Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Hannah Arendt
Ágnes Heller and
Hannah Arendt:
A Dialogue
Edited by
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Á. Prior and Á. Rivero
Ágnes Heller and Hannah Arendt are two of the greatest intellectual
figures of Modernity. Belonging to different generations, they share
common concerns and biographies. Ágnes Heller was born on the 12th of
May 1929 in Budapest, Hungary, into a Jewish family, and from very early
on experienced racial discrimination and the tragedy of the Holocaust.
This was to be followed later by harassment under Communism. Hannah
Arendt was born on the 14th October 1906 in Hannover, Germany. She
also came from a Jewish family. Nazi persecution compelled her to exile
in the United States. There she developed a distinguished academic career
until her death in 1975.
Arendt´s work as a political philosopher was focused on the study of
Totalitarianism, the ideological plague that triggered unprecedented mass
killings on European soil during the first half of the twentieth century. To
her, the central task of political philosophy was to find an answer to the
question how this nightmare holocaust was possible. Thus, her great works
can be seen as responses to the unprecedented malaises of the century.
While The Human Condition deals with the predicament of human beings
in Modernity, On Revolution is focused on human freedom and the
dangers of misunderstanding the social question, and finally The Origins
of Totalitarianism is a genealogy that uncovers the roots of ideological
evil in our time.
Ágnes Heller, twenty years younger, belongs to another generation.
But she also experienced the evils of our time, although in a different
mood. She shares with Arendt that the aim of philosophy is practical in its
orientation: philosophy should deal with the real problems of men and
women. Like Arendt, Heller also experienced persecution. Her father was
killed in Auschwitz when she was a child. But as a thinker, as a reflexive
adult, her determinant experience was the life experience of Communism
in Eastern Europe. To her, Communism was an experiment aimed to
overcome the problems of Modernity. But the deployment of the
experiment didn’t lead to a reconciled humanity living in peace. On the
contrary, the social experiment of going beyond class society led to a dead
2 Introduction
end where the lack of freedom and pervasive misery were its main
attributes.
The experiment of Socialism was justified, almost from its inception,
as a human response against barbarism, first of Capitalism and later of
Nazism. Briefly, communism was seen as the proper response to fulfil the
promises of Modernity avoiding its dark face. However, the realities of
Communism render this promise void. When Ágnes Heller was young, as
a pupil of Georg Lukács, she shared with him the dictum that the worst
socialism was better than the best capitalism. At the School of Budapest,
the group of young scholars gathered around Lukács oriented their works
to the goal of democratizing socialism. But this task was simply beyond
their reach and was finally abandoned.
Both learned one thing from the guardians of Communism: real
socialism can’t be reformed in a democratic way. This was experienced in
Hungary 1956, in Czechoslovakia 1968, and in many other places. Ágnes
Heller learned this lesson: that the social question should be addressed
from politics and not the other way around. She learned the priority of
democracy to social justice as the proper response to the problems of
Modernity.
And, given that Heller was committed as a philosopher with the
problems of reality, she embarked herself in the understanding of
Communism as a system of domination: the dictatorship over needs. She
paid her deed researching the system that she had defended in the past.
And this produced a striking phenomenon. Prior to her analysis of the
structural character of socialism, Heller was seen by her colleges in the
West as a representative of the New Left beyond the Iron Curtain. But her
independence, her freedom in judgment when dealing with the tough
reality of the Communist world was seen as treason by radical intellectuals
of the western world. She became isolated, like Arendt.
Thus, in this book we want to address a dialogue between two great
thinkers that were able to face the challenges of their time irrespective of
the consequences for their careers and at the cost of misunderstanding and
marginalization. Both shared this demanding intellectual ethic, and both
share in many ways similar biographies: family origins, persecution by
totalitarian regimes, and the same academic refuge—The New School for
Social Research in New York, where today Heller is emeritus professor
(for many years she occupied the Hannah Arendt Chair in Philosophy).
This work is divided into three parts. The first one consists of texts that
deal with the new practical philosophies implemented by Heller or by
Arendt. This section begins with a text by Heller and is followed by
chapters by Patricio Peñalver, Fina Birulés, Neus Campillo, Antonio
Ágnes Heller and Hannah Arendt: A Dialogue 3
former is “the good person” and for the latter “the good citizen.”
The closing chapter of this volume is by Andrea Vestrucci. He stresses
the connections between Heller and Arendt in three main areas. First, on
the notion of human condition: Arendt’s view of human condition is
presented through the ontology of active life and politics. In Heller, human
condition refers to the moral dimension of humanity and to the basic moral
problem of the existential choice (“what means to be conditioned?”). The
second area of intercourse is defined by the discussion of actor, spectator,
and judgment. To deal with this topic, Vestrucci focus on Arendt’s
political philosophy and on Heller’s moral aesthetic: the beautiful person.
Finally, the third area of dialogue is happiness. In this case, Arendt is
Heller’s instance of good life. Arendt was able to combine the two
elements that make a person happy: intercourse with others and self-
development. These two features are the effect of two existential choices:
on others, and on ourselves. Good life in this sense is a synthesis of Beruf
and goodwill under the condition of human finitude.
We hope that the texts here presented provide readers with a
stimulating dialogue on the perennial topics of the human condition under
the circumstances of Modernity. The first versions of the papers gathered
in this book were discussed with Ágnes Heller at the International
Congress on Ágnes Heller's Philosophy and her Dialogue with Hannah
Arendt, celebrated at the University of Murcia, October 13-15, 2009. We
thank Columbia University Press for allowing us to publish chapter 8,
"The Truth of Politics," which is an earlier version of the final chapter of
the book The Disclosure of Politics (2013) written by María Pía Lara with
the title "Hannah Arendt's Model of the Autonomy of Politics: Semantic
Innovation Through Religious Disclosure."
PART I:
ÁGNES HELLER1
Two decades ago, I wrote an essay about your work on The Life of the
Mind. Having been invited once again to a conference discussing your
work, I re-read the books to refresh my memory. After a second reading, I
decided, this time, to speak only about the first volume, “On Thinking,”
since this is the book you were still able to put in a proper shape but did
not have much time for corrections.
As always, I was immediately carried away by your brilliant rhetoric.
After some thinking, however, I could not help but notice the few
theoretical flaws of your position.
In this letter, I want to speak about both my impressions. Since you
like provocation and debate, you will very probably be more pleased with
my critical remarks than with my eulogy. But since this is an open letter
also written for others to read, you must endure some praise.
One also needs to keep an elementary order in a letter. Thus, I will first
talk about the rhetoric of your book and only afterwards about your
theoretical interpretation of the topic, thinking.
On rhetoric, first.
You put your interpretations of our chief mental practice that we
normally call “thinking” to a practical purpose, namely in the service of
cultural criticism, which on its part carries a political message.
As far as the message of your rhetoric is concerned, I would describe
your volume on “Thinking” as your most Heideggerian book. You echo
Heidegger’s polemical formulation that “science does not think.” Yet you
radicalize Heidegger on many counts, for example when you reject
1
New School for Social Research, New York.
Open Letter to Hannah Arendt on Thinking 9
offers the opportunity to give not just a rhetorical answer in the form of a
judgment: what thinking does or should do is not done, or rather undone,
in the present age.
You refer to the political occasion that motivated you to explore the
concept of thinking. This happened while you were listening to Eichmann
on the dock. This was the moment when you first came to realize, that
evil, or at least one kind of evil, results from acting unthinkingly.
I agree, although, I must add, that some good deeds, supererogatory
acts, also result from acting unthinkingly. Yet I do not want to follow up
this line, for a polemic with your Eichmann book would need another, and
longer, letter.
Thus, let us think about thinking,
First, let me survey your practical suggestions.
You suggest, while quoting the text of an evergreen melody, that one
must “stop and think.” Before embarking on an action, making a decision,
or passing judgment, one should “stop and think.” One needs to think over
whether it is right, good. What one is about to do, one has to think over
“what” one is in fact doing. You, Hannah, further suggest that one should
suspend one’s everyday knowledge at least in non-trivial matters. One has
to step back to take the position of the spectator before making a decision.
Here you are, indeed, the faithful follower of your favorite Kant, the Kant
of Critique of Judgment, of paragraph 41 to which you so frequently refer
especially in your lectures on judgment. The maxims of common
understanding, “Think with your own mind, think in the place of others,
think consistently,” offer us, indeed, good advice.
Your second practical suggestion is less simple and less obvious, for it
has broader ramifications. I mean, your polemics against problem-solving
thinking. I do not want to touch upon the theoretical message of your
position, not yet, for I still keep to the question of practical suggestions.
The rhetoric of this polemics is intimately related to the maxim of “stop
and think.”
You point at a very important matter here. It is highly problematic that
we normally believe that information is the sole source of knowledge. For
example, your Socrates, who is also my Socrates, received the information
in Delphos that he was the wisest man of Athens. But the source of his
self-knowledge was not this information, but his interpretation of the
information. It is indeed the shortcoming of the learned stratum of our
times that they believe that information serves as the landmark for
problem-solving rather than as a text for interpretation.
But is problem-solving in opposition to thinking?
12 Chapter One
I promise to refer to Wittgenstein for the last time in this letter. He also
notices a difference (but not a contrast, let alone enmity!) between
thinking and knowledge in the use of those words, in language games. In
case of knowledge, the language game does not distinguish between first
and third person, in case of thinking it does. If I say, “I think,” I speak
about a personal experience, if I say, “he thinks,” it is about an information.
Yet when I say, “I can play chess, he can play chess,” this does not depend
either on information or on personal experience. We just sit down and
play. If the student says that he knows the history of the civil war, you can
answer, no, you do not know it, for what you said just now was false. Yet
if the student says, “I was thinking about the civil war,” you cannot
answer, no, you did not, at most you can say that you have not thought it
over.
You could retort, that you were not at all interested in “language
games," and you have right to ask different questions. True, you also asked
different questions, yet you made us believe that you have answered
thereby the question “concerning the essential difference between knowing
and thinking.” But you did not.
Let me summarize first a few of your basic theoretical statements,
hypotheses, and allusions. I call all of them “thoughts,” for that’s what
they are. Thoughts are preliminary results of the thinking process. These
“preliminary results of thinking” can last throughout one’s whole life, yet
they still remain “preliminary” for they can always be replaced by other
thinking processes.
Yet can I speak of your thoughts or the thoughts of anyone? For you
have stated (page 62) that “the activity of thinking does not leave anything
behind.” Where do our thoughts, ideas, concerns, problems result from, if
not from the conscious or unconscious activity of thinking? They were just
“left behind.” Yet I see your point. I believe it to be a fruitful proposal, as
compared to the constant stream of thinking; the mental activities resulting
in thoughts are but few. Those few fruits, are, however, also trampolines
for further thinking processes, which they, on their part, “leave behind.”
Otherwise, how could we talk about experience at all? Emotional
experiences included? But even if I forgot about thoughts, I could hardly
accept your provocation that thinking does not leave anything behind. For
it leaves behind, above all, something of utmost importance, namely the
psychological, moral, and intellectual character of a person. Of a person
who was thinking consciously or unconsciously about this or that, with
such and such frequency, with such and such emotional involvement. All
these inhere in the personality as much as what he knows and how he
knows it, what he considers to be true and false, what he believes in, what
Open Letter to Hannah Arendt on Thinking 15
if he does not aim a truth, he still proves with arguments that the truths in
the minds of his interlocutors are not truths at all.
I told you earlier at some point that even thinking as an end itself, as a
conscious or unconscious stream of thinking, leaves behind something in
the psychological, moral, and intellectual personality of the thinker. I
agree with you that neither the half-conscious nor the unconscious stream
of thinking aims normally at knowledge. But this does not mean that they
cannot yield knowledge. Recognition is also knowledge, and so is intuitive
discovery. We can recognize something, discover something also in our
dreams.
We think about ourselves mainly to get to know ourselves a little better
at least. Self-knowledge (“Gnoti szeauton!”) is a very important Socratic
knowledge, but problem-solving it is not. You may say that this is not
knowledge but “rendering meaning,” but our dear Socrates would not
know the difference, and even in our terms self-knowledge is either
meaning-rendering or it is not. There is a moment in our childhood when
we become aware mostly, suddenly of our mortality. This is knowledge,
and not a minor one, yet not problem-solving. We try rendering meaning
to this true knowledge if we can. We are thinking about it. This is a typical
case of thinking about something we know for certain.
It is interesting how you try to avoid your self-created pitfalls (thinking
is not based on knowing and does never yield knowledge) when you return
to the Eichmann case. You write that the end—the goal—of thinking is not
knowledge but the ability to discriminate between good and evil. Dear
Hannah, the distinction between “know what” and “know how” does not
help you here. One cannot tell apart good from evil without knowing that
there is good and evil, and knowing the situation of choice. And such
choice produces knowledge, since recognizing evil is also knowledge.
“This is it” is knowledge, identification is knowledge. Eichmann did not
know evil.
And I have not even mentioned mystic experiences, which lead to
recognition, discovery, of knowledge, and to Truth. In mystic experience,
meaning-rendering, Truth, recognition, and intuitive discovery coalesce.
Truth, as certitude, is certainly never the yield of problem-solving
anyhow. It is either a trivial experience or the yield of mystical
illumination, or revelatory experience. The second is mostly the kind of
Truth a modern man desires yet does not want to possess, just as Lessing
formulated it in his famous parable, quoted both by Kierkegaard and by
Wittgenstein. “If God turned to me,” said Lessing, “with the following
words: ‘I have in my right hand eternal Truth, in my left hand the never
ceasing quest for Truth, which one would you choose?’ I answered him
Open Letter to Hannah Arendt on Thinking 21
‘Dear God, I choose your left hand, for Eternal Truth is for You alone.’”
But let me turn now briefly to the third group of questions.
While we are thinking, so you say, we leave behind the world of
phenomena, we are alone, we are not there where we are, we are homeless.
Thinking is like dying, dying to the world.
You are the expert of Heidegger’s philosophy but at this point I must
rectify you. Heidegger says that thinking is not provided with the power of
direct acting, that is, no action follows from it. This is true beyond doubt,
moreover a kind of triviality. You, however, leave out the word “direct”
(“unmittelbar”) and replace the “not follow” with “never can follow:” that
is, according to your interpretation, no action can result from thinking at
all. This interpretation, however, refutes your whole argument in the
Eichmann case. For if no action can follow from thinking at all, then none
can follow from not thinking either.
I share your observation that while becoming immersed in thinking we
move far away from the world of phenomena. Thinking philosophically
leads the thinker into “another world.” We all know the Thales anecdote,
told by Plato, and we are aware of the laughter of the Thracian maid.
Socrates, standing as an immovable log for several minutes, deeply
immersed in himself in a kind of incommunicable mystical contemplation
is another Platonian presentation of the worldlessness of philosophers—I
am sorry, however, to add, that worldless contemplation, self-isolation,
moving away from the world of phenomena can also lead to action, even
direct action. Moses on Mount Sinai stood in the other world, isolated, far
from appearances, yet he returned to the world of appearances and acted in
accordance of his otherworldly experience. This is also, in fact, what Plato
asks the philosophers to do in his elaboration of the cave simile. You who
have dwelled in the world of ideas must come down and act.
Yet there is worse to come.
Significant natural scientists go through very similar experiences. They
concentrate on the issue—call it “problem”—immersed in thinking. They
dwell no more among us. They neither hear nor speak. Yet (“horribile
dictu!”) they are immersed in thinking because they want to know
something. Or even worse, at least for your position, they are internally
compelled to solve a mathematical problem.
Very similar is the experience of a person in the state of intensive
daydreaming, or of someone who is concentrating on listening to music.
The last two cases, especially of permanent daydreaming, may fit your
description perhaps the best. But, as far as I know you, you do not
sympathize with a permanent daydreamer, precisely because she cuts
herself off from action since no act follows from her dreams. And you
22 Chapter One
disapprove of her perhaps also because she stays no longer with us in our
shared life of appearances, but moves into another, a solitary world of
appearances.
The difference between the daydreamer and the philosopher is obvious.
The philosopher moves away from the life of the appearances altogether,
but she is not alone. In the world of universals and essences, it gathers
together a good company. She meets other philosophers, she creates her
predecessor (as Plato and Heidegger created their own Parmenides and
Hegel his Heraclitus) and she polemizes with everyone else. For the time
being, I am sitting entirely alone in a deserted house immersed in this
paper, I am thinking about thinking, knowledge, and truth. Yet I am not
lonely, not even in the state of solitude. I am with you, and you are a
wonderful company.
Dear Hanna Arendt, I am certain, if one can be certain at all in any a
case, that you like philosophy as an agonistic genre and are delighted in
polemics while bored stiff by academic praises and the constant reciting of
your books’ contents. If I know you, and perhaps I do, what you have
always wanted most was to inspire others, to provoke polemics,
contradictions, and thereby make a difference in your world. You were
constantly grateful to have received the wonderful opportunity to spend a
few decades on earth and you used your time well.
