Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
"Populism"
Author(s): MARGARET CANOVAN
Source: Social Research, Vol. 69, No. 2, Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism":
Fifty Years Later (SUMMER 2002), pp. 403-422
Published by: The New School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971555 .
Accessed: 09/12/2014 20:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The New School is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.
http://www.jstor.org
The People,theMasses,/
of/
and theMobilization
Power:The Paradox /
ofHannahArendt's/
"POpUUSm"*
CANOVAN
/BY MARGARET
/
404
SOCIAL RESEARCH
is concernedwiththepowergenof Origins
A largeproportion
butmostofthetimeitis
in
eratedbyindividuals
moving concert,
whoarebeingmobilized.In facttherealPeopleare
notthePeople
hardlyevermentionedin the book, exceptas somethingwith
is contrasted.
whicha seriesofnon-Peoples
405
406
SOCIAL RESEARCH
In hersectionon imperialism,
Arendtisconcernedwith"superbut had
fluousmen" who hadn'tjoined workers'movements
mob.Thesewereoutside
insteadbecomepartof theimperialist
and purpose"in a numberofsigany"humanworldoffellowship
nificant
mob,theyhad no placein
ways.Liketheanti-Dreyfusard
also
a structured
were
uprooted,freed
society.They
physically
Arendtsaysthatthey
fromnormalexpectations
and restraints.
exisintoa "phantom-like"
ofcivilization"
had "escapedthereality
fortheiracts,partencewheretheyhad no senseofresponsibility
alien
on an utterly
becausein Africatheywerepreying
ticularly
into
Peobeen
had
itself
never
nativepopulationthat
gathered
"Tribe"with"Peocontrasts
ples,onlyintotribes.She explicitly
to the "world."Genuine
linksthedifference
ple,"and explicitly
on
nature
to create"a human
have
worked
she
"Peoples," claims,
havehistories;
world,a humanreality"
(1967:192),and therefore
tribeslivedin and on nature,like animals,
whereas/^historic
She
artificeand a "humanreality."2
a
human
without
building
thattheBoers,demoralized
maintains
bythisexample,had themfrom
thepridewhichWest"alienated
a
turned
into
selves
tribe,
ern man feltin livingin a worldcreatedand fabricatedby
himself (194). Faced withAfricantribes,the Boers had also
respondedbydevelopinga racistideology,and thiswas eagerly
theirviowhitemob. It legitimized
adoptedby the immigrant
on
based
lence,and offeredthema newbond of unity
nothing
butthecoloroftheirskin.
with
Arendtlinksthesepathologiesof overseasimperialism
in
Eastern
whatshe calls"Continental
Europe,the
Imperialism"
thatalso recruitedmobs.
and Pan-Slavmovements
Pan-German
to thesemovewhatshe calls"tribalnationalism"
She attributes
of
theirracismwiththecivilizednationalism
ments,contrasting
is
that
The
difference
Westernnation-states,
notablyFrance.
in possession
wastheexpressionofa people
nationalism
Western
likeFrance,humanachieveIn a country
of an objectiveworld.
mentshad been passeddownthroughgenerations,
unitingand
territory
definingthepeople. These rangedfromthecultivated
407
408
SOCIAL RESEARCH
ifthestructures
unrelatedindividuals.
thatholdpeople
Similarly,
are turnedinto a
togetherin societycollapse,the inhabitants
massofisolatedindividuals
(Arendt,1994:357).
The sectionon theMassesin Origins
refers
tocatastrophic
experiencesin Germany
and RussiaaftertheFirstWorldWar.Arendt
stresson thecollapseoftheclassstructure,
which
laysparticular
inwhichall
had been theone apparently
solidfeatureofa society
stableinstitutions
werebeingunderminedby capitalism(1967:
314;cf.1963:162). Earlierwesawthata salientfeatureoftheMob
was thatitsmembersweredclasss;
nowwe findthatloss of the
leftbehinda Mass of bewildered
entirefamiliarclassstructure
individuals.
movements
succeededbecause
Arendtclaimsthattotalitarian
the"senseofhavinga placein the
theygavetheselostindividuals
world
world"(1967: 324), and thattheyprovidedan alternative
and the Aryan
based on fictionssuch as theJewishconspiracy
race.Totalitarian
explanationfor
ideologyprovideda consistent
adrift(352). ButArendt
theeventsthathad settheseindividuals
stresses
thattheGermanmassesfoundmuchmorethana sooththeyfounda parallel
ing doctrinein Nazism.More important,
in whichtheycould live.The Nazisorganizedtheirmoveworld
weretrue;as iftherereallywerea
mentas iftheircrazydoctrines
if
The
and
as
Aryanbloodreallyweredifferent.
