon Participation Mav Block
    † Designated as an Exemplary Master’s Project for 2019-2020 The Federal System of Hannah Arendt: A Structure Built Upon Participation Mav Block Faculty Advisor: Dr. Robert Mitchell Marcello Lotti Professor of English Department of English March 2020 This project was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Graduate Liberal Studies Program in the Graduate School of Duke University. © Copyright by Mav Block 2020 Abstract In this thesis, I reconstruct Hannah Arendt’s theory of federalism through a novel interpretation of the relationship between power and authority in her work. Though numerous scholars underscore the import of federalism for Arendt’s politics, theorists have remained silent; some, who champion her council state, acknowledge its federal character – yet none have sought her federal theory. I argue the federal system for Arendt shares a necessary and constitutive relationship to the council state. For Arendt, federal authority is derived from an act of foundation by already constituted powers, while the preservation of this authority depends upon the ongoing capacity of those powers to act individually and collectively. This means, for Arendt, that the federal system demands the specific form of direct public participation in government institutionalized by the council state for its longevity, otherwise it will degenerate. Through exposing Arendt’s federal thought, I show that her reflections on federalism offer valuable insights into the division of powers, the system of checks and balances, the relationship between law and politics, the role of a constitutional court, as well as the danger posed by representative democracy, in what amounts in the last instance to a radical re-conception of the federal republic.
    [Show full text]
  • History 674 Austria-Hungary and Its Successors, 1867-1938 Spring Semester, 2006 Wednesdays, 3:30-5:20
    Untitled Document 26.06.17, 1634 History 674 Austria-Hungary and its Successors, 1867-1938 Spring Semester, 2006 Wednesdays, 3:30-5:20 Timothy Snyder [email protected] Office Hours: 1:45-3:15, Luce Hall 245 Description: This is a reading course. The paper assignment is a review essay of one or more of the synthetic works assigned (Gellner, Hroch, Seton-Watson, Pauley, Kann, Bérenger, or another work in consultation with the instructor), exploiting monographic studies on the syllabus as well as your own research. In this review you must explain the substantial contribution and historiographic significance of the chosen work before moving to any critique. At least one line of critique must concern causality. If you wish to write a research paper instead you may do so, in consultation with the instructor. The weekly assignment is to prepare a brief oral introduction to the reading. Question: What are the connections between the structure and policies of the Habsburg monarchy and the rise (or the absence) of modern nationalism in central Europe? Part One: The Monarchy Introduction. 11 January. The Empire Unnamed. 18 January. Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983. Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe, New York: Columbia University Press, 2000, 1-30, 44-61, 98-106. The Empire Undone: Three Views. 25 January. Robert Kann, A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1529-1918, Berkeley: University of California Press, 406-464. Jean Bérenger, A History of the Habsburg Empire 1700-1918, Harlow: Addison Wesley, 1990, 209-289. A. J. P.
    [Show full text]