In your last book, you organically continued to do what you have done
all your life. You offered inspiration, provocation; you made an impact on
the world not through direct action, but through thinking. Yet it happened
for the first time in your lectures on thinking that you spoke directly of
your philosophical life as the greatest passion. You were never an
Achilles, thanks God, and not even a Disraeli or a Rosa Luxemburg,
whom you loved and respected. You were a thinker. That is, you are a
thinker and will be a thinker. Thinkers do not need historians, bards to
immortalize their names. And let me quote Juliet, “what is in a name?”
Human life is thinking. The yields of thinking are thoughts and the
personality. A personality, who dies, continues to live in the memory of
few. You have the privilege to live also in and through your thoughts; you
worked hard for this privilege. You became entitled to sell your daydreams
because they can also be ours. Your personality continues to live in your
thoughts, in our daydreams. Your thoughts continue to provoke and make
an impact. We still want to be inspired by you, to be provoked by you, to
be angry at you, to contradict you. Our age is not a desert, after all. Do you
see it?
CHAPTER TWO
CRISIS IN PHILOSOPHY
AND ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITY
PATRICIO PEÑALVER1
1
Universidad de Murcia, Spain.
2
Simon Tormey, “From ‘Rational Utopia’ to ‘Will-to-Utopia.’ On the ‘post-
modern turn’ in the recent work of Ágnes Heller,” Daímon, 17 (1998): 133-149.
The topic of the “postmodernist turn” plays a significant role in the transformation
of the “radical” thought of Ágnes Heller, from critical Marxism to an ethics of
personality.
24 Chapter Two
3
On the philosophic path and Ágnes Heller's policy, as well as on the connection
with George Lukács, see “Interviews with the professor Ágnes Heller,” Daímon,
17, cit. (Budapest, July, 1981): 21-53. See also the important conference of Manuel
Sacristán, Manuel Sacristán Luzón, “Sobre Lukács,” in Seis conferencias. Sobre la
tradición marxista y los nuevos problemas (Six Lectures on the Marxist Tradition
and the New Problems), ed. Salvador López Arnal (Barcelona: El Viejo Topo,
2005), 257-295.
Crisis in Philosophy and Enormous Responsibility 25
4
Ágnes Heller, “Hannah Arendt on Tradition and New Beginnings,” in Hannah
Arendt in Jerusalem, ed. Steven E. Asheim (London: University of California
Press, 2001), 19-32.
5
About the “concept” of a “conceptual character,” see Ágnes Heller, A Philosophy
of History in Fragments (London: Blackwell, 1993), 79.
26 Chapter Two
primarily interested, and about the master of the young Arendt, which was
also primarily about the first Heidegger work, from the years prior to the
publication of Sein und Zeit—the systematic interest in the teachings of
Kierkegaard. The phenomenologist who had shortly before abandoned
what he himself called the “Catholic system,” and started to move towards
the Greek interpretation of being to defend himself from Husserlian
transcendentalism, coincided for a period with the Kierkegaard-Renaissance
of contemporary Protestant dialectical theology. It is the first Heidegger
that asserts and demands the contribution of Kierkegaard so that philosophy
comes to assume the responsibility of Dasein in terms of authenticity or
the inauthenticity of his existential choice. Heidegger later distanced
himself more and more from the Christian poet. He also distanced himself
from the intellectualism of the phenomenology,6 and became a glamorous
mystic thinker of the enigmatic Geschichte des Seins, after substituting the
sacred writing of the Judeo-Christian tradition for some fragments of
archaic Greek wisdom (in turn elevated to sacred writings). On the other
hand, for the weberian, hegelian, marxist Lukács, Kierkegaard was at best
an absent-minded romantic thinker, and at worst an anti-modern reaction
in complicity with the enemies of the Illustration. Nevertheless, Heller
recovered the validity of the truly subjective Kierkegaardian concept. For
this recovery, the work by Lukács on Kierkegaard, dated 1911, Die Seele
und die Formen, is still a canonical reference. In the beginning of the
fascinating reconstruction of the frustrated possible love drama of the
learned philosopher of good family György Lukács and the painter Irma
Seidler, Heller refers to “the immortal essay on Kierkegaard” of the
intellectual in the alleged necessity of solitude of the creator in spiritual
ways.7
The program of moral philosophy within whose structure we want to
emphasize new aspects of—and some difficulties in—the responsibility
concept, and especially the concept of enormous responsibility, involves
6
Referring to the dialogue and the rivalry between Husserl and Heidegger in the
autumn of 1927, recently published Sein und Zeit, see the fruitless attempt to
collaborate for the entry “Phenomenology” at the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Walter Biemel published relevant materials as an appendix to the
Phenomenologische Psychologie (Husserliana, IX).
7
Ágnes Heller, “El naufragio de la vida ante la forma: Georg Lukács y Irma
Seidler,” in Crítica de la Ilustración (Barcelona: Península, 1984), 179. With some
artifice one can underscore the joyous moments of misogyny, about machinoclast
and feminine sexuality, in the very compelling “old” Lukács of 1967. See, Hans
Heinz Holz, Leo Kofler and Wolfgang Abendroth, Conversaciones con Lukács
(Madrid: Alianza, 1969), 82.
28 Chapter Two
three facets. The first one is “interpretive,” the second “normative,” and
the third the “educational” or even “therapeutic.” When this moral
philosophy program was formulated in 1988, specifically in the
introduction to the first volume, General Ethics, the plan was presented
very clearly. Ten years on, in the beginning of what had been seen as the
development of the third facet of moral philosophy, in the introduction to
An Ethics of Personality, something significant needed to change in that
program. Indicative of the change was the change in the title. The initial
plan of the third perspective was to be summed up and guided in the
strongly theoretical title A Theory of Proper Conduct. I would like to pay
homage to the art of using the first person in explaining why that title, and
obviously what that title suggests, had to be modified: “It was as if the
‘spirit of our age’ spoke to me and warned me against deadly dangers,
such as being untimely, too rhetorical, boring, and what is worst, assuming
the authority of a judge without having been authorized.”8 This appeal to
the spirit of the age that frightens the philosopher as that famous “ghost,”
that species of spirit if not of “Geist,” that had appeared in the ramparts of
the castle of Elsinore to a philosopher prince, in brief, compels us to ask
some radical questions about philosophy: about philosophy in its strictest
sense and about philosophy in its broadest sense. “As a result,” the
explanation continues in the first person, “I began to wonder whether there
was something fundamentally wrong with my philosophical ideas. After
facing this impasse, I put aside the work on the third volume of my Theory
of Morals to find out what the ‘spirit of our times’ actually requires.” In
this case, in the critical reflection it appeared that nothing essential in what
was expected had changed. We can understand, in this reaffirmation of a
basic coherence of content despite the critical warning of “the spirit of the
era,” that a central question of moral philosophy continues to be: “Good
people exist—how are they possible?” Good people in this sense meaning
people who would rather suffer an injustice than commit one. And there
are many people like this. How is this possible? In the third part of this
facet of moral philosophy, this question must be answered, and must still
be answered, from the position of the human person as a whole, and from
the position of the individual who searches for the good life, beautiful and
happy. The problem is not in the content, or in the message, but in the
genre, in the type of language. The spirit of our age does not allow us to
talk or write about the good life of individuals in a traditional
philosophical style. This has two serious drawbacks: it is deceptive,
8
Ágnes Heller, An Ethics of Personality (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 1-2.
Crisis in Philosophy and Enormous Responsibility 29
9
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, 2.
10
Ágnes Heller, La filosofía de la historia en fragmentos, trans. Marcelo Mendoza
(Barcelona: Gedisa, 1999), 296-297.
30 Chapter Two
Freewill, would have left the scene around 1800. Since then, it has said
nothing, and in any case, it is boring the auditorium. The birth and death of
the philosophical character of “Freewill” in a problematic configuration
linked to the history of Christianity makes us conscious certainly of the
finiteness, of the historicity of the idea. It is certainly not eternal, at least in
the form that has circulated in the great Christian philosophical texts from
Saint Augustine to Malebranche. But in the same way as the implementation
of categories and concepts in what is usually referred to as metaphors or
tropes is not rhetoric, neither does skeptical historicism bring clarity to the
specific historicity of all our concepts. This book is also a very intelligent
defense of the central character of our congregation, reason, and its main
chapter is dedicated to the essence of truth, arranged so that one can
maintain that the truth is “das All,” along the lines of a superlative Hegel
work as l´ecriture de la réalité. But also (one can maintain) that truth is
subjective, in accordance with the essential Kierkegaard. We will return
later to this reflexively justified and fascinating exercise of philosophic
language change in A Philosophy in History in Fragments. Let us now
return more precisely to the concept of responsibility.
We will see that the path of responsibility can be complex, even
labyrinthine. But we should have a clear point of departure, with a strict
correlation of action and responsibility. Responsibility is linked to the
authority of an action; it is the author of an action’s obligation to respond
to what he has done. Heller reminds us frequently of the dictum of Goethe,
which transmits truth via the procedure of exaggeration: the actor is
always culpable, only the spectator is innocent. “Where there is action,
there is responsibility; where there is no action, there is no responsibility.”11
Where action obviously includes the negative form of action is in
omission, for instance, the omission of the proverbial swimmer that does
not assist a bather in trouble in the waves. The clear responsibility of the
absolute obligation to answer for what is done comes before the more
controversial responsibility to the perhaps undesired consequences of the
action, to what is done by the actor. We will return shortly to this
conventional Weberian motif. The moral reflection of our cultural
environment is the point of departure for shaping a strong and binding
concept of responsibility, at the time when the first evasion of
responsibility in history is recorded. Cain refuses to answer for his action
and, prior to this, refuses to answer to the theoretical question “Who did
it? Who killed Abel?” God asks the first farmer the whereabouts of the
first rancher: Where is Abel? Cain’s answer is not an answer: Am I my
11
Ágnes Heller, General Ethics (Oxford: Blackwells, 1988), 50.
Crisis in Philosophy and Enormous Responsibility 31
for the naval battle of Arginusa, had to involve himself deeply, and this
surely created very dangerous enemies when the law was enforced. The
sentencing of the accused generals was to be individual, not collective.
Prospective responsibilities are not assignable to all, just to anyone
who assumes specific obligations, e.g. related to an errand or a position.
The captain of a boat has a future-oriented prospective responsibility that
is based on the captain's obligation to keep the vessel afloat and ensure the
safety of the passengers. Cain incurred a retrospective responsibility when
he had to answer for the murder of his brother. In Genesis, we also find an
example of prospective responsibility, which Heller refers to; Reuben, the
older brother of Jacob, assumes the responsibility for protecting Joseph’s
life—a special task from his father—from fratricide at the hands of his
other brothers. If the brothers had murdered Joseph, Reuben would have
taken on an additional share of the responsibility due to his obligation to
his father to take care of Joseph.
But retrospective responsibility, the responsibility for an action or
omission, is the “overarching category.”12
And this in turn is divided, as Heller puts in Kierkegaardian language,
into responsibility X and responsibility A. The former is related to the set
of imperatives that obligate all of us equally. In brief, in the modern world
in a constitutional culture, responsibility X is restricted to what is
determined by laws.
Responsibility A corresponds to a specific person in a certain situation,
and only to that person. A person with responsibility A has something akin
to privileged knowledge in a very broad sense, knowledge that obligates
him and not others, or not to the same extent as others. “Responsibility A
is thus the case of a person endowed with certain abilities that others are
not endowed with, or in a situation that others are not in, in which both
‘abilities’ and ‘situation’ pertain to privileged knowledge.”13 A doctor in a
medical emergency, a policeman in a street brawl, an intellectual in a
political disaster, these are typical candidates for becoming bearers of
responsibility A. A prestigious Greek philosophy teacher who gives a
course on Plato to a group of SS is a case of type A responsibility.
Gadamer says this of himself with guilty forthrightness. But in this matter,
there is no need to refer to anomalous situations. Ultimately, the greater
part of every person’s moral life leads to having to constantly assume
responsibility A. This encompasses general imperatives, the requirements
of virtue, and refers to specific situations in which the degree of
12
Heller, General Ethics, 70.
13
Heller, General Ethics, 72.
Crisis in Philosophy and Enormous Responsibility 33
14
Hannah Arendt, Responsabilidad y juicio, ed. Jerome Kohn (Barcelona: Paidós,
2007).
15
Heller, General Ethics, 76.
34 Chapter Two
16
Heller, General Ethics, 77.
Crisis in Philosophy and Enormous Responsibility 35
means, for example, that before the people of a town were to abandon their
territory due to pressure from an enemy, the condemned to death must be
executed. Such a dictum continues to scandalize our tender ears,
answering to a genuine concern for the world. The well-known polemic
with Benjamin Constant, the ingenious case built by the illustrious Swiss
man of a conflict between the imperative of not lying and the imperative
of helping to save a life at certain risk, lets us see Kant with an enormous
sense of responsibility. Kant would have applauded the proposal, that
Heller mentions “en passant,” to get out of the impasse; neither lying to
the dangerous killer, nor providing possibilities that aid his homicidal
plan, but hitting and immobilizing him, assuming an active responsibility.
The important point is that the responsibility assumed in a situation of
moral change has nothing to do with the consequences of the action but
rather with the consequences of the choice of values, of the new choice of
the value itself.17
But there is a risk in this choice. The good intention of choosing a
value “better” than that established by law or by the moral conscience of
the day is not enough. It is not written anywhere that there is always moral
progress in changes. And even at best, there is always an economy of loss
and gain, in accordance with the famous reflection of Collingwood on the
shadow cast by all progress, frequently recalled in these “parages.” When
Christian humility came to the world and began to undermine the prestige
of glory, of the “doxa” of the “kalokagathos” and of the “vir bonus,” a
tradition that came from the Homeric heroes and reached the Roman
Patricians, something was lost, or it was relegated to being an object of
yearning. When the Machiavellian Moment realized the Roman “virtú,”
something of the grandeur of the medieval knight was relegated to being
an object of romantic imagination. When the necessary democratic arena
of political rights was imposed in the West, a mechanism of production of
socially relevant “stupidity” that was unprecedented in history began. The
most antagonistic aspect of this responsibility towards change would be
the simplicity of the good conscience. Someone who takes the risk of
assuming responsibility that challenges norms may find himself embroiled
in a problematic and controversial action. This may do more harm than
good. The beautiful madman Don Quixote was struck many times, and
that was his problem, but this also led to a tangible worsening of the lives
of many of the people he was supposedly defending in his ridiculous
adventure through the country houses and hamlets of La Mancha. It
worsened the life of the infatuated neighbor; it worsened the life of that lad
17
Heller, General Ethics, 77.
36 Chapter Two
that he defended once from a cruel master, without taking care to ensure
that this master did not multiply his cruelty in the absence of the knight of
the “Triste Figura.” Not Kant, nor the Christianity of the Beatitudes,
reviled both by Weber in the multitudinous conferences of revolutionary
Munich of 1921 as examples of the ethics of intention,18 but Quixotism is
truly the model of the ethics of intention in the insulting Weberian sense.
Let me return, if we have indeed departed, to the specific terms of
Heller. I return to enormous responsibility, I repeat the name for I find it
beautiful and heuristic. To run the risk of an action that challenges the
moral norms of the day it is necessary to put the action to a test, to make it
be seen to some extent as an action guided by higher maxims than maxims
challenged or transgressed. This is not an unambiguously positive
expression. Enormous responsibility can be seen this way, both for
introducing new good as well as for introducing new evil in the world; it
can be a beginning of moral progression but also a new door to evil. There
was enormous responsibility in bringing new good to the world on the part
of Raoul Wallenger, the Swedish Consul of Budapest who forged
thousands of documents—against the standards of normal morals—and
thus saved thousands of Jewish Hungarians from death in the Nazi
extermination camps. Heller turns at times to the case of Nora Ibsen: the
proto-heroine of European feminism assumes the enormous responsibility
of bringing good to women’s independence at the expense of a drastic
devaluation of the then sacrosanct obligations of women as wives and
mothers. I believe that the decisive point is in warning that “enormous
responsibility” requires enormous care, an enormous care when playing
chance in a formally indescribable medium. The genius of Shakespeare as
a moral philosopher, already a recurring topic in Heller before The Time is
out of Joint, can be perceived in the enormous care with which he puts his
characters’ responsibilities on stage and weighs them. And later, Hamlet
awaits us, the modern hero of hyperbolic responsibility. Those which
assume the risk of bringing a new good to the world, that is to say, a good
not produced for the application of moral norms, or possibly bringing a
new evil into play (beyond predictable wickedness), assume enormous
responsibilities; “Given that when carrying out an action they can bring a
new good or a new evil to the world, the responsibility incurred is
enormous. I call this type of responsibility ‘enormous responsibility.’”19
Let’s move forward to the questions that suggest this approach to me:
18
Hans Blumenberg, Salidas de caverna (Madrid: Visor, 2004), 590. Blumenberg
refers to the anaesthetic effect of those auditoriums of students dazzled by the
conferences of Munich.