Jewish
conspiracy,
crebutit nevertheless
wasbased on fiction,
wholeorganization
ated "a kindofspuriousstability"
world,"one
(356), a "fictitious
"fitto competewiththerealone" (361-2).
Let me trynowto sumup whatit is thatmakesthedifference
in Origins.
betweenthePeopleand non-Peoples
twodiswe haveencountered,
Lookingat thevariouscontrasts
the
Peobetween
out.
The
difference
stand
features
tinguishing
tohingeon relationto the
ple and theirOthersseemsrepeatedly
"world"and relationto "reality."
Non-Peoplesare in somesense
share
a humanworld.The People
the
whereas
"worldless,"
People
whereasnon-Peoples
also havea common-sense
gripon reality,
409
zone of unreality,
a "phantom-like"
inhabita twilight
existence,
"fiction."
These contrastsare suggestive
and resonant,but neitheris
Arendtdrawson thedistinction
clear.In Origins,
between
entirely
and
the
human-built
"world"
that
she
thenatural"earth"
laterset
out in TheHumanCondition,
butappliesitin waysthatare sometimesopaque. Wesaw,forexample,thatsheattributes
"worldlessness"both to the Masseswhojoined the Nazi partyand to the
encounteredin Africa.But
indigenousTribesthatimperialists
bothworldand worldlessness
seem to mean different
thingsin
the twocases,referring
to the classsystemin one case and to
deliberateshapingof the naturalenvironment
on the other.
in
Africantribesmen
Although
mightlacka world thesenseofa
- not,at
humanizedlandscape,theywerenot sociallyuprooted
any rate, until conqueringimperialists
uprootedthem. Conthe
German
masses
who
voted
for
Hitlermayhave lost
versely,
theirsocialstructure,
buttheystillinhabiteda humanartifice
that
was relatively
intact.So worldliness
and worldlessness
seem to
have a range of meanings,and it is not clear whyparticular
timesand in
aspectsshouldhavepoliticalrelevanceat particular
particular
places.
Thereare further
theassociationofworldpuzzlesconcerning
linesswithaccessto reality.
This is a recurrent
themein Origins.
Rememberthatthe "superfluous
men" whojoined the South
African
's words)"escapedthereality
of
goldrushhad (in Arendt
civilization"
as theyconfronted
African
tribeswhohad neverconstructed"a humanreality."
when
themasseslose their
Similarly,
stablesocioeconomicworld,theyalso lose theircommon-sense
Itseemsas ifnon-Peoples
arein somesensecursed
gripon reality.
withexclusionfromreality,
whereasthetruePeoplein possession
ofa stableworldare epistemically
privileged:
theyhaveaccessto
their
common
which
comes
fromseeing
sense,
realitythrough
theircommonworldfromdifferent
angles.Thereis an authentito
the
notion
that
itis thePeople,ratherthan
callypopulistring
thePhilosopher,
whocan escapefromthecaveofillusionintothe
410
SOCIAL RESEARCH
Butlargephilosophical
sunshineofreality.
questionsseemto be
to "reality,"
and Arendtdoes
beggedin thesevariousreferences
not give us much help in understanding
preciselywhat she
means.
We mayfeel thatat least we knowwherewe are withher
accountof the "fictitious
world"of the totalitarian
movement,
to
since the term"fictitious"
refers
apparently
systematic
lying
about mattersof fact.But thisis less transparent
than it may
seem.The "fictitious
world"ofNazismwassustainedbylies and
based on thefantasiesof racistideology,but Nazi organization
ralliesand the maswas not a fiction:thinkof the Nuremburg
Arendt
herselfsaysthat
visible
of
sively
presence organization.
in powerestablishes"thefictitious
worldof the
totalitarianism
life."Furmovementas a tangibleworkingrealityof everyday
she seemsto be preparedto admitthatthis"fictitious
thermore,
movement
had thepotentialtobecome
world"ofthetotalitarian
a realworld.She saysthatNazismmighthavesettleddowninto
"takeitsplaceamongthe
"a newwayoflife"thatcouldeventually
and profoundly
waysof lifeof the
contrasting
widelydiffering
itwouldstillhave
nationsoftheearth"(1967: 391). Presumably
butit could have
been organizedaroundan irrational
ideology,
no doubt
a genuineworldwith"lastinginstitutions,"
established
Itdidwithtaboosagainstintermarriage.
includinga castesystem
movements
are dedicatedto pern't do so, becausetotalitarian
The massesareheldinwhatArendtcalls"the
manentrevolution.
ironband of terror"(1967: 466) and cannotbecome a plural
people gatheredarounda sharedworld.Butit seemsto be the
ofideology
ratherthanthefictions
momentum
oftotalitarianism
a "real"humanworldand a
thatstandin thewayofestablishing
realPeople.