19
Heller, General Ethics, 77-78.
Crisis in Philosophy and Enormous Responsibility 37
Could one not consider that this type of responsibility is the touchstone of
the concept of moral responsibility as such? One could say that the
occasion of these enormous responsibilities—fortunately for the actors in
apparently more peaceful times—only have relevance in certain
extraordinary situations. One naturally thinks of the “dark times” that were
so numerous and widespread in Europe during the century that started with
the war of 1914 and ended with the collapse of the USSR—passing most
notably through the rise of Nazism, the rise of Stalinism, the Molotov-
Ribbentrop Pact, and, last but not least, the Yalta System that darkened
Eastern Europe for decades, while keeping the vast majority of European
intellectuals in thrall to the myth of the Russian homeland of the
proletariat until at least 1968. It is logical that a Hegelian-type philosophy
that assesses the attitude of pure morality in terms of “abstract subjectivity”
should be averse to a concept such as enormous responsibility.20 In the
philosophy of Hegel, historic responsibility always coincides with the
cause of the winner, the one identified with the “Weltlauf” of the spirit in
history: Napoleon passing through Jena in 1806, the spirit of the world on
horseback. Allowing the vanquished to be right, and “doing justice to
them” at least in the commemoration of their ashes, would be for Hegel
something akin to absurdly repeating the madness of those who went
against the historic movement. It is apparent that a vindication of
immeasurable responsibility—such as that which upholds the heterology
of Levinas—is situated with all the consequences in the antipodes of the
Hegelian system and it generically and boldly repudiates history as the
supposed horizon of human life. If this horizon is accepted judgement, and
responsibility itself, in the end it will always fall to the person who looks
on from an eschatological perspective, the one who backs the winner.
Levinas says in contra, the action is already done in the moment and in the
occurrence, ripe for judgement, there is no need to await the unfolding
events to see who will be right in the end. And with that Levinas confirms
the deeply democratic sense of the canonical account at the end of the
Gorgias: Zeus establishing justice, breaking with Cronos, thanks to a
change in the teaching of justice, a change that means purely and simply
equality in the eyes of the law. Under the scepter of Minos and the counsel
of Radamante and Eaco, the court judges souls that appear naked without
the symbolic clothing of power and without the possibility of clandestine
rectification because the souls judged are already dead, not on the last day
20
Heller, General Ethics, 188. “In the Hegelian framework, the historic
responsibility as an enormous responsibility, cannot be taken in earnest. The
celebrated ‘cause of the victims’ does not please Hegel: these are victims of their
own moral madness.”
38 Chapter Two
21
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, 2.
22
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, 3.
23
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, 3.
Crisis in Philosophy and Enormous Responsibility 39
24
This is typical of the discourse of Derrida and his early vigilance of difficulties
in distinguishing the internal and the external. Hamlet dramatizes this vigilance in
the care taken to distinguish his dead father's spirit, and ghost born possibly in the
delirium of melancholy.
40 Chapter Two
responsibility to any Other. One must choose. And, how many? How many
Others can we take care of under the banner of enormous responsibility when
all Others are always demanding more or less? Aristotle said that the
“prote philia” was only possible between very few. Montaigne calmly
specified: friendship can only exist with another, with your counterpart.
Nietzsche invokes the distant friend. However, a democracy cannot put
limits on friendship: “tout autre est tout autre,” to put in a form as
economical as perverse. The myth of the universal fraternity does not
serve here. In Politiques de l’amitié, Derrida rattles the easy good
conscience of the followers of the new Good News, the violent “fraternité”
of 1789. “Fratercentrism” is a case of the nationalist autochthony that
impedes the enormous responsibility.
A second problem posed by Heller concerning the ethics of personality
is the resemblance with the Christian sacrificial scheme, and with the
horizon a messianic redemption. A dangerous resemblance, one might add.
In this context, responsibility for all individuals only seems possible in a
negation of the self, whose ancestor is the Christ that dies and so redeems
mankind. It is well known: the fierce resistance of the circumcised
marranist Algerien in front of a more or less concealed baptism. The
Christian genealogy of enormous responsibility seems however to be
imposed with the impressive sentence of Dostoyevski in The Brothers
Karamazov: “we are all responsible for everyone.” Heller evokes the
famous sentence of the Russian novelist.
There remains the issue of genre. What genre (or what relationship of
philosophy to itself as a genre) remains for philosophy when it questions
and assumes the “enormous responsibility” to the Other and thus the
breakdown of the traditional philosophical language? The deafness of a
philosopher like Habermas to these kinds of questions provides the
measure of the difficulty for true philosophy to open itself up
philosophically to the questions that arise from tragedy. Heller speaks of
the “deep suspicion of ‘poiesis’ of all kinds” in Habermas.25 The rough
fear of the “sogenannte” levelling and homogenization of philosophical
discourse and fiction expressed by the philosopher from Frankfurt
distances the philosopher from a decisive position of his potential: the
potential that articulates him, the philosopher, differentiates him, and ties
him to the literary author, above all to the infinite Shakespeare. How are
we to think of philosophy as a genre related to the genres of literature and
to tragedy in particular? In addition, what strategy befits a realistic
philosophy with regard to its potential upon becoming interested in the
25
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, 4.
Crisis in Philosophy and Enormous Responsibility 41
26
György Lukács, Goethe y su época, trans. Manuel Sacristán (Mexico: Grijalbo,
1968), 17-18.
42 Chapter Two
ARE WE AT HOME
IN A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY?
METAPHOROLOGY AND POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY
ANTONIO RIVERA1
The title of this chapter refers to a 1995 article written by Ágnes Heller
entitled “Where are we at Home?” I am going to consider what the home
metaphor could signify if applied to the area of politics and discuss the
doubts that arise when doing so. They are the doubts of a reader of
Blumenberg, of somebody who considers metaphorology and the problem
of non-conceptuality of great importance.
Above all, Heller’s passionate article, in which she distinguishes
different kinds of “homes,” has led me to ask myself many questions
related to politics, which I would like to share with you: Is a liberal
democracy a home? Does it even make sense to think of a liberal
democracy as a home? Wouldn’t this metaphor be more suitable to think
about communitarian regimes, or to think about conservative or traditionalist
attitudes? At first glance, this may not be the most appropriate metaphor to
understand modern politics, much less liberalism or liberal democracy.
However, if it is employed in a liberal context, does it not respond to some
of our deepest anxieties as human beings? This is what I would like to
discuss in the following pages.
1
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain.
44 Chapter Three
2
Hans Blumenberg, Aproximación a una teoría de la inconceptuabilidad.
Naufragio con espectador (Madrid: Visor, 1995), 101.
3
Hans Blumenberg, Paradigmas para una metaforología (Madrid: Trotta, 2003),
44.
4
Jean-Claude Monod, Hans Blumenberg (Paris: Belin, 2007), 45-51.
Are We at Home in a Liberal Democracy? 45
5
Leszek Kolakowski, La presencia del mito (Madrid: Cátedra, 1990), 108.
6
Miguel Abensour, Hannah Arendt contre la philosophie politique? (Paris: Sens &
Tonga, 2006), 68.
46 Chapter Three
knowledge.7
But let us return to the nucleus of our metaphor. According to Heller,
familiarity—and remember that the absolute metaphor gives us access to
realities that, like the “world of life” (“Lebenswelt”), resist conceptualization
—is the most decisive constituent of the feeling of “being-at-home.”
Philosophy sustains that sensual experience linked to a known, familiar
place, a spatial home-experience, cannot be transferred to temporal home-
experience. Language—particularly the mother tongue—and customs
(“mores”) are the elements most closely tied to familiarity and to a specific
space. In this way, it is understood that the opposite of the comforting
feeling of being at home (“Heim,” in German) is “unheimlich,” literally
“un-home-ly” but generally translated as “uncanny,” a concept examined
in Freud’s famous article.
If this is the case, is it possible to think of this metaphor without also
considering that the feeling of familiarity comes from something as
particular as the family, and that home inevitably has a conservative
dimension because it is linked to tradition and to that second nature, which
grows from customs deeply rooted in shared ground? From this
perspective, the metaphor would seem more suitable to affirm pre-modern
politics, a political philosophy based on the heterogeneity of the elements
gathered in that extended home known as a “respublica.” If family, the
most natural of homes, cannot be understood without hierarchy, without at
least the qualitative difference between parents and children (although the
differences in families of the past were starker), how can a democracy, the
space of “whoever,” of equals, be considered a home akin to that of the
traditional family?
When restricted to the sphere of politics, the home metaphor inevitably
leads us to the pre-modern era, in which the principal political metaphors
were organic. The most perfect and reassuring of these was the “corpus
Christi mysticum,” a community metaphor that transformed the house of
the Son of God, the Church, into the home of all men. This is an extremely
important metaphor for Christian Humanism, as well as a very complex
one because it implies accepting outsiders and, therefore, transforming the
familiar into something that is not. To be more specific, the Pauline
universalism of the “corpus mysticum” was aimed against any rupture in
the Christian community or, what is the same, against all sectarian
interpretations. In 16th and 17th Century Spain, it was employed by
Erasmians to defend the liberty and equality of the “conversos” and to
7
Hans Blumenberg, Salidas de caverna (Madrid: A. Machado Libros, 2004), 376-
377.
Are We at Home in a Liberal Democracy? 47
8
Marcel Bataillon, Erasmo y España, 2nd ed. (Madrid: FCE, 1995), XV.
9
(III, q. 8, a. 3),
10
Eric Voegelin, Hitler et les Allemands (Paris: Seuil, 2003), 212-213.
48 Chapter Three
Ágnes Heller. Her theory of radical needs clashes with the meaning of the
home metaphor, with its link to the natural differences that occur within
the family. Heller tells us that qualitative radical needs drive people
toward ideas and practices that abolish subordination and hierarchy.11
Radical movements, those centered and organized around these needs,
represent a minority, but at the same time they respond to values and needs
shared by all humanity,12 which is not incompatible with the fact that
radical needs are plural. For Heller, what is important is that all radical
movements exclude from their preferred system of needs those which
oppress or defend the use of an individual as a mere tool for another. It is
clear that when such needs cannot be satisfied by societies based on
subordination and hierarchy they appeal to a radical democracy. In this
case, not only does the home metaphor seem inadequate, but we cannot
even be sure that the liberal regime can satisfy the demands of a radical
democracy.
It is subject to debate whether a radical democracy would really be so
far removed from a society based on subordination and hierarchy. For
some, even if a liberal regime is legitimized through authorization by
equals or the people it is still based on a representative system that
reproduces hierarchy and social distinctions. Regarding the first point on
legitimacy, it is often said that contemporary liberal political systems, the
majority of which are Western governments, usually have as their
ideological basis—if we can still speak in these terms—the consent of the
citizens. The radical left, represented by philosophers such as Alain
Badiou, believe—in my opinion unjustly—that Hannah Arendt’s “sensus
communis” theory, which was inspired by Kantian political philosophy,
plays precisely such a legitimising role.13 We should remember that
although Arendt believed faculty,—common sense—which allows
political judgment to be formed, is tied to a multiplicity of preferences and
subjectivities, it still serves to construct community, to confirm the
common being within the plurality of man.
But liberal regimes, despite being based on a meaning shared by
everyone, such as the cited “sensus communis,” cannot exist—and now we
enter into the second point—without representation. In our modern states,
the democratic selection of representatives is always carried out according
to criteria—and this seems the most sensible approach—based on
distinction. The latter is not related to owning property, the prerequisite to
11
Ágnes Heller, Una revisión de la teoría de las necesidades (Barcelona: Paidós,
1996), 116.
12
Heller, Una revisión de la teoría de las necesidades, 76.
13
Alain Badiou, Abrégé de Métapolitique (Paris: Seuil, 1998), 19-34.
Are We at Home in a Liberal Democracy? 49
take part in 19th Century census suffrage, but rather with other social titles
such as knowledge, culture, honor, etc. Criteria that contrast with the
democratic and radical suppression of hierarchies, with the fact that it does
not matter to us why—whether it be property, training, experience, etc.—
we prefer to be governed by certain people and not others.
Even if we adhere to the strict idea of the political metaphor, concerned
with what is the best system for us, some doubt remains as to whether
liberal democracy can be our home from the perspective of radical needs.
Especially if we take into consideration that politics in contemporary states
is unthinkable without the hierarchy—and not only in a political or formal
sense—that the concept of representation inevitably introduces, or, to put
it another way, that introduces the inevitable “absence” of the people in
government institutions. I believe that Heller notes this danger when she
fears individuals and institutions that are capable of manipulating the
people and attributing to them needs of which they are not even aware.14 It
would be very difficult for a radical democracy to survive institutions in
which only an elite—whether composed of clergy, intellectuals, sociologists,
or political representatives—is presented as capable of knowing the
genuine needs of the people.
14
Heller, Una revisión de la teoría de las necesidades, 73-74.
50 Chapter Three
interior and exterior, is questioned.15 The author of Sein und Zeit reflected
upon this crisis with these powerful words: “There is no outside (of being),
for which reason it is also absurd to talk about an inside.”16
Perhaps the best expression of the disproportionate effort to transform
the world in our home is found in the novels of Jules Verne, which exalt
the progress and positivist science of the 19th Century. These novels
convert every place into a habitable space. Verne even manages to create a
ship, the Nautilus, which is as safe as our home; it becomes a “perfect
cubbyhole,” while the sea voyage, the worst crime of man’s hubris for the
ancients, is stripped of its traditional menacing connotations.17 Liberal
Modernity—as assessed by the anti-liberal Carl Schmitt in his Land und
Meer—no longer even fears the open space of the ocean, which is the most
exposed, the most forlorn.
To articulate this victory over space we could also turn to the metaphor
of the swamp.18 In Goethe’s Faust, the fight against the swamp—which
Charles Laughton’s film The Night of the Hunter teaches us is the most
sinister of spaces—is established as a philosophical metaphor for human
progress: the ultimate and supreme conquest will consist in draining the
swamp that lies at the foot of the mountain. Or to say it through the verses
of the poet: “A swamp lies at the foot of the mountain/ infesting the entire
conquered earth; /to drain that infested cloaca/would be the final and
supreme conquest.”
More than a century after the death of the German poet, some philosophers
think it is no longer possible to imagine a spatial outside, and therefore it
makes little sense to talk about an inside space like the home. Now they
attempt to demonstrate that “man is growing more independent of the
ground on which he lives,” and let us not forget that the home metaphor is
usually connected to the stability of the ground. Along these lines, Otto
Neurath comments: “formerly when there was a swamp and man, man
disappeared; nowadays the swamp disappears.” The latest episode of our
increasing independence from the ground, which seems to distance us yet
further away from the spatial home-experience, involves the development
of computer technology, of cybernetics. The dominant metaphor today is
that of the network; and networks do not need to be grounded, but rather
15
Blumenberg, Salidas de caverna, 545-548.
16
Martin Heidegger, Die Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie (Summer semester
1927), Heidegger Gesamtausgabe, XXIV, Frankfurt am Main, Vittorio Klostrmann
(1975), 93.
17
Roland Barthes, Mitologías (Barcelona: Siglo XXI, 1980), 82-83.
18
Hans Blumenberg, La inquietud que atraviesa el río (Barcelona: Península,
1992), 93.
Are We at Home in a Liberal Democracy? 51
19
Blumenberg, La inquietud que atraviesa el río, 88.
20
(Badiou, 2004: 63).
52 Chapter Three
21
Friedrich Von Schiller, Escritos sobre estética (Madrid: Tecnos, 1991), 215.
22
Heller, Una revisión de la teoría de las necesidades, 136.
Are We at Home in a Liberal Democracy? 53
23
Reinhart Koselleck, Futuro pasado. Para una semántica de los tiempos
históricos (Barcelona: Paidós, 1993), 351.
24
Blumenberg, Salidas de caverna, 56.
25
Blumenberg, Salidas de caverna, 56.
54 Chapter Three
26
Blumenberg, Salidas de caverna, 554.
27
Heller, Una revisión de la teoría de las necesidades, 141.
Are We at Home in a Liberal Democracy? 55
28
Antonio Rivera García, “La distancia estética. Potencia y límites de la relación
entre arte y democracia,” in Schiller, arte y política, ed Antonio Rivera García
(Murcia: Editum, 2010), 223-270.
29
Edmund Burke, Textos políticos (México: FCE, 1984), 69.
56 Chapter Three
era of the Roman Republic was possessed by the Senate.30 In Rome, the
Senate was a conservative institution because it had to maintain and even
enhance the political inheritance that had been transmitted from the time
of the city’s foundation.31 Something similar occurred with the US
Constitution, which founded a new tradition, and with the institutions that
are in charge of interpreting it and transmitting it to future generations.
However, the fixation on stability, on the continuity of the legacy
transmitted from the foundation, on what truly converts the American
democracy into a home, does not have to suffocate the spirit of innovation.
Obviously, Jefferson’s revolutionary option, which sustained that each
generation had the right to its own revolution and that the dead had no
rights, was categorically defeated,32 but that does not mean we should fall
into the excesses of “originalism” defended by “strict constructionists.” It
is not about sacralizing the Constitution as do Berger, Rehnquist, and
Bork, that is, interpreting it according to “original intent” and opposing its
adaptation to the changes experienced by society.33 With this in mind, we
can understand Heller when she quotes Michelman’s declaration that
American democracy has to be regained every day. Its habitat is
experience, the space where political affairs take place, and not abstract or
universal principles that, as discussed, are linked to Modernity’s temporal
home-experience. This explains why American democracy never needed a
grand narrative, a philosophy of history.
Heller adds that in America consent is valued more highly than dissent,
“just as prior to the development of Modernity.”34 But, although the
republican tradition is tied to consent, I feel that we cannot simply dismiss
the benefits of dissent, of disputability or even emancipatory conflicts.
This is Philip Pettit’s stance, a neo-republican who over the last few years
has insisted that conflict plays a positive role within institutions. Pettit
sustains, in contrast to Hannah Arendt and what he refers to as the populist
tradition, that political liberty requires not so much consent but rather
disputability or dissent. That is to say, democratic self-government
depends on the possibility that decisions made by the government or any
other representative, public decisions, can be disputed by the people. Thus,
neo-republicanism is linked to the possibility of altering political decisions
30
Hannah Arendt, Sobre la revolución (Madrid: Alianza, 1988), 205.
31
Hannah Arendt, Entre el pasado y el futuro (Barcelona: Península, 1996), 133-
134.
32
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiografía y otros escritos (Madrid: Tecnos, 1987), 724.
33
Miguel Beltrán, Originalismo e interpretación. Dworkin vs. Bork: una polémica
constitucional (Madrid: Cívitas, 1989), 57.
34
Heller, Una revisión de la teoría de las necesidades, 148.
Are We at Home in a Liberal Democracy? 57
35
Philip Pettit, Republicanismo. Una teoría sobre la libertad y el gobierno
(Barcelona: Paidós, 1999), 241-242.
36
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, El Federalista (México:
FCE, 1994), 270.
37
Heller, Una revisión de la teoría de las necesidades, 150-151.
58 Chapter Three
liberal city was not only the tolerant city, but also, as explained by the
philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel, a habitat that paradoxically
generated new closed and secret spaces. Instead of being a common
refuge, in some European states it became a home where closed individual
spaces, impenetrable for the other, proliferated. Although the modern big
city was no longer surrounded by walls or protected by a locked gate, it
continued to be armed against anything that it did not produce or recognize
as reality. Noise, for example, shut every citizen up in his cave, in his
room, and made public or social relations more difficult in the modern
city.38 This gives the impression—so powerful in Kafka’s novels—of
being surrounded everywhere by closed doors.39
Even the central democratic act of voting was carried out in a booth, in
a closed space in which the citizen isolated himself, protected himself,
from the others. Even so, the reaction to the privatization of public life was
worse. As an alternative to the secret individual vote, a public act was
proposed in whose shadow grew the fascist dictatorships: the acclaim of
the multitude gathered in large public spaces. It seems to me, however,
that when Heller speaks of liberalism she has the American version in
mind. A liberalism far removed from a bourgeoisie that, like that of
interwar Europe, ended up forsaking its own cultural universe and
renouncing the liberal state of law that was born precisely in opposition to
the arbitrariness and insecurity of the “Ancien Régime.”40
Heller sustains that the introduction of liberalism in the discourse of
democracy did not leave our world unscathed. This is true to such an
extent that she has to reformulate her initial question, “where are we at
home,” and instead ask, “where are you at home,” or, even better, “where
is each individual at home,” because in her opinion it would be nearly
impossible for two people to give the exact same answer. In effect, liberal
principles allow each person to answer the question in her own way:
homes are built from subjective preference and this makes it possible to
avoid the dangers of fundamentalism. If this is the case, we must
acknowledge that liberalism has transformed the home metaphor into the
opposite of what it originally signified; instead of being primarily a shared
space, it is now a space that is freely chosen as one’s own. If this is true,
perhaps it makes no sense to use the metaphor to think about politics, to
think about the space shared by many or perhaps everyone.
38
Georg Simmel, Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung
(Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1968), 486.
39
Blumenberg, Salidas de caverna, 73.
40
Hermann Heller, Escritos políticos (Madrid: Alianza, 1985), 286-287.
Are We at Home in a Liberal Democracy? 59
Heller acknowledges, of course, that homes are not made for solitary
beings; that these places are shared and require some assimilation because
within them one must be accepted, welcome, or at least tolerated. Our
liberal principles, however, ensure that assimilation does not become
tyranny. But declaring a liberal democracy as “our” home gives rise to a
suspicion that perhaps what we are really trying to do is solve the massive
unresolvable problem of modern politics: how to unite opposites or bring
harmony to politics and plurality. Heller’s final answer to “where are we at
home” is “each of us is in the world of our self-appointed and shared
destiny;”41 although this answer reveals perhaps a greater fear of
totalitarian pathologies derived from excessive unity than of nihilistic
pathologies derived from excessive pluralism, it is surely based on a
profound need to reconcile the individual and the collective. The fact that
she converts liberal democracy into a home doubtlessly alludes to this
profound nostalgic desire to harmonize the incompatible and to overcome
the hostility inherent between different ways of understanding life. And I
believe that no concept is capable of expressing it as well as the “absolute
metaphor” of the home.
41
Heller, Una revisión de la teoría de las necesidades, 159.
CHAPTER FOUR
1
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Translated by Daniel Parsons and
Dr Pedro García-Guirao.
2
Karl Mannheim, Ideology and utopia. (London: Routledge, 1954), 166. When
Mannheim had to consider Weber’s general approach, he said that his study
pointed to “areas of political-historical knowledge in which there is an autonomous
regularity which may be formulated, in large measure, independently of one’s
Weltanschauung and political position.” This was a part of psychic life, which
could not be called spiritual but more dependent on the psychology of the masses,
completely outside of the subjective sense of the participants and their hermeneutic
faculties. These are instead described from an objective point of view as “certain
general structural regularities” (167), and they belong to the non-deliberative field
of sociology. But this does not mean that the points have a supra-historical or
supra-social value, but simply that it is difficult to perceive their contingency
because they are the points where we think.
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 61
of the will to power. In her search for ways in which the spirit could burst
into social life, Arendt yearned to liberate herself from this influence.
Naturally, neither Weber nor Mannheim was a liberal in the 19th century
sense. They did not yearn to disconnect society from politics, but they
sought a certain form of politics suitable for the social form that had
evolved from triumphant capitalism. Mannheim, who had met Weber and
had attended his social gatherings, knew that, in Weber’s political
sociology, “his desire for impartiality in politics represents the old
democratic tradition.”3 Kelsen would have drawn the same consequences
from his criticism of the theological representation of the State. The
implicit Weberian aspiration in the new sociology came from “the creation
of a common point of departure for political analysis” and Mannheim
conceived this aspiration as “a goal worthy of the greatest efforts.”4 This
point of social departure—in his opinion common to the different political
options—came from objective knowledge of historical reality, without
which the politics of responsibility could not clear a path. In reality,
Manheim received Max Weber’s ideas defectively; this objectivity and
reality was not understandable outside of the concrete interests derived
from the values, which are defended by researchers and those defended by
politicians. As such, his reception of Weber is not as complete as Lukács’,
whose vision is tormented with a strong subjectivity. Weber never
supported the idea that society can be fully transparent to its own self, or
that it can be in total control of current historical forces through
sociological knowledge. Mannheim started imposing this misunderstanding
of Weberian sociology with fatal consequences, including the lack of
understanding of Weber's scientific work together with his genuine
connection to his political views. For Weber, unlike Mannheim, a
complete expansion of knowledge was not possible as an assumption for
action, nor was complete technification of action possible based on
knowledge. All these ideas were not neo-Kantian but Weber in his own
way was a neo-Kantian. For him, responsibility exists because we are
never able to know everything. We cannot be completely alienated from
the interests of values because we cannot foresee all the consequences, nor
can we calculate, measure, or anticipate them. It is precisely for this reason
that we come to terms with our sense of freedom. Destiny continues to be
obscure and impenetrable, and sociological enlightenment cannot dissolve
this impenetrability. It seems as if Mannheim believed the opposite of
Weber. Therefore, Mannheim spoke about new ethics,5 but, in reality, he
3
Mannheim, Ideology and utopia, 145.
4
Mannheim, Ideology and utopia, 145.
5
Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, 170-171. “At this point the ethical principle of
62 Chapter Four
responsibility begins to dawn. Its chief imperatives are, first, that action should not
only be in accord with the dictates of conscience, but should take into
consideration the possible consequences of the action in so far as they are
calculable, and, second, which can be added on the basis of our previous
discussion, that conscience itself should be subjected to critical self-examination in
order to eliminate all the blindly and compulsively operating factors. Max Weber
has furnished the first acceptable formulation of this conception of politics. His
ideas and researches reflect the stage in ethics and politics in which blind fate
seems to be at least partially in the course of disappearance in the social process,
and the knowledge of everything knowable becomes the obligation of the acting
person. It is at this point, if at any, that politics can become a science, since on the
one hand the structure of the historical realm, which is to be controlled, has
become transparent, and on the other hand out of the new ethics a point of view
emerges which regards knowledge not as a passive contemplation but as critical
self-examination, and in this sense prepares the road for political action;”
Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, 190. Systems theory has shown how sociological
enlightenment can make the functioning of the system transparent, but this does
not allow for better intervention in the system’s survival. The key element is that
systems theory has shown that is not possible to “serve simply for the mastery of
past and present complexities.”
6
Marianne Weber, Max Weber. Una biografía (Valencia: IVEI, 1994), 648-651.
[Marianne Weber and Harry Zohn, Max Weber: a biography (New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers, 1988)]
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 63
7
Ferenc Fehér and Ágnes Heller, Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism,
freedom and democracy (Cambridge: Polity, 1987). I do not understand some
elements of Ágnes Heller’s historical memory. In the page 174 of her book
Anatomía de la izquierda occidental she mentions the following: “It is not very
well-known that in his famous ‘Politics as a vocation’ Weber attacks his young
friend Lukács—the most famous convert to communism—in a personal way.
Weber, with disregard and maybe with cold hate, raised up against Lukács. But all
those familiar with the fragments of Lukács’ book on Dostoyevsky—an unfinished
project—that he had in preparation during the first month of WWI, and that Weber
of course knew very well, know that Weber’s allusions to Dostoyevsky’s ethics in
‘Politics as a vocation’ are references to Lukács.” I do not understand how it is
possible to speak about Weber as a man of “cold hate.” Nobody would recognise
this attribute in Weber’s work nor in his personality. This is not the only place
where she refers to him in a similar way. For example, in the reception of Michels’
works regarding the political parties. Heller mentions that: “It is less known that
Lukács, at the beginnings of the twenties, the era of History and class
consciousness, was the only one to pick up the glove that Michels had thrown and
try to give a philosophical answer to the reification and history of the iron law. He
was most coherent in his devastating critique, as well as the truly totalitarian
consequences that he extracted from them.” Ob. cit. pag. 202. Heller forgets that as
of 1905 Michels was inspired by Weber, who utilised the arguments that were
already given in Ostrogorski (La democracia y los partidos políticos, now in
Trotta, Madrid, 2008, translated by A. Lastra) and that all Parliament and
Government brings together the consequences of this theory. See Max Weber, una
biografía, op. cit. 519, corresponding to 1906. The two men maintained their
friendship and Lukács came to know Michels through Weber. Cf also 527, 533,
595, for 1910. Kadarkay, the biography of Lukács remembers it in another way.
Cf. Georg Lukács, IVEI, Valencia, 1994, pages 323-324. “There is no doubt that
Lukács ‘really played a role in Weber’s thinking […] who in Science as a vocation
cited with approval Lukács adoption of Kant’s premises about aesthetics”. He
adds, “It is unquestionable that Weber and Lukács had great affection and respect
for each other. Weber expected much from Lukács and took a great interest in his
academic career. Lukács, for his part, held Weber’s friendship among his “greatest
achievements, of which he was immensely proud”. It is true that Weber, listening
to the pleas from Lukács’ father, asked him to rehabilitate him and forget mother
Russia. In fact Weber hated the work of Dostoyevsky (page 325), but he continued
supporting Lukács and in La ciencia como vocación cited his case as proof of
German anti-Semitism. What happened between Weber and Lukács after his
conversion to Catholicism do not agree with the manner that Heller remembers it.
Weber’s sympathy with young socialists who were loyal to their Gessinnungsethik
could not be hidden. Cf. pages 352-3. The cold hate could not be seen here. The
fact that Weber did not sign the Mann Manifesto to save Lukács was explained by
Weber himself: “I did not sign the recent public call because I had already written
64 Chapter Four
After the collapse of the socialist utopia, Heller set out on an important
philosophical path that starts from ensuring the link between politics and
social and historical-political elements. Her commitment to Modernity is
synonymous with her commitment to rationality and to non-traditional
elements.8 Here, Heller’s spirit has not always mirrored Arendt’s. For
Arendt, the rehabilitation of the spirit does not waiver regarding the need
to return to the polis. Certainly, both philosophers shared their distance
with regards to both the scientific utopia of total transparency as the base
for responsibility as well as the total reduction of the positions of the spirit
to a historical facticity. No total objectivity or total and relativist
dependency of facticity, those are their common red lines. In spite of these
shared beliefs, someone proceeding from Lukács’ tradition should perhaps
ensure the efficacy of the old ontology of the social being in philosophical
and political discourse. From my point of view, Heller’s focus on
everyday life as a central category comes from this source. Nevertheless,
to the Minister of Justice of Budapest interceding on your behalf”. In fact this letter
was decisive. Cf. Kadarkay, ob. cit. 417. The last letter from Weber to Lukács
says: “My Dear Friend: we are naturally separated by our political opinions. I am
absolutely convinced that these experiments can only have and will only have the
effect of discrediting socialism for a hundred years. Each time I think of how much
the present public events – since 1918- have cost in terms of people of
unquestionable value, regardless of the direction of their choice (for example,
Schumpeter, and now you) it cannot prevent a feeling of rancour due to this
senseless destination”. Kadarkay, 424. This is not the expression of cold hate, but
rather the announcement of the unbearable nature of the time when he was living.
As he said, “not everything involves social honour” and the infallible class
interests seemed to him a senseless dogma. That Lukács, after all that he knew of
Weber, would say that the latter was one of the most important of the realpolitiker,
was in fact a low blow. Kadarkay gives his final opinion at the end: “Not even
Lukács could shake Weber’s faith in the reconciliation of democracy and liberty
under the domain of advanced capitalism. And Lukács felt almost as much
sympathy for democracy as for the gallows noose”. Kadarkay, ob. cit. pag. 428. In
the end Kadarkay speaks of the “compassion and admiration that Weber had for
his friend and adversary”. Op. cit. 429. It remains paradoxical that Heller’s voyage
toward a meeting between democracy, technification and capitalism, specifically
Weberian, is due to this deficit in memory. Lukács’ memory was not any more
acute. Cf. Kadarkay, 522 to see how Lukács treated Weber from Moscow.
8
Ágnes Heller, “Rights, Modernity, Democracy,” Cardozo L. Rev., 11 (1989):
1377. “Modernity is a breakthrough in the process of deconstructing (in the sense
of the German term Abbauen) the ‘natural artifice,’ which for millennia has
secured the survival of the human race.” And later: “Modern imagination begins to
emerge when the ‘natural’ appears artificial, a man-made construct which can be
deconstructed.”
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 65
9
Ágnes Heller, “The Complexity of Justice-A Challenge to the 21st Century,”
Ethical theory and moral practice 3.3 (2000): 247-262. Freedom would be the
normative core that is provided in liberalism and equality would be the normative
core of democracy.
10
Ágnes Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental [see Ferenc Fehér and Ágnes
Heller, Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy
(Cambridge: Polity, 1987)]. Clearly, for Heller this topic seems to come from
Marx (p. 20), but it comes more from Weber because for Weber the centrality of
freedom cannot be negotiated. Obviously, in Anatomía de la izquierda occidental,
Heller still thinks that this universalising project can become operational after
resolving the crisis of Marxism (127).
11
Ágnes Heller, Can Modernity Survive? (Univ of California Press, 1990), 126.
12
Ágnes Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, ob. cit. pág. 128. [see Ferenc
Fehér and Ágnes Heller, Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and
66 Chapter Four
fall of communist dogmas, things could go back to where Weber left them;
they could go back to those dates prior to 1918, before the almost one
hundred years of disdain for socialism caused by the Russian experiment.
One of the most prestigious experts on Heller, Ángel Prior, has claimed
that “there is something unequivocal Weberian in Heller’s works […] and
this would come by the centrality of the value-oriented rational action.”