It is hardto saythatwe emergefromthebookwithclearcriteFurthePeople fromtheirmanyimitators.
riafordistinguishing
thermore,in Originsthe genuinePeople are conspicuousby
theirabsence.Whyis it,then,thatArendthangson to thenotion
so doggedly?Whydoes she not reactto her traumaticexperi-
41 1
enees of massmobilization
as othersdid, bycondemningpopulismoutright?
Theremaybe biographical
answers
tothisquestion.Butleaving
aside anypersonalmotivations
she mayhavehad, I wantto suggestthatArendthad twoconnectedreasonsforretainingher
idiosyncratically
populistnotionof thePeople. First,thenotion
forhera distinctive
and attractive
represented
politicalideal,intimatedin Origins
not
in thatbook.
though yetclearlyformulated
thatwasall the
Second,thetermpointedtoa politicalphenomenon
morepreciousforbeingrare.Bothof thesepointswillperhaps
becomeclearerifwe look at the treatment
of People and nonPeople in On Revolution.
Ill
On Revolution
is organizedrounda contrastbetweenthe two
revolutions.
The AmericanRevolution
greateighteenth-century
succeededin establishing
a republicand a constitution
thatare
stillgoingstrongafter200years.The FrenchRevolution
failedto
establish
a republic,and rapidly
becamederailedintotheTerror.
Arendt's
reflections
on thecontrast
arecomplex,butin heranalysisthePeople havea good deal to do withthedifference
in outcome.In baldsummary,
theAmericanRevolution
wascarriedout
a
mobilized
who
shared
a
whereas
theFrench
world,
by
People
Revolution
wasdrivenoffcoursebya mobilizednon-People,the
starving
poor.
It is clearerin OnRevolution
thanin Origins
whatitmeansfora
to
share
a
world
because
Arendtcan pointto political
People
institutions
roundwhichthe (free,white,male) Americans
gatheredand in defenseofwhichthePeople couldtakeaction.Even
beforethe Revolution,
whiletheywerestillBritishsubjects,the
Americans
had been "organizedin self-governing
bodies"(1963:
And
since
were
164).
they
alreadyaccustomedto movingfreely
withinthatsharedpoliticalworld,it was easierforthemtojoin
412
SOCIAL RESEARCH
to buildthenewfederated
worldoftherepublic,while
together
at thesametimeremaining
pluraland havingscope fordebates
betweendifferent
opinions(143-5).The outcomewasa constitutionthatwas,in Arendt'swords,"a tangibleworldly
an
reality,"
(156).
"objective
thing"ofexceptionaldurability
In France,bycontrast,
therewas no organizedor constituted
wasdisplaced,therewasno shared
People. Once themonarchy
world
there
to buildone
(179). Earlyattempts
political
already
werederailedby the presencein the streetsof a wow-People
ironicallyknownas le people the starvingParisianmultitude.
Arendtsaysthatthe potentialof the revolution,
the incipient
of
the
for
was
overwhelmed
freedom,"
"uprising
by the
people
of the poor and the downtrodden,"
eruptionof "themultitude
who emergedfor the firsttimeinto the public realm (41).3
disastrous.
The
Despiteitsenormouspathos,thiswas politically
of
a
free
was
futile
project building
republic displacedby
attempts
the
sheer
ofstartocurepoverty
while
bypoliticalmeans,
urgency
vationjustifiedtyranny.
But the experiencealso deformedthe
misof "thepeople,"becauseparticipants
and observers
concept
in thestreets
tookthemultitude
fortherealPeople.
WhyweretheynottherealPeople?Becausealthoughthepoor
weremobilizedand united,theywereunitedin thewrongway.
Insteadof beinggatheredrounda sharedworldoutsidethemselves,theywereheld togetheronlybybodilynecessity,
by the
Arendtdescribesthemas
identicalpangsofhungertheysuffered.
"a multi-headed
a massthatmovesas one bodyand acts
monster,
as thoughpossessedbyone will"(1963:89). Likethenon-Peoples
and quite
in Origins,
butonlyfordestruction,
theywerepowerful,
institutions."
unableto build"lasting
On theone side,in AmerSo Arendtoffers
us a starkcontrast.
ica, standsan articulated
People,mobilizedfromthegrassroots
On the
themselves.
and outside
forthesakeofsomething
objective
united
in
have
a
otherside, France,we
onlybythings
non-People
in
with
mobs
"tribal
nationalist"
like
the
inside
themselves,
Origins,
413
414
SOCIAL RESEARCH
415
oftheirsharedworld.Actnamelythelong-term
publicinterests
withprivateinteringas a Peopleliftsthemoutofpreoccupation
estsintocarefortherepublic.
Third,since the pluralPeople look at theircommonworld
fromdifferent
ofperspectives
angles,theyhaveaccessto a variety
thatenable themto see thingsin the round.Insteadof being
blinkeredby ideology,theythereforehave the potentialto
developa politicsofrealismand commonsense,as theFounding
Fathersindeeddid.
None of thisimpliesthathavingthe good fortuneto sharea
raisethoseconcernedto theheights
republicmustpermanently
of public-spiritedness
and politicalrealism.In On Revolution
Arendtalso deploredthedegeneration
ofAmericanpoliticsinto
tradeoffs
betweenprivateinterests.
But at the conceptuallevel,
she offers
an ideal of thePeople thatis worththinking
about,if
withbothof themostfamiliar
onlybecauseit contrasts
conceptions.The People as she understands
it is quite different
from
ofthePeopleas a singlebeingspeaking
populistpersonifications
witha singlevoice.Butitavoidswhattendsto be seenas theonly
alternative:
dissolution
of thepeople intoan aggreantpopulist
withno collective
gateofindividuals
capacityat all (Riker,1982).
if
thisisinteresting,lessclearthanwemightwish.
Conceptually,
We mustremember,
's conceptualinnovathough,thatArendt
tionsareneverintended
justas movesin a theoretical
game.They
- especiallyto those
are meantto pointto neglectedphenomena
rare,memorablephenomenain which,she believed,humansignificanceis to be found.And I suspectthatthereasonshe hung
on to thenotionofthepeoplewasnotsimplythatitrepresented
an idealofrepublicanpolitics,
butalsobecause,in herview,itwas
a formof politicalmobilization
thatdid occasionallyoccur.In
otherwords,despitetheoverwhelming
presencein her timeof
undesirableformsof mobilization,
she believedthat
thoroughly
- such as the AmericanRevolutionand the
on a fewoccasions
416
SOCIAL RESEARCH
417
memoryand myththatofferglimpsesofrepublicanfreedomto
inspireothersintoaction.
Thisaccountseemsto me to makesenseof theconundrumI
startedwith:howArendtcould be a "populist"whiledeploring
as popularmobilization.
mostcasesofwhatothersmightclassify
ButI wantto end bysuggesting
thatit mayalso shedsomelight
democon an obscureand embarrassing
aspectofcontemporary
theorists
at
the
start
of
the
For
as
democratic
racy.
political
twentyfirstcentury,
we do not seem to be able to do withoutthe
idea of thePeople,butwe do notknowwhatto do
legitimizing
withit.
Since the collapse of communism,it seems that the only
sourceofpoliticallegitimacy
(forthoseofus whoare
remaining
notreligiousfundamentalists)
is theconsentofthepeople.Even
themostunpopulistofdemocratic
theorists
cannotactually
write
itoutofthescript.Habermas(forinstance)saysthathe does not
connectedwiththeidea ofpoprejectwhathe calls"theintuition
ularsovereignty"thoughhe does hisbestto renderitharmless
it into anonymousprocessesand procedures
by translating
canbe foundin other
(Habermas,1994:10). Similarambivalence
and itpromptsfurther
commentators,
contemporary
questions.4
Ifthecollective
if
cannot
exercise
cannot
take
People
power, they
actionon thepublicstage,howis it thatlegitimacy
can be based
on them?WhybotherwithHabermas's "intuition
connectedwith
theidea ofpopularsovereignty"
ifthenotionofa sovereign
People in actionis reallyquitemeaningless?
The answermayofcoursebe that"thepeople"isjust a necessarymyth:thisemperorhas no clothes,but to keep the system
we mustgo on admiringhis imaginary
robes.But
functioning
thereis a lesscynicalwayoflookingat myths
thatsees themnot
as purefictions
butas transformed
memories.
Andwe mayafter
all ask howwas it thatthe notionof the collectivePeople as a
source of legitimacy
ever enteredthe vocabularyof politics?
There is certainly
about it. Historically
we
nothingself-evident
can tracetheidea tocertainstrikingly
of
powerful
examples polit-
418
SOCIAL RESEARCH
419
Arendt's
signalthepresenceofthePeople.It is onlyifwe forget
experienceof Nazismthatwe can see heras thepatronsaintof
directaction,welcomingeveryeruptionof the populationinto
thestreets.
Butifwelookbacktothecharacterization
ofactionby
the People that emergedfromour examinationof Arendt's
similarities.
One of thestrikbooks,we do findsomeinteresting
waswhatArendtwouldhavecalled its
ingfeaturesof Solidarity
character:
its
devotion
to institution
"worldly"
buildingfromthe
groundup. Nothingcould have been less like an amorphous,
impulsive,violentmob or a helpless mass. To quote Alain
Touraineand his associates,"Here was a popular movement
whichbehavedlike a legislative
anxiousto
assemblyinfinitely
respectlegal procedures"(Touraineet al., 1983: 2; cf.50). Furthermore,
despiteits tradeunion originsand economicgrievconcerned with
ances, the movementwas overwhelmingly
interests
such
as
freedom
and national
long-term
public
political
independence(Touraineet al., 1983:4). Itsformidable
unitywas
unideological,allowingforintenseinternaldebateat all levels.
Andthefeaturethatwasin somewaysthemostremarkable
ofall
wasa politicalsobriety
ofArendt'sFoundingFathers:an
worthy
exceptionaldegree of politicalrealismand common sense,
witha remarkable
and
together
capacityto exerciseself-restraint
interests
aboveprivateinterests
and shortputsharedlong-term
termimpulses.
Up toa point,Arendt'sconceptionofthePeopleunitedbyand
in defenseofa sharedinstitutional
worldbuiltfromthegrassroots
fitsquitewell.Butonlyup to a point.One conspicuousfeatureof
as a movement
ofthePeople does notfiguremuchin
Solidarity
Arendt's
and
that
is thenationaland religiousdimension
analysis,
thatwasevidently
crucialin theemergenceofSolidarity
as a collectiveactor(Bakuniakand Nowak,1987),and in motivating
that
devotion
to
the
interest.
As
leader
disciplined
public
Solidarity
Lech Walesaputit,"The interests
ofthePolishnationwillalways
overrideourownparticular
interests"
(Touraineet al., 1983:45).
Whenlookingearlierat TheOrigins
we sawthat
ofTotalitarianism,
420
SOCIAL RESEARCH
421
422
SOCIAL RESEARCH
References
Ackerman,B. WeThePeople.I: Foundations.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1991.
. WeThePeople.II: Transformations.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press,1998.
on theOriginsand Spreadof
Anderson,B. ImaginedCommunities:
Reflections
London: Verso, 1983.
Nationalism.
of Chicago Press,
Arendt,H. TheHuman Condition.
Chicago: University
1958.
. "Epilogue: Reflectionson the Hungarian Revolution."TheOri2d ed. London: George Allen and Unwin,
gins of Totalitarianism.
1958.
London: Faber and Faber, 1963.
. On Revolution.
London: GeorgeAllen and Unwin,
. TheOriginsofTotalitarianism.
1967 (1951).
. CrisesoftheRepublic.San Diego: HarcourtBrace, 1972.
. Thefew as Pariah. Ed. R. H. Feldman. New York: The Grove
Press,1978.
An Essayin Understanding."
. "On the NatureofTotalitarianism:
Ed.
1930-1954.
in
J. Kohn. NewYork,Harcourt
Essays Understanding,
1994:
328-360.
Brace,
Bakuniak,G., and K. Nowak. "The Creation of a CollectiveIdentityin
and
Social Movement:The Case of 'Solidarnoscin Poland." Theory
16 (1987): 401-429.
Society
and theJewish
Bernstein,R.J. Hannah Arendt
Cambridge:Polity,
Question.
1996.
Canovan, M. "Is There an ArendtianCase for the Nation-State?"ConPolitics5 (1999): 103-119.
temporary
inPoland.NewYork:
theBarrier:TheRiseofSolidarity
Goodwyn,L. Breaking
OxfordUniversity
Press,1991.
I
Habermas,J. "Three NormativeModels of Democracy."Constellations
(1994): 1-10.
Lefort,C. The PoliticalFormsof ModernSociety:Bureaucracy,
Democracy,
Totalitarianism.
Cambridge:Polity,1986.
Riker,W. H. Liberalism
againstPopulism.San Francisco:Freeman,1982.
lhe Analysisoj a SocialMovement,
rocana,
Touraine, A, et al. Solidarity:
1980-1981.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press,1983.