This quote continues as follows: Weber’s influence could be explained by
the “link between ‘action’ and ‘value’ and by reference to the axiological
perspective.” Therefore, reducing the theoretical Marxist construction to
an axiology would be a revision of Marx through Weber.13 Although Prior
suggests that Weber’s influence in Heller may fundamentally come from
Lukács, I tend to think that Weber arrived through Lukács’ selective
memory.14 Thinking too highly of her former teacher, Heller reminds us
But I wish to call attention to a passage from page 37, where Prior analyses the
reduction of the logic of goodness from the logic of value, specifically belonging
to Modernity. Then he affirms that “in this sense, rational Weberian action with
regard to values, far from belonging to traditional contexts, as Weber himself
sustained in a certain manner, in fact will belong more to modern actors faced with
this plurality.” I do not understand Prior here. Weber does not establish a
relationship between rational action with regard to ends and modern society, and
rational action with regards to values and traditional society. The first categories
are forms of social action in any society. Additionally, only modern societies act
rationally with regards to values with full self-awareness that they are values, and
not objective and natural goods. To accept the contrary would be to imply that
modern societies do not have values, and therefore do not have any idea of
legitimacy. Undoubtedly, Weber, as all critics of modern society was alarmed by
the continual expansion of rational action with regards to merely instrumental
goals, and the continual loss of the strong link to values and material and spiritual
interests dependent on them, faced with the growing connection to merely punctual
interest. But he did not see responsibility without connection to value in any way.
15
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, ob. cit. pág. 128-9. [see Fehér and
Heller. Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
16
Carl Schmitt, The Tyranny of Values (Washington, D.C.: Plutarch Press, 1996).
17
This is the essential thesis of Teoría de la historia, op. cit. 244. Prior interprets
how to reduce history to an incomplete philosophy which considers duty as an
idea, not as a reality. The essential idea is the illustrious idea of the “unity of the
68 Chapter Four
cannot be the central topic of the article. I will only use it when relevant to
the topic of this article, that is, Heller’s reception of Weber. Moreover, this
reception has three key issues: firstly, the issue of politics and the state;
secondly, the issue of responsibility and intention; and finally, the issue of
the spheres of action, and their relationship to morals.
human race.”
18
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit. 129. [see Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
19
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, ob. cit. pág. 129-130. [see Fehér
and Heller. Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
20
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit. 131. [see Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy]. Heller
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 69
confuses this legitimacy with that of a mere negative liberty. Her theory of double
domination of capital and the State belongs more to revisionist Marxism, in the
way that it allows the specifics of political domination to be understood, not just
the façade. But as is natural, domination in the Weberian sense, cannot exist in the
market. There can be power, and Weber does not ignore this. But no Herrschaft.
21
Stefan Breuer, Bürokratie und Charisma. Zur politischen Soziologie Max
Webers (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1994) [Spanish
Translation: Stefan Breuer, Burocracia y Carisma (Valencia: IVEI, 1996)].
22
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit. 131. [Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
70 Chapter Four
person had not made an effort to reach the impossible, over and over
again” is contrary to the previous summary judgment about Weber’s
determinism.23 Heller’s affirmation that plebiscitary democracy was the
“necessary” complement to the growing bureaucratization forgets the
assumption of value that underlies this necessity: this complement was
necessary in the event that one wanted closer attention to be paid to the
material and cultural necessities of mass social democracy. Then, it was
not the case of a total necessity based on an objective-scientific point of
view, but one that came from what was considered desirable, that is,
responsible democratic politics. In the event that the most likely policies
with irrational effects were imposed due to the affective psychic needs of
the masses, then the Leviathan’s bureaucratization would collapse—as
Carl Schmitt and F. Neumann predicted. Furthermore, Heller does not take
into consideration that Weber viewed a non-bureaucratized parliamentary
institution as an even greater necessary,24 specifically due to this growing
bureaucratic dimension.
By not taking all this into consideration, Heller wonders if rationalization
instead of bureaucracy is possible, giving greater credit to Habermas for
his finding. Once again, the reception of Weber is faulty on this point.
Bureaucracy is necessary for social democratization and socialization
processes. Therefore, there is a need for specific parliamentary politics,
motivated by political democratization imbued with a sense of liberty and
responsibility; a political democratization that does not break its links with
society and which generates adequate political representation. When
Habermas reengages with “the communicative rationality implicit in
democratic procedures,” he is looking for refuge from public objectivity
with a supra-political nature. While acceptable to a Weberian for Western
societies, that this rationality should be completely outside the value-based
philosophy and incompatible with the philosophy does not seem to be a
Habermasian aspiration.25 In reality, this would be unthinkable outside of
23
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit. 135. [Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
24
Max Weber, “Parliament and government in a reconstructed Germany,”
Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology 3 (1978).
25
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit. 132. [Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy]. In spite of
everything, for Heller it still seems that there are many remnants of Weberianism
in Habermas’ systems theory. Here, Heller’s argument is evasive. Her reproach is:
if ideal communication produces consensus and can test “all the norms and rules of
human actions,” then it could also change the rules that the systems created. But,
first, communicative action cannot test all the rules and norms. This ability is not
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 71
modern processes.
Without a doubt, this exploration of the impossible seemed to be an
aspect coming from the ethics of responsibility for politicians. This was an
issue of cordoning off the dominant social imagination, the traditional
dimensions of life, and pointing out what seemed impossible but desirable.
There was an inherent paradox in this. A leader of the masses should put
into practice something that was on the margins of the collective
imagination of the masses, but that could be perceived by the masses as
their own desire. It is the same paradox that Lukács had to face with his
difference between “class in itself” and “class for itself.” Crossing over
from one class to another is the responsibility of politicians. In the same
way, a charismatic democratic leader has a personal point of view, but he
or she is the representative of his or her people and therefore anti-
authoritative. Only from this anti-authoritative charisma would it be
possible to square the circle. This was the key for the personal ethics of the
vocational politician; their ethics could not come from their own self-
consciousness if they lacked the values that linked to their ethics. The key
issue of this self-consciousness resides in openly showing a firm
commitment to values reinforced by historical necessity, the key element
for Marxism. This self-consciousness arose from a historically
conditioned—but not determined—perception. This was the sense of the
repetitive Weberian allusions to the tasks of the day. Weber was
unequivocally anchored to the subjective dimension of value, and his
rhetoric tried to promote adaptation between action and value in the
context of a plural society, and about the suitability of this value for
addressing social problems. Heller has never been so close to a Weberian
position than when she demands “a democratically legitimated political
authority.”26 This is not only precisely a politician in the sense of
Habermas, but the archetype of the responsible politician for Max Weber.
27
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit. 170-173. [Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 73
searching for “agreement with the world.” This is the difference with
respect to Benjamin and Arendt, with their exclusive commitment to what
Benjamin called “pure means,” one that Habermas later put into practice
with his discourse ethics. Weber, who was well versed in authentic
Judaism, also knew how to define a prophet as divine violence, precisely
because he “kills with His Word” using “pure means” in unconditional
defense of his convictions. Although Weber was well versed with these
academic words, he wanted to move far away from them because he
understood that nobody had prophetic power. A responsible politician
could say simply “no,” “I cannot,” “I repeat what I've said before," “For
the sake of the value, I will or will not do this or that.” This could surely
be a most bitter moment, bringing with it desperation and even physical
and psychic death. But all these implications came from respect for the
fundamental value.
The rejection of the Versailles Treaty in 1922 constitutes an example
of this. Weber unconditionally rejected the Treaty of Versailles at any cost
because it touched the heart of his intimate convictions, as it destroyed
what Germany meant to him: independence from other countries, freedom,
maintaining the country’s historical destiny in its own hands, and
identifying its place within modern western societies. In this case, the
Treaty of Versailles caused Germany’s death through embarrassment and
desperation after the end of centuries of European civilization,
condemning Germany to follow its own path outside of the western
cultural motherland.
For this reason, I do not fully understand Heller’s analysis. When she
asks for the logic of the consequences stemming from the ethic of
responsibility, in reality she is asking, “For whom would those effects be
devastating? And from what point of view?” The answer is: for those who
took the ultimate goal or the conviction seriously. That is true. For those
assuming this conviction, the ethic of responsibility would be a
commitment, not an ideology. That is also true. But leaving aside that for
Weber the effects of Versailles would be devastating even for those who
did not think the same—he felt a sense of responsibility to show why his
points of view were correct—no one can say that “when Weber stated and
predicted the consequences originated he was moving away from his own
method.”28 This is because Weber “did not make a decision based on his
own theory, the ethic of responsibility, but starting from a political-moral
principle that he conceived as valid and not simply triumphant.” Heller’s
28
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit. 174. [Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
74 Chapter Four
29
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit.178. [Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 75
they conclusive principles for democratic politics,” can only have one
responsible answer: no. Hence, there is the need to fight for them.
However much the values contain an argumentative core, defend their
pretentions of rational validity, contain persuasion strategies, and so on,
there are no conclusive arguments because above all arguments there is the
freedom of what one values, and with that the freedom to not value, or to
value from a different sphere or from other ideals, or to value against or
value from an ethic of pure conviction. Not even the outbreak of atomic
war or the commitment to prevent the end of humankind concludes the
argument of politics. Hitler could accept both things from the absolute
value of the Third Reich. A jihadist Taliban can also be committed to the
all or nothing of a destroyed humanity before seeing the Islamist Holy
Land defiled.
Democratic politics have principles upon which it is possible to
establish the good or bad aspects of the consequences and require that
these principles include a debate in which everyone can participate. Weber
would agree with the previous sentence. He would even be prepared to
accept that democratic principles involve moral points of view related to
modern natural law, to the centrality of liberty and equality, and to
impartiality and justice.30 Weber’s firm belief in the value of Germany as a
nation was inseparable from his conception of his people as active
defenders of these modern cultural values and their “ethos.” His firmer
belief was that these cultural values were not transcendent but rather the
fruit of a reflexive commitment with a specific history of values and
beliefs. Additionally, the procedural principle of allowing all human
beings to participate in decisions under the idea of a “consensum omnium”
was implicit in the previous form of this historical destiny that produced
the progression of European society towards a democratic era. Weber
would even agree with the affirmation that it is possible to champion
30
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit.181. [Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy]. These are the
principles that Heller employs. The principle of impartiality has special relevance,
which reminds one of Rawls: “it recognises all human needs as long as their
satisfaction can be conceived without clashing with the maxims of freedom,
justice, and equality. The principle of equity is the Rawlsian principle of justice: “it
provides help to all classes, groups and nations which bear great suffering unless
this postulate enters in conflict with the other maxims of political behaviour.” This
implies an effective society over the condition of a just society. Undoubtedly, the
argument involves a hierarchy of principle: inviolable and conditioning and
desirable but conditioned. Freedom, justice, and equality would be first.
Impartiality and equity would be second.
76 Chapter Four
31
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda occidental, op. cit. 181-182. [Fehér and Heller.
Eastern left, Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
32
Heller, Can Modernity Survive? “Modernity is a turning point in histories, in so
far as it is here and now that universal values become politically effective,”
(p.120). Obviously, this work has assumed the formalism of politics and also
leaves the interpretation about what is specifically understand by freedom open to
the public domain in every case. In each specific case, there is a need for
“concerted cooperation and discussion,” (p.124), that is, for the implementation of
a democratic process. “No one and nothing is excluded in principle,” (p.124). “It is
not written in the stars whether or not a particular cause is related to the issue of
freedom,” (p.125). Once again, she assumes a socio-historical link:. “This concept
is modern in the sense that it is accompanied by different visions of history,”
(p.124). In opposition to the clear relation with Kant, this argument of Hegelian
origin, Heller recognises that she “conceive[s] of Modernity as the ongoing
concretization of freedom is Hegel’s theoretical innovation,” (p.138).
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 77
such,33 from the beginning, it does not allow her to extract the consequence
of the lack of conclusive principles to consider a sphere—in this case, the
political one—as one’s own deity. The apolitical nature of large sections
of the population is an inevitable consequence of the separation of the
spheres of action. Additionally, the lack of coactivity of all the arguments
in favor of democracy allows an inevitable liberal effect in favor of
exceptionalism, aristocratism, and other heroic residues. For others, the
sovereignty of subjectivity is so strong that it can dedicate its indifference
to classical political sovereignty, even though it pays the high price of
increased objective domination.
33
Heller, Anatomía de la izquierda, op. cit. 235. [Fehér and Heller. Eastern left,
Western left: totalitarianism, freedom and democracy].
34
Heller, Can Modernity Survive, 3-8.
35
Heller, Can Modernity Survive, 13.
36
Heller, Can Modernity Survive, 156. “I coined the term ‘sincere liberalism’ in
78 Chapter Four
and the defense—in spite of everything—of social sciences that could save
the idea of modern rationality against a cynicism dominated by the death
drive all have a clear Weberian touch. A sentence like the following one
can be only written by taking Weber into account: “Also absolute
relativism is wish-fulfilment of a kind: the wish in question is a death
wish. Products of Western culture turn against their own traditions and
develop suicidal inclinations. Absolute cultural relativists wish to unmake,
to undo, the modem Western differentiation of cultural spheres.”37 One
can only be an absolute relativist against Weber in the same way that one
can be an appropriate relativist only by accepting some Weberian
premises. In any case, science did not offer any more binding arguments,
however the “attempt at transforming our contingency into our destiny”—
something which sounds at the same time like both Lukács and Weber—
would be the cornerstone of freedom,38 the only way to bridge the deep
ontological difference between “what is” and “what should be.”
This book went one step further to present an interpretation of things
that assumed a theory of the Modernity and that utilized Weber’s
diagnosis and its dangers.39 The book also went back to the philosophical
bases of the philosopher that had inspired the differences of spheres, that
is, Kierkegaard, which now is directed against radical existentialists such
as Heidegger and Lukács.40 From this time on, Kierkegaard would only
grow in Heller’s theories on morals until inspiring A Philosophy of Morals
(1990) and An Ethics of Personality (1996). But, at the end of the day,
Heller’s position depended on her understanding of the Weberian
diagnosis on the division of the spheres of action and her response to this
41
This was the aim of her chapter, “Can everyday life be endangered?”
42
Ágnes Heller, Por una filosofía radical, (Barcelona: El Viejo Topo, 1980), 47.
[Ágnes Heller, A Radical Philosophy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984)]. Everyday
life, axiological orientation, colloquial language, social condition, and sociability: I
think all of them point to a convergent centre.
43
Heller, Pour una filosofía radical, op. cit. 55. [Heller, A Radical Philosophy].
44
Heller, Can Modernity Survive, 47.
45
Heller, Can Modernity Survive, 145-146.
46
Heller, Can Modernity Survive, 153.
47
See my Introduction to the Obras of F. H. Jacobi, edited in the Círculo de
Lectores, Barcelona, 1996.
48
Prior, Axiología de la modernidad, op. cit. 132. Regarding the central element of
the human condition, everyday life cannot be left out of reflection and the attitude
of epoché, nor can it be endangered by systemic structures, such as occurs in
Habermas. Everyday life is the concrete form of humanization. Ángel Prior defines
it as such. “Everyday life is defined as the shared vital experience upon which our
80 Chapter Four
intersubjective constitution of the world is based and takes on both acts and events
as well as the general framework of meanings, visions of the world and institutions
of meaning.”
49
Heller, Can Modernity Survive, 49-50. Obviously, in this context, the Lukácsian
influence of self-objectness does not disappear, per se and in it. This last one
would be from institutions with their legitimacy—one that does not end with the
self-objectness and the objectness per se, which always goes further in practises,
narratives, meanings, and so on.
50
Heller, General Ethics.Although edited in 1988, by Blackwell, it is translated
into Spanish in 1995 in CEPC, Madrid, by A. Rivero. Rivero has written a
revealing essay called “Marx, Heller y la teoría de la modernidad,” in Heller y
Prior, Los dos pilares de la ética moderna, Diálogos con Ágnes Heller, Libros del
Innombrable, Zaragoza, 2008, pages 83 and following. Its merit is to recognise that
without critical reflection with Marx, Heller’s theory of Modernity cannot be
understood. We cannot stop here to analyse this. But in general I agree that Heller
has shown that Marx was not far from the profound universalist aspirations of
freedom as a central modern value. In spite of this, I believe that it does not centre
on the key of the diagnosis of Weber in the separation of the spheres of action, but
rather in “rationalisation,” “the disenchantment with the world” and “the
affirmation of instrumental logic in human relationships.” See op. cit. 84. But there
is no rationalisation without separating the spheres of action.
51
Heller, Can Modernity Survive, 46.
52
Heller, Can Modernity Survive, 45.
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 81
53
Heller, Ética general, 199-200, [Heller, General Ethics] and Prior, Los dos
pilares de la ética moderna, op. cit. 149.
82 Chapter Four
and distance. That way, there is no need for cynicism, only for irony and
to enclose and limit the time of specialization. Although I am not certain
about this step, we can imagine it if we claim that a real free human being
is primarily responsible for him or herself. But we will not find the place
and a sense of the effective freedom in a sphere of action unless one does
not specialize and determine his or her everyday life from this
specialization. That this involves problems, pathologies, pains, tragedies,
challenges, incoherencies, and broken existences seems fully normal. It
seems also normal that these issues tend to be reduced from a general
sense of freedom for irony, distance, overall sense of life, the will to attend
to other goods, compensations, and equilibriums.
In any case, little by little, we have different notions of personal
freedom. The first one refers to a social action; the second one to everyday
life. Both are linked by a law: there is a cost to enjoying freedom and it
requires other goods to be relinquished. We cannot enjoy an ironic and
anti-specialized everyday life without depriving ourselves of free action to
intervene within the world and transform it. For Weber, human beings
would firstly be guided by a vocation or an ethos derived from the
centrality of a value or a good. When speaking about the erotic life, the
guide is pleasure, when speaking about the economic life, it is guided by
accumulating capital. When speaking about the sciences, we seek to
discover knowledge, when speaking about politics, we are guided by the
representation of others and their justice. When speaking about religion,
we are guided by the intimate serenity of salvation and protection from
other human beings and when speaking about arts, we are guided by
common beauty. Is there something in common for all these elements?
The ethos would be an enlightened commitment to the phrase “dare to
know your Truth,” not under the form of theory but rather of social
action—which is the only way to know who you are.
Heller moves to another completely different level of understanding,54
54
Prior, Axiología de la modernidad, ob. cit. pag. 150-151. Weber did not remain
silent on everyday life. Not in the Zwischenbetrachtung. And, of course, he could
not say that “the only way to choose in an absolute form everyday life is through
religious morals.” Weber additionally does not forget philosophy, but of course he
does not share Hegel’s structure of the objective spirit of arts and sciences, as
objectness for itself, nor does he share the philosophy as the final reflective
objectiveness of the absolute spirit. Philosophy cannot describe, determine,
anticipate, or deduce the relationships between the different spheres of action and
therefore it is not the guide for everyday life. This does not mean that there is no
philosophy as the final reflection of the good that a value may have. But in no way
can it be a final reflection on the concrete normative process which regulates
84 Chapter Four
and she confronts the argument by underlining that an ethos looks for the
supreme truth of subjectivity in any sphere, this vocation combined with
finding a strong relationship between the subject’s truth and the value,
which requires the subject to be taken seriously and to commit responsibly
to this value and its costs, on the limitation and negotiation that construct
the variation of everyday life. Heller would suggest that the choice for
everyday life as a whole would be contrary to choosing an objective
sphere of action. The Hegelianism of the young Lukács is clear: “the
sphere of the everyday life demands a moral attitude, while [the sphere of
science and politics (objective spirit) or] the spheres of arts and philosophy
(absolute spirit) demand specifications and rules that Lukács argued were
not moral.”55 According to this, the logic of the everyday life would be
moral logic. Once we have chosen the moral aspect, we choose ourselves
as moral beings in all spheres and those would become anchored in
everyday life. The argument seems plausible. In this way, the primacy of
practical moral reason would be defended without eliminating the
distinctions among the spheres. In fact, this is similar to the fact that
morals would work as the common ethos: whoever becomes a moral
subject—whatever sphere he or she chooses—is motivated by the primacy
of freedom, creativity, reinterpretation, responsibility with its value
understood in his or her way, etc. If we take this seriously, we would have
a common moral attitude that would be implemented in any sphere. In this
way, where Weber establishes the basic assumptions of Modernity as the
base of a cultural commitment towards values, Heller establishes a
commitment to morals. Where Weber speaks about the formal condition of
the possibility of a subjectivity that seeks its material truth in the spheres
of action, Heller proposes a specific material condition. Everyday life
would be a moral frame and would be characterized by the way in which
the moral subject—the modern subject—chooses to be “a good person.”
Bearing in mind this essential structure, the choice for one of the objective
spheres would return to everyday life—beyond its objectiveness—
allowing good people to participate in their own logic.
Everyday life, governed by this peculiar moral principle, is not so
much a place where negotiations occur but “the condition of the normative
framework of modern societies,” “the frame from where the normative
potential of the moral attitude is displayed.”56 This is the assumption that
concerns the person in toto, in contrast to the fragmentation of the
commitment to the arts, economy, science, and objective spheres. To a
certain extent, the moral and consequent discursive element would free
them from the autonomous and asphyxiating systems and would be a
guarantee for humanization. In this context, a universalism could occur:
whatever the partial role of someone in a social sphere of action may be,
the decision regarding morals would always remain available. The dualism
of a systemic world that humiliates human beings and that offers them
clear details of their contingent status and impotence, and an individual
moral world anchored in goodness that is recognized as a universal value;
this dualism points at the two sides in which Modernity’s pendulum
moves. The need for this pendulum is that systems must return to the issue
to which a moral being directs them.
Consequently, morals and everyday life would have a content
belonging to themselves: good persons. This would be a choice with
universal and common potential. This choice would involve the existential
choice for difference, due to having subjective truth, and a concrete
“ethos” to confirm this choice. This concrete ethos would be related to the
value that governs a sphere of objectness: science, politics, arts, or
philosophy. The appropriateness of personality would be this double
choice: the generic and universal choice for morals and the different and
concrete one of the ethics for a sphere of objectness. This synthesis would
guarantee that all the discursive spheres of objective ethics would be
governed by the principle of universality, previously orientated to
obtaining a consensus. As can be seen above, the idea does not aspire so
much to answer Weber but rather to respond to Habermas. Then, the way
in which morals would take part in the spheres would be through
discursive ethics. In the case of politics, this discursive feature that would
govern the liberal republican democracy would ask about the dynamic
justice from the use of legal language and it would be ruled by the theory
of the pendulum.57 We should not forget that for Heller “the pendulum is
56
Prior, Axiología de la modernidad, op. cit. 100.
57
Ágnes Heller, Beyond justice (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987). As she will say in Más
allá de la justicia, her interpretation of the principle of Discursive Ethics is the
republican premise: “One single law can intend to be valid if all the persons
affected consent or will consent through agreement over the validity of the law.”
This is paraphrasing “What affects everyone concerns everyone.” See Spanish
version page 30. Its uninterrupted movement is expressed in Republican terms as
86 Chapter Four
res public.”58 While morals would have personality and rational decision
for the good as a principle, politics would be within the discursive ethic of
the justice.59 This approach suggests the moral choice affects our
consideration as personalities and bearers of dignity in all the objective
spheres of action.60 Moral principles, more so than the discursive principle
of republicanism, would be an assumption for universalization, but a
productive assumption for concrete reality, in this case the creation of a
consensus upon which to establish the validity of the law.61 Here lies the
central point of Heller’s criticism of Habermas, one that Hamann already
used to criticize Kant. Obviously, consensus will not be reached through
discourse if there is no prior commitment to consensus, one which derives
from a value that governs the discourse, but which is not its result.
Hamann called it good will; Heller calls it moral choice. This principle
must have “an unconditional and absolute validity” prior to the discourse.
Its un-conditionality would not allow it to be a mean but rather an end in
itself. Only starting from moral value, which a priori connects the
participants prior to participation, could it be possible to find a just law
through deliberation. Discursive politics would be founded on morals.62 In
this way, Heller does no more than illustrate the intimate connection
between the Kantian categorical imperative and the grounds for the
ultimate foundations of the law.
The most valuable aspect of this theory with regards to Weber is that it
raises the idea of explicit universal normativity, something that for Weber
constitutes the cultural base of the Western world. This difference does not
seem to be decisive. But precisely here, Heller makes this sphere of
everyday life, of moral life, of self-elevation of the subject, into a subject
of the “ethos,” the decision for goodness.
Moreover, by applying the method that Weber considered to be the
correct Kantian option, and which Lukács had applied to art by stating,
‘the work of art exists, and we should show how it is possible,’ Heller then
suggests the autonomy of morals as follows: good individuals exist and we
must ask ourselves how they are possible. For a Kantian, this is the wrong
path, and being loyal to Kant, Weber prohibited himself from taking this
step. Because Kant’s synthetic a priori judgements have this structure: the
“principles” of science exist and the transcendental discourse shows how
they are possible, “judgments” of taste exist, and the transcendental
philosophy shows how they are possible, moral “principles” exist and we
should investigate how they are possible. Principles, judgments, and
knowledge are aspects produced by the human beings, but they are not
human beings. Regarding human beings and their existence, there are no
transcendental conditions. We can never know if good people exist; there
is no social action that can demonstrate this to us, no conditions that make
it possible for us to know something mysterious that is not the fruit of our
knowledge. This uncertainty is a fight within ourselves, not an attempt to
objectively demonstrate to others. There are only human beings that do
things, for example, there are those who are committed to the freedom to
enjoy specialized and passionate creativity, and there are others that are
committed to more comfortable and ironic everyday life, less dependent
on the freedom to create and more on enjoying goods. Naturally, there are
more users than creators of the goods of freedom. Of course, there are
human beings that in concrete cases are committed to good actions and
even those who are committed to being good persons, but this does not
mean that they are in fact good people, or that they ever will be good
people; in the same vein, morally governed social action does not mean
just allowing and encouraging others to use their freedom and to cooperate
in their happiness. In reality, however, these two conditions are rarely met,
and they are even more rarely met continually in different times. For this
reason, I cannot say if I am a good person, but neither can others say
anything different when others recognize my good actions.
We do not know if we are good people, and this is the key of our
modern everyday life. Goodness appears beyond science and theory, it is
between us and our “daimon.” The order of goodness has to do with self-
88 Chapter Four
analysis about if in each sphere we have allowed the other to be active and
to speak from his or her truth or if, on the contrary, we have manipulated
and used him or her. Therefore, goodness does not have its own territory
but rather it has its sense in the condition of the “modern comprehension”
of all social action.
Only if we have a traditional viewpoint can we speak—as Heller
does—about the unequivocal acknowledgement of “bearers of morals.” In
modern society, such a thing is not possible. It is an attempt to create an
exemplar without defined traditional archetypes. The most we can do, as
Arendt said and as Kierkegaard knew, is to establish judgments about
concrete cases of good action, not about good and exemplary persons.
What is in the background of this common “ethos,” that is, the truth of the
subject who expresses him or herself by his or her action can only be
investigated, found, and experienced by the subject who experiences it and
it is therefore socially implicit. This is the origin of everyday life.
In short, Heller goes further than explaining the implicit. In doing so,
she also imbues it with a specific content—goodness—that has
consequences for the concrete content of social life and spheres of action.
Therefore, moral choice can require that good persons suffer injustice as
the key to demonstrating goodness in action. Only a traditional conception
of the fatherland, or a way of understanding religious life, which would
reduce the value of injustice for human beings, could make this imperative
into a value implicit in the notion of moral subjectivity in the sense that a
Weberian would understand. When Heller mentions that this is her
confession of faith, maybe she should complete the sentence.63 When she
mentions that morality in essence is the individual or subjective part of any
sphere of the “Sittlichkeit,” of the ethics of the spheres of action, she does
nothing but to think that good art, good economics, or good science can be
produced when we are able to suffer injustice without committing it. This
means projecting a totally anachronistic concept of goodness, one that is
characteristic of the communitarian virtue of the polis or of the Christian
“res publica” onto the Modernity of separated spheres. Practical reason
can only transform the subjective element into moral authority within a
substantive community.64 But if such an external authority exists, this
comes from the “Sittlichkeit,” that is, from the spheres of action, and then
within the economy, “eros,” science, politics, or art, but authority is not
found, were modern freedom to consent to the term, in good people.
63
Heller, Ética general, op. cit. 216. [Heller, Beyond Justice].
64
Heller, Ética general, 131. [Heller, Beyond Justice].
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 89
65
Prior, Axiología de la modernidad, op. cit. 155.
90 Chapter Four
66
Prior, Axiología de la modernidad, op. cit. 158. This is a key concept coming
from the theory of Marxist needs and human emancipation as a unity of generality
and individuality.
Weber and Heller: A Complex Reception 91
one true ethical personality, the one taking care of the needs of the day,
within his or her limitations and with humility. Nonetheless, Heller,
assuming Derrida’s proposals, idealizes these daily needs as the needs of
the Other. Obviously, Heller interprets this Other in the same way as
Kierkegaard, that is, as an interior demand to which we must answer, a
kind of specter of God. Weber would suggest that this responsibility is
limited by the value that we obey, and to the concrete human beings that
we meet among those who claim to be at its service through social actions,
while Heller, it seems, would have proposed an increased and even
unconditional answer.67 But these are also great words of a philosophy that
is still connected to great and exceptional human beings.
I think we can openly say that the way in which we make ourselves
concrete does not have to do with the Other (in capital letters). It has to do
more with concrete beings that everyday life puts continually, permanently,
and obstinately, within our reach, ourselves included.
It is time to conclude. I have dealt with Kant and Hegel, Marx and
Weber, Lukács and Mannheim, Arendt and Habermas. The works by
Ágnes Heller span the 20th century lucidly and with existential relevance.
Her work continues to be relevant because it connects the present with
those intellectual giants. Hence, her works are irreplaceable for those who
are faithful to the western tradition. This is why we show our gratitude and
homage.
67
For an analysis of the three types of personalities see: Heller, An Ethics of
Personality. And also see: Prior, Axiología de la modernidad op. cit. 162-3.
PART II:
BIOPOLITICS, TOTALITARIANISM,
AND GLOBALIZATION
ANTONIO CAMPILLO1
1
Universidad de Murcia, Spain.
2
(Deleuze and Guattari, 1994)
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 95
My chief quarrel with the present state of the historical and political
sciences is their growing incapacity for making distinctions. Terms like
nationalism, imperialism, totalitarianism, etc., are used indiscriminately
for all kinds of political phenomena (usually just as ‘high-brow’ words for
aggression), and none of them is any longer understood with its particular
historical background. The result is a generalization in which the words
themselves lose all meaning (…) This kind of confusion—where
everything distinct disappears and everything that is new and shocking is
(not explained but) explained away either through drawing some analogies
or reducing it to a previously known chain of causes and influences—
seems to me to be the hallmark of the modern historical and political
sciences.3
3
Hannah Arendt, “A reply to Eric Voegelin,” The Review of Politics, XV, 1
(1953): 68-85. Reprinted in, Essays in Understanding: 1930–1954, ed. and intr.
Jerome Kohn (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1994), 401-408.
4
Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France,
1978-1979, in “Course summary,” ed. Michel Senellart, intr. Arnold J. Davidson,
trans. Graham Burchell. (Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
5
Paul Veyne, Comment on écrit l'histoire. Foucault révolutionne l'histoire (Paris:
Seuil, 1978).
6
Lorenzo Chiesa and Alberto Toscano, The Italian Difference: Between Nihilism
and Biopolitics (Melbourne: Re.Press, 2009).
96 Chapter Five
referred to them as the “New Italians” and has criticized their anti-political
thought.7
In response to all of these authors, I suggest re-reading more
thoroughly the links between Foucault and Arendt. I will also outline the
foundations of a new historical-political ontology that may allow us to
understand the ethical and political challenges of the present time.
7
Timothy Brennan, Wars of Position. The Cultural Politics of Left and Right (New
York: Columbia UP, 2006): 193; Alfonso Galindo, Pensamiento impolítico
contemporáneo (Madrid: Sequitur, 2015).
8
Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality, Volume 1: Introduction, trans. Robert
Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), Part Five: “Right of Death and Power
over Life,” esp. 135-145; Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at
the Collège de France 1975-1976, ed. Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana,
trans. D. Macey (New York: Picador, 2003), esp. Class of March 1, 1976; Michel
Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France,
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 97
1977-1978, ed. Michel Senellart, intr. Arnold Davidson, trans. Graham Burchell.
Basingstoke (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007; Foucault, The Birth of
Biopolitics.
9
Roberto Esposito, Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy, trans. Timothy Campbell.
(Minneapolis: Univ of Minnesota Press, 2007), ch. 1.
10
Michel Foucault, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” The Foucault Reader, ed.
Paul Rabinow (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), 76-100.
11
Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (Moscow: Progress
Publishers, 1975); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology
(Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1968).
98 Chapter Five
12
Foucault, History of Sexuality, 140-141.
13
Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Millar, The Foucault Effect: studies
in governmentality (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1991); Andrew Barry, Thomas
Osborne and Nikolas Rose, Foucault and Political Reason. Liberalism,
Neoliberalism and Rationalities of Power (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1996); Mitchell Dean and Barry Hindess, Governing Australia. Studies in
Contemporary Rationalities of Government (Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1998);
Mitchell Dean, Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Societies (London:
Sage Pub., 1999); Nikolas Rose, Powers of Freedom. Reframing Political Thought
(Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1999); Nikolas Rose, The Politics of Life Itself.
Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century (New Jersey,
Princeton UP, 2007); Francisco Vázquez, Tras la autoestima. Variaciones sobre el
yo expresivo en la modernidad tardía (San Sebastián: Gakoa, 2005), 159-226.
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 99
14
Fernando Álvarez-Uría and Robert Castel, Miserables y locos: medicina mental
y orden social en la España del siglo XIX (Barcelona: Tusquets, 1983); Fernando
Álvarez-Uría and Julia Varela, Arqueología de la escuela (Madrid: La Piqueta,
1991); Andrés Moreno and Francisco Vázquez, Sexo y razón. Genealogía de la
moral sexual en España, siglos XVI-XX (Madrid: Akal, 1997); Francisco
Vázquez, La invención del racismo. Nacimiento de la biopolítica en España, 1600-
1940 (Madrid: Akal, 2009); José Luis Moreno Pestaña, Moral corporal, trastornos
alimentarios y clase social (Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas,
2010); Salvador Cayuela, Por la grandeza de la patria. La biopolítica en la
España de Franco (1939-1975). Preface Antonio Campillo (Madrid: FCE, 2014).
15
Sonia Arribas, Germán Cano and Javier Ugarte, Hacer vivir, dejar morir.
Biopolítica y capitalismo (Madrid: CSIC—La Catarata, 2010); Laura Bazzicalupo,
“Biopolitica,” Enciclopedia del pensiero político, ed. Carlo Galli (Roma: Laterza,
2000), 70-71; Laura Bazzicalupo, “Biopolitica,” Iride. Filosofia e questioni
pubbliche 1 (2005): 147-171; BioPolitica, International research network dedicated
to the study of biopolitics from interdisciplinary perspectives, The University of
New South Wales (UNSW), (2009), www.biopolitica.org; Renata Brandimarte,
Patricia Chiantera-Stutte, Pierangelo Di Vittorio, Ottavio Marzocca, Onofrio
Romano, Andrea Russo and Anna Simone, Lessico di biopolitica, intr. Ottavio
Marzocca (Roma: Manifestolibri, 2006); Cités, Michel Foucault: de la guerre des
races au biopouvoir. Nº 2. Includes articles by Yves Michaud, Yves Charles
Zarka, Francesco Paolo Adorno, etc., (2000); Antonella Cutro, Biopolitica. Storia e
attualità di un concetto (Verona: Ombre Corte, 2005); Filosofia politica,
Biopolitica. Nº 1 (2006); Ignacio Mendiola, Rastros y rostros de la biopolítica
(Barcelona: Anthropos, 2009); Multitudes, Biopolitique et Biopouvoir. Nº 1.
Includes articles of Peter Sloderdijk, Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, Jacques
Rancière, Bruno Latour, etc., (2000); Revista de Ciencia Política, Biopolítica y
filosofía, Vol. 29, Nº 1, eds. Vanessa Lemm and Miguel Vatter (2009); Javier
Ugarte, La administración de la vida. Estudios biopolíticos (Barcelona: Anthropos,
2005); Javier Ugarte, “Biopolítica. Un análisis de la cuestión,” Claves de razón
práctica 166 (2006): 76-82.
16
Bernard Bruneteau, Les totalitarismes (Paris: Armand Colin, 1999); Cayuela,
Por la grandeza de la patria; Stéphane Courtois, ed., Quand tombe la nuit.
Origines et émergence des régimes totalitaires en Europe, 1900-1934 (Lausanne:
L’Age d’homme, 2001); Stéphane Courtois, Les logiques totalitaires en Europe
(Paris: Editions du Rocher, 2006); Marcello Flores, Nazismo, fascismo,
100 Chapter Five
From the nineteen fifties onwards, in the new context of the Cold War,
the term was taken up again on both sides of the “Iron Curtain.” Still, it
was once again used for various purposes: to defend the freedom of the
“rebel man” against all types of political control (Albert Camus); to devise
a political science typology that allowed for a distinction between
totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and democracy (Carl J. Friedrich, Raymond
Aron, Leonard Schapiro, Juan José Linz) in order to defend the “free
West” against communism, although the western block had many
“authoritarian” regimes (such as Spain under Franco); to explain the rise
of Italian Fascism and German Nazism as a reaction and imitation of
Russian Communism (Ernst Nolte); to give a voice to the internal
“dissidence” against the Eastern European communist regimes (Aleksandr
Solzhenitsin, Varlam Shalamov, Aleksandr Zinóviev, Czeslaw Milosz,
Leszek Kolakowski, Václav Havel, Jan Patočka, Ágnes Heller, etc.); to
track the totalitarian seed in the heart of democracy itself since the French
Revolution (Jacob Talmon and François Furet); to rethink, as a task that is
always unfinished, the “democratic invention” as opposed to the ever-
present potential risk of its totalitarian overturn (Claude Léfort, Cornelius
Castoriadis and Marcel Gauchet); or, finally, to demand another
conceptualization of the political, beyond the modern sovereign nation-
state (Hannah Arendt).
The Origins of Totalitarianism is a fundamental work of reference,
despite the many critiques it received from the very beginning.17 In this
work, Arendt synthesized and developed the best of the previous analyses:
on the one hand, the thesis that the totalitarian state was formed from very
different and even opposed ideologies, like the Nazi ideology of the race
struggle and the communist ideology of the class struggle (because what
was crucial was not their theoretical content but their totalizing and
genocidal function); on the other hand, the thesis of the radical historical
novelty of this state, which cannot be rejected with positivist causal
explanations or with millennial teleologies about the destiny of the West;
finally, the thesis that this new historical-political phenomenon requires us
to rethink all of the philosophical categories of western tradition, starting
with the political concept of sovereignty and the historical concept of
progress.
The history of the term “globalization” is harder to specify. On the one
hand, its dissemination is more recent and broader than other terms, so
17
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Schocken [1951],
2004). This edition includes all the prefaces and additions from the 1958, 1968,
and 1972 editions; Simona Forti, Hannah Arendt tra filosofia e politica (Milano:
Bruno Mondadori, 2006).
102 Chapter Five
much so that it has become the prevailing political concept and the core of
all great historical-political debates after the end of the Cold War.18 On the
other hand, its history goes back to the origins of the modern West, and
specifically to the process of the global expansion of the Euro-Atlantic
powers, which began in 1492 and placed modern capitalism as the first
global society in history.19
This dual genealogy partly explains the two basic interpretations of
globalization. For some, it is a misleading term with ideological purposes,
18
Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization
(Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota Press, 1996); Zygmunt Bauman, Globalization:
The Human Consequences (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998); Antonio Campillo,
¿Democracia sin fronteras? Revista Internacional de Filosofía Política 34 (2009):
5-32; Daniele Archibugui, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward
Cosmopolitan Democracy (Princeton: P. University Press, 2008); Ulrich Beck,
What Is Globalization? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000); Ulrich Beck, World at
Risk (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008); Manuel Castells, The Information Age:
Economy, Society and Culture, 3 vol. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd ed, 2000-
2004); Nancy Fraser, Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a
Globalizing World (New York: Columbia UP, 2008); Jürgen Habermas, The
Postnational Constellation: Political Essays (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press, 2000); David Held and Anthony MacGrew, Globalization/Anti-
globalization. Beyond the Great Divide (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002); Otfried
Höffe, Democracy in an Age of Globalization (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands,
2007); Danilo Zolo, Globalization: An Overview (Essex: European Consortium For
Political Research Press, 2008).
19
Martin Albrow, The Global Age. State and Society Beyond Modernity
(Cambridge: Polity Press. 1996); Antonio Campillo, Variaciones de la vida
humana. Una teoría de la historia (Madrid: Akal, 2001); Antonio Campillo, El
concepto de lo político en la sociedad global (Barcelona: Herder, 2008); Antonio
Campillo, Tierra de nadie. Cómo pensar (en) la sociedad global (Barcelona:
Herder, 2015b); Enrique Dussel, Politics of Liberation: A Critical Global History
(London: SCM Press, 2011); David Held, Democracy and the global order: from
the modern state to cosmopolitan governance (Stanford, California: Stanford UP,
1995); John Robert McNeill and William Hardy McNeill, The Human Web. A
Bird’s-Eye View of World History (New York: W. W. Norton & Co Inc., 2003);
Giacomo Marramao, Passage West. Philosophy and Globalization (London—New
York: Verso, 2007); Armand Mattelart, Histoire de l'utopie planetaire. De la cité
prophétique à la société globale (Paris: La Decouverte,1999); Robbie Robertson,
The Three Waves of Globalization: A History of A Developing Global
Consciousness (London: Zed Books, 2003); Peter Sloterdijk, Im Weltinnenraum
des Kapitals. Für eine philosophische Theorie der Globalisierung (Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2005); Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-
System, 3 vol. (London—New York—San Diego: Academic Press, 1974-1980-
1989).
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 103
since it does not name a radically new society but instead disguises an
additional phase in the process of geographical expansion, techno-
economic transformation, and political-cultural hegemony of modern
capitalism, in this case under the imperial power of the United States. For
others, however, the reason the term has become popular in such a fast and
widespread way is because it names the eruption of a new type of
historical society that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century,
questioning the hegemony of the modern West and changing all previous
social and mental structures, both traditional and modern.
Whether it is another phase of modern capitalism or the beginning of a
postmodern time, authors differ when it comes to specifying the dates and
factors of this historic change. Some go back to 1945 and consider the
political-military factors to have a determining role, i.e. the crisis of
European hegemony and the rise of the United States and the Soviet Union
as new global powers, the beginning of the Cold War and the arms race,
the founding of the United Nations and other international organizations,
the decolonization of the last European colonies, etc. Others point to the
seventies and emphasize techno-economic factors, such as the oil crisis,
the end of the gold standard, the double revolution of info technologies
and biotechnologies, the triumph of neoliberalism, the expansion of
financial and speculative capitalism, the new international migrations,
climate change, etc. Others, lastly, consider the end of the Cold War to be
crucial and stress the gradual formation of a global civil society that
creates interdependent networks in all social fields (political, economic,
and cultural), a society that is increasingly aware of the global character of
the risks affecting the whole of humanity and that therefore promotes and
demands new forms of cosmopolitan coexistence.
3. These three concepts have their own history and allude to very
different historical-political phenomena but converge and intertwine at a
common point: the questioning of the sovereign nation-state, as both a
canonical form of the political community and as a driving force of the
West's process of modernization and global expansion. We would have,
thus, a triangle with the modern state at the center, especially in its post-
revolutionary, liberal, and democratic version, and on the ends of which
we would locate those other three historical phenomena that, for different
reasons, coincide in problematizing it: biopolitics, totalitarianism, and
globalization.
The image of this triangle may help us situate the most important
theoretical debates of the contemporary political thought. We should take
into account, on the one hand, the radial relationship of the modern state
104 Chapter Five
with each of the three concepts that problematize it. On the other hand, we
have to look at the lateral relationship between those three concepts, which
are heterogeneous but coincide in questioning the prevailing tradition of
modern political thought by focusing on the sovereign, liberal, and
democratic nation-state.
Some authors have related these four concepts (liberal democracy,
biopolitics, totalitarianism, and globalization), starting from a clearly
controversial binary opposition. This is the case with Ágnes Heller and
Ferenc Fehér. These two authors published an essay in 1994 entitled
Biopolitics but used this term in a very different way than Foucault.20
Biopolitics is no longer a government technology invented by the modern
West in the context of the new liberal governmentality, but a “radical”
response to the failed emancipatory promises of Modernity. This was a
response that began in the second half of the twentieth century as a
“rebellion of the body” against the domination of “the spiritual” and where
feminists, environmentalists, pacifists, racial minorities, and even welfare
state public health policies coincide.
The analysis of these authors is not based on historical research but on
the abstract opposition between two pairs of concepts: on the one hand, the
polarity between “the spiritual” and “the physical,” with which they
explain the “pendulum of Modernity,” the eruption of “postmodernity,”
and the resulting tension between liberal democracy and “biopolitics
movements;” on the other hand, the polarity between “freedom” and
“life,” with which they denounce the contradictions and dangers of those
“biopolitical movements,” whose first precedent was Nazism. Under this
double polarity, a third and more crucial one, although not explicitly
formulated, lies—that which opposes totalitarianism and Modernity, with
the latter being identified with enlightened rationality and liberal
democracy. Here too, and despite quoting her, the authors use the term
totalitarianism in a different way than Arendt, for whom totalitarianism is
not the opposition of Modernity but one of its most extreme possibilities.21
20
Antonio Campillo, “Biopolítica y modernidad,” Daimon. Revista Internacional
de Filosofía 17 (1998): 167-175; Ferenc Fehér and Ágnes Heller, Biopolitcs
(Aldershot: Brookfield, 1994); John Grumley, Ágnes Heller: A Moralist in the
Vortex of History (London: Pluto Press, 2004); Ángel Prior, Axiología de la
modernidad. Ensayos sobre Ágnes Heller (Madrid: Cátedra—Universidad de
Valencia, 2002); Ángel Rivero, Ética, democracia y socialismo: una aproximación
a la racionalidad práctica en Ágnes Heller (Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, 1998).
21
Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and The Holocaust (Ithaca, New York: Cornell U
P, 1989).
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 105
Given these assumptions, it does not seem odd that the authors employ the
essential part of their essay to denounce the relationship between
biopolitics and totalitarianism, since both phenomena would coincide on
refuting the self-comprehension of Modernity drawn up by the
Enlightenment and liberal tradition. In short, Heller and Fehér suggest a
dichotomy owing to the Cold War: they reinterpret Foucauldian biopolitics
within the framework of the controversial opposition between liberalism
and totalitarianism and defend liberal democracy against the “totalitarian
temptation” of the new “biopolitics movements.”
In his book Bios, and especially in his article “Biopolitics and
totalitarianism,” Roberto Esposito suggests a dichotomy that is opposed to
that which is proposed by Heller and Fehérs.22 He alludes not only to two
concepts but also to two “paradigms” that would be “radically different”
and “destined to reciprocally exclude each other.” According to Esposito,
the paradigm of totalitarianism (and here he includes authors as different
as Hannah Arendt, Raymond Aron, Jacob Talmon, François Furet, Claude
Léfort, and Marcel Gauchet, and where he could have also included Heller
and Fehér) is characterized by a teleological philosophy of history and a
dichotomous opposition between totalitarianism (a concept intended to be
identified with Nazism and Communism, despite their deep differences)
and democracy (a concept that is also identified with liberalism, although
they are not assimilable to each other). According to this paradigm, the
history of the West, from Ancient Greece to modern Europe, has been the
history of the increasing and irreversible advance of democracy; and
although German Nazism and Soviet Communism have temporarily
interrupted this advance, both have ended up being defeated and overcome
by democracy.
However, the paradigm of biopolitics, which Esposito identifies with
Nietzsche and Foucault, does not impose a specific philosophy upon
history but follows the philosophical logic immanent to the historical
events themselves. These do not follow a linear sequence, nor do they
solely belong to a privileged field, as would be the case for politics in their
traditional sense. Rather, they are exposed to the intertwining of
heterogeneous historical processes, as has happened in the unexpected
and crucial encounter between the phenomena of life and politics.
22
Roberto Esposito, Bios: Biopolitics and Philosophy, trans. Timothy Campbell.
(Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007), ch. 1; Roberto Esposito, “Totalitarismo o
biopolitica: Per un’interpretazione filosofica del Novecento,” Micromega 5 (2006):
57-66. Repr. In Comunidad, inmunidad y biopolítica (Barcelona: Herder, 2009),
173-188; Diacritics, “Bios, Immunity, Life. The Thought of Roberto Esposito,” Nº
36, 2, ed. T. Campbell (2006).
106 Chapter Five
23
Esposito, “Totalitarismo o biopolitica:” 185.
24
Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel
Heller-Roazen (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1998); Giorgio Agamben, Remnants of
Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (New York:
108 Chapter Five
Zone Books, 1999); Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attell
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005); Alfonso Galindo, Política y
mesianismo: Giorgio Agamben (Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, 2005); Galindo,
Pensamiento impolítico contemporáneo.
25
Paolo Virno, The Grammar of the Multitude, trans. Isabella Bertoletti (New
York: Semiotext(e), 2004)
26
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, “La production biopolitique, Multitudes 1
(2000a): 16-28; Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge: Harvard
UP, 2000b); Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude: War and Democracy in
the Age of Empire (New York: Penguin Press, 2004).
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 109
27
Slavoj Žižek, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? Five Interventions in the
(Mis)use of a Notion (London—New York: Verso, 2002).
28
Gilles Deleuze, “Postscript on the Societies of Control,” The MIT Press October
59 (1992): 3-7. This thesis of the teleological succession and the increasing
sophistication of the modern government technologies, that would culminate in the
totalitarian state or in neoliberal capitalism, according to the contrasted versions of
Neo-liberalism or Marxism, was expressly rejected by Foucault in several
occasions. For instance, in the January 1 1978 (Foucault, Security, Territory,
Population) and March 7 1979 classes (Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics), where
he criticises “the inflation of the phobia towards the state,” promoted by neoliberal
theorists and some left-wing intellectuals (as Deleuze) who justified terrorist
activity within and against western democracies.
110 Chapter Five
it controls the most intimate fibers of every living being at the present time
and extends itself to all confines of the Earth. On the other hand, the fact
that it has reached this extreme level of domination is exactly what will
cause a shift in dialectic and will give place to the revolutionary
transformation of society.
For Hardt and Negri, class struggle nowadays takes place between the
Empire (a vague conglomeration where the economic, political, military,
diplomatic, and humanitarian elites of the great powers converge, with
none of them being the core power) and Multitude (another vague
conglomeration of heterogeneous groups and social movements who are
united by their common exploited condition, having the necessary
resources to horizontally connect to each other as well as the ability to
completely overthrow, in a sudden revolutionary act, the current imperial
order, becoming the constituent power of a new global democracy).
29
Ernesto Laclau, Debates y combates. Por un nuevo horizonte de la política
(Buenos Aires: FCE, 2008). Detailed critiques of the theories of Slavoj Žižek,
Giorgio Agamben, Alain Badiou and Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, may be
found in Ernesto Laclau's last book.
30
Antonio Campillo, “Foucault and Derrida: The History of a Debate on History,”
Angelaki. Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, Vol. 5, Nº 2 (2000): 113-135;
Antonio Campillo, “Espacios de aparición: el concepto de lo político en Hannah
Arendt,” Daimon. Revista Internacional de Filosofía 26 (2002): 159-18; Antonio
Campillo, El lugar del juicio. Filosofía, política e historia en Hannah Arendt. In:
CAMPILLO, A. El lugar del juicio. Seis testigos del siglo XX (Arendt, Canetti,
Derrida, Espinosa, Hitchcock y Trías) (Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, 2009ª), 113-
154; Antonio Campillo, “¿Quién gobierna mi vida? El pensamiento de Michel
Foucault,” in Pensadores de ayer para problemas de hoy. Vol. II, eds. Manuel
Esteban and Juan Sáez (Valencia: Nau Llibres – UOC, 2013), 127-150.
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 111
the two ways of linking philosophy and history that were inherited from
the Christian-Greek past: the Platonic-Aristotelian model, which
establishes an ontological hierarchy between the eternal being and the
temporal becoming and the Hegelian-Marxist model, which establishes an
ontological evolution from the temporal becoming to the eternal being.
Arendt and Foucault adopted the Nietzschean-Heideggerian model, which
identifies being with becoming and acknowledges the eventuality and
uncertainty of human existence. Therefore, we must pay attention to the
irreducible singularity of each historical-political event and avoid
transcending it by appealing to eternal realities or teleological processes.
Thus, it is necessary to use the general concepts with a nominalist caution
and have them subjected to the distinctions and concretions of historical
research. This nominalist caution and these empirical distinctions and
precisions are what the previously mentioned authors lack. Unlike the
proposals of Arendt and Foucault, their philosophical proposals are not
linked to historical-political research.
Also, Arendt and Foucault agree about the need to rethink the political
beyond the modern and sovereign nation-state and also beyond the three
modern political ideologies (liberalism, nationalism, and Marxism),
especially after the new experiences of the twentieth century: Nazi and
Soviet totalitarianism, the threat of nuclear weapons, the increasing power
of the techno-scientific knowledge, the inability of the democratic nation-
state to guarantee freedom and equality for all human beings, etc. It is true
that they follow two very different strategies: Arendt reclaims the
autonomy and dignity of the political, which is understood as the
interaction and exchange between a plurality of free and equal beings
against the primacy of economy (which is common to liberals and
Marxists) and against the biological and territorial ties of blood and land
(claimed by nationalism and racism). Foucault highlights the irreducible
plurality and unpredictable variability of power relationships, which are
immanent to all social relationships and may not be reduced to a single
source of meaning or to a single front of conflict, and they also may not be
definitively solved in a happy ending of history. Still, both reclaim the
freedom of each singular being that is faced with any form of domination
or standardization of living experience. They especially question the forms
of domination and standardization that are linked to knowledge, science,
and expertise. Against this tyrannical and supposedly harmonic government
of those who have knowledge, both Arendt and Foucault reclaim the
democratic and agonal pluralism of conflicting opinions, of active and
autopoietic subjects, and of different lived experiences.
112 Chapter Five
lives and, in order to do so, they must publicly mobilize against the power
of the experts.
For both authors, the negative aspects of liberal biopolitics reached an
extreme point in the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century, whose
two paradigmatic cases were Nazism and Bolshevism. Arendt explains this
by saying that the depoliticization promoted by liberalism (by subordinating
freedom to security, by reducing citizenship to nationality and excluding
ethnic minorities, by defending the superiority of the European white race
over the rest of the colonized races, etc.) opened the way for totalitarian
regimes. Foucault explains this by saying that totalitarianism brought
along a mutual reinforcement between sovereignty and biopolitics,
between the old “right of death” and the new “power over life.” These are
supposed to be very different from one another: the life of “our people”
(whether Aryan or workers) had to be guaranteed by the death of the
“others” (whether degenerated races or counterrevolutionary classes).
Nevertheless, neither Arendt nor Foucault accept that biopolitics may be
identified “tout court” with totalitarianism, nor that a fatal historical
teleology has led one to the other. On the contrary, they insist that each
historical-political juncture is singular and contingent and must therefore
be understood in its irreducible specificity.
Finally, both Arendt and Foucault were already aware that the totalitarian
phenomenon (as a death policy, based on the coercion, humiliation, and
extermination of individuals and peoples) and the biopolitical phenomenon
(as a life policy, based on care, protection, and reproduction of individuals
and peoples) had a global dimension. This was the case simply because the
techno-scientific powers of destruction and reproduction of life had
already reached global dimensions. As Arendt says, for the first time in
history, nuclear weapons allow for exterminating not only an opponent but
the whole living humanity. In this new historical situation, war can no
longer be “the continuity of politics through other means.” Politics must
therefore be reconsidered in global or cosmopolitan terms, beyond the
sovereign nation-state and the Westphalian model of international
relations. As Foucault says, even if biopolitics have not ceased from
developing in the last two centuries, “It is not that life has been totally
integrated into techniques that govern and administer it; it constantly
escapes them,” and he mentions as examples two global problems:
“Outside the Western World, famine exists, on a greater scale than ever;
and the biological risks confronting the species are perhaps greater, and
certainly more serious, than before the birth of microbiology.”31
31
Foucault, History of Sexuality, 143.
114 Chapter Five
Taking into account all of these affinities between Arendt and Foucault,32 I
believe the opposition between the “paradigm of totalitarianism” and the
“paradigm of biopolitics” proposed by Esposito is untenable. Further,
taking into account their many terminology “distinctions” and their many
“nominalist” cautions, I believe the conceptual assimilations proposed by
Heller and Fehér (connecting biopolitics to totalitarianism and opposing it
to liberalism), by Hardt and Negri (who assimilate capitalism, democracy,
biopolitics, and globalization under a supposed global empire) and by
Agamben (who assimilates the Roman Empire, modern sovereignty,
democracy, biopolitics, totalitarianism, and globalization in a continuum
that would teleologically cover the whole of Western history).
32
Francisco Ortega, “La abstracta desnudez de ser únicamente humano. Racismo y
biopolítica en Hannah Arendt y Michel Foucault,” in La administración de la vida.
Estudios biopolíticos, ed. Francisco Javier Ugarte (Barcelona: Anthropos, 2005),
104-126.
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 115
33
Antonio Campillo, “Oikos y polis: Aristóteles, Polanyi y la economía política
liberal,” Áreas. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales 31 (2012): 27-38;
Antonio Campillo, “Animal político. Aristóteles, Arendt y nosotros,” Revista de
Filosofía, Vol. 39, Nº 2 (2014): 169-188; Antonio Campillo, “Mundo, nosotros,
yo. La filosofía como cosmopoliética,” in Éticas y políticas de la alteridad. En
torno al pensamiento de Gabriel Bello, eds. María José Guerra Palmero and
Aránzazu Hernández Piñero (Madrid: Plaza & Valdés, 2015ª), 25-46; Campillo,
Tierra de nadie; Jacques Derrida, Séminaire La bête et le souverain, Volume I
(2001-2002) and Volume II (2002-2003), ed. Michel Lisse, Marie-Louise Mallet
and Ginette Michaud (Paris: Galilée, 2008-2010).This type of ontological and
anthropological reflection on the limits of the human sphere, closely linked to the
debates on biopolitics, totalitarianism and globalization, may be found in the last
seminary given by Jacques Derrida before his death, a few months before 9/11, and
in the middle of the global “preventive war” began by the United States and its
allies against Islamic terrorism and against “rogue states.”
34
Elias Canetti, Crowds and Power, trans. Carol Stewart (New York: Farrar,
Straus & Giroux, 1984).
116 Chapter Five
35
Campillo, Variaciones de la vida humana; Campillo, El concepto de lo político
en la sociedad global.
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 117
military hegemony.
In contrast, from Adam Smith and Karl Marx onward, the “political
economy” began to prioritize the concept of property over sovereignty.
For these authors, the ultimate foundation of all human community is not
the regulation of violence, but rather the economic mechanism of
collaboration and exchange that allows guaranteeing the acquisition and
distribution of material resources. If this mechanism works well, violence
between humans will disappear or become irrelevant. As such, the main
political problem consists in establishing the most just and efficient
economic system, which for Smith and the subsequent liberal tradition is
the universal self-regulated market between private proprietors. For Marx
and the subsequent socialist tradition, it is public property and the
democratic planning of the processes of production and distribution.
Therefore, from the triumph of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 to the fall
of the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, to the dismembering of the
USSR and the end of the Cold War (1989-1991) and passing through the
diverse anti-communist totalitarian regimes (fascism, Nazism, Francoism,
Latin American military dictatorships, etc.), the twentieth century has gone
through conflict between capitalism and communism. This is a conflict
which, from 1991 on, has adopted a new form: the confrontation between
neo-liberalism and the alter-globalization movement.
At the same time, a very heterogeneous series of intellectual currents
(evolutionist biology, social anthropology, nationalism, psychoanalysis,
and feminism) have prioritized the familial relationships between the sexes
and between generations, as the basis on which all human community is
constituted and perpetuated. Without sex and blood ties, that make the
genetic transmission of life possible, there would be no community at all;
in fact, in all societies, the recognition of belonging to a certain ethnic or
national community is usually acquired through ties of blood and affinity.
Thus, the fundamental political problem would consist in regulating
parental relationships between men and women, parents and children,
nationals and foreigners, and some ethnicities and others. These debates
about sex and blood ties traverse all of modern history: from the expulsion
of Jews and Moors from Spain from the fifteenth to the seventeenth
century, to the genocides of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first
century; from the suffragist movement to the current struggle of all women
of the entire world to achieve equality with men; from the pedagogical
concerns of the humanists and the enlightened to the most recent debates
over diverse forms of artificial reproduction facilitated through genetic
engineering. Thus, numerous organizations and legislation have emerged
over the last decades to defend the equality of all human beings without
118 Chapter Five
distinction of sex and blood, and many consider that these “struggles for
recognition” of equality between the sexes and peoples (as Axel Honnet
and Nancy Fraser, among others, call them) are the great innovation and
great political challenge of the new global society.
Lastly, there is no human life without some type of symbolic
expression or without some form of community with others. The three
preceding social relationships would not be possible if they were not
accompanied by symbolic codes that arrange the experience of the world,
the relationships with the others, and the personal identity itself. Still, the
“symbolic capital” (Bourdieu) is something that is distributed in a very
unequal manner between some beings and others, according to their
political, economic, sexual, and ethnic power, etc. This does not mean that
symbolic thinking is a mere “ideological” reflection (Marx) or a mere
“sublimation” (Freud) of one of the social and biological powers that
might pre-exist and be independent of it, since the symbolic constructions
themselves have the creative or performative power to configure and
transform the previously given reality. From Aristotle to Cassirer, the
dominant philosophical tradition in the West has considered that it is the
“logos,” that is, the articulated language, and, more generally, the
“symbolic forms,” that allows any human community to constitute and
perpetuate itself as such. Human life can be distinguished from animal life
precisely because it is modelled by the “logos” (that Cicero translated as
ratio). Moreover, the “logos,” as Aristotle says, is not only language but
also law. It not only allows naming reality but also regulating the
relationship with the world, with the others, and with oneself.
This same assumption (the primacy of symbolic thought as distinctive
to human life) is what guides the work of Max Weber, the most influential
author in contemporary social sciences. Weber tried to show that different
religious traditions do not limit themselves to inventing imaginary worlds,
but rather are capable of inducing distinct social structures and personal
identities, to the point that the singularity of the West and its capacity to
impose itself hegemonically on the rest of the world should be explained
with its particular traditions of thought as the starting point (Greek
philosophy, Roman Law, Christian Reformation, and modern techno-
science). Thus, there are some authors who believe that the political
problem of our time has to do with the debate about the cultural hegemony
of the West: some consider globalization to be nothing other than the
Westernization of the world and its subjugation to the cultural hegemony
of the Euro-Atlantic civilization (Fredric Jameson). Others consider this
hegemony to be increasingly threatened not by the communist East but by
other older and more recent Easts (Islamic and Asiatic). This would mean
Biopolitics, Totalitarianism, and Globalization 119
that a new “defense of the West” would be necessary, based on the “clash
of civilizations” (Samuel Huntington). Lastly, there are also others who
consider that the hegemony of the West has fortunately arrived at its end
and that the current process of globalization opens up the possibility of a
new post-colonial and mestizo world, in which different communities and
cultural traditions can live and mix together among each other in a
peaceful and creative way, giving rise to intercultural communities and
hybrid identities (Bhikhu Parekh, Dipesh Chakrabarty and Arjun Appadurai).
36
Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power, vol. 2 (New York: Cambridge UP,
1986-1993).
37
Ernesto Laclau, On Populist Reason (London—New York: Verso, 2005);
Chantal Mouffe, The Return of the Political (London—New York: Verso, 1993);
Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a
Radical Democratic Politics (London—New York: Verso, 1985).
38
Margaret Andersen and Patricia Collins, Race, Class and Gender: An Antology
(Belmont (California): Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 8ª ed, 2013).
120 Chapter Five
39
Fraser, Scales of Justice.
40
Commission on Human Security, Human Security Now (New York: United
Nations Publications, 2003); Mary Kaldor, Human Security (Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2007).
41
Pierre Clastres, Society Against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology,
trans. Robert Hurley and Abe Stein (New York: Zone Books, 1987); Pierre
Clastres, Archeology of Violence, trans. Jeanine Herman (New York: Semiotext(e),
1994).
CHAPTER SIX
FINA BIRULÉS1
“Truth, like time, is an idea arising from and dependent upon, human
intercourse.” (Karen Blixen)2
Hannah Arendt’s thinking was always far from what Ágnes Heller later
called the “redemptive paradigm” of politics—the belief that human
emancipation requires the radical surmounting of all contradictions in a
homogenous community of justice, liberty, and perfectly realized equality.
Arendt’s thoughts regarding history, the past, memory, and story are
marked by a range of elements deriving from a clear acknowledgement of
the fragility and contingency of human affairs. Among these elements, we
can highlight three significant strands:
1
Universidad de Barcelona, Spain. This article would not have been possible
without the help and the discussions of my many colleagues of the Research
Project ‘Women philosophers of the 20th century. Teachers, links and divergences’
(FFI2012-30645) and in the Consolidated Research Group ‘Women's Creation and
Thought’ (2014 SGR 44). Translation by Andrea Lomas.
2
Isak Dinesen, “The Road Round Pisa,” Seven gothic tales (London: Putnam,
1969), 1.
3
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Schocken Books,
122 Chapter Six
to take that which was good in the past and simply call it our heritage, to
discard the bad and simply think of it as a dead load which by itself time
will bury in oblivion.”4
Moreover, Arendt stresses that the disappearance of tradition does not
entail an immediate loss of the past,5 but that in this situation we may even
find ourselves with a “great chance to look upon the past with eyes not
distracted by any tradition.”6 What has been lost is the continuity of the
past as it seemed to be passed on from one generation to another. “What
you then are left with is still the past, but a “fragmented” past, which has
lost its certainty of evaluation.”7 And once the past has shown itself to lack
any common thread with the present, we must look for another kind of
relationship with it.
To avoid losing the present together with tradition, Arendt thinks that
we must find a way of relating to the past that does not lead us to an
absolute historical present and does not situate us in a world that can be
maintained but not rejuvenated, as characterized by Ágnes Heller.8
2004).
4
Hannah Arendt, Preface to the First Edition, XVII (2004).
5
Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future (New York: Penguin Books, 1985), 94.
6
Hannah Arendt, “Tradition and the Modern Age,” in Hannah Arendt (1985), 35.
7
Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind, ‘Thinking’ (New York: Harcourt,
1981),212.
8
Ágnes Heller, “El último estadio de la Historia Memoria, Rememoración y
Bildung: sobre la teoría de la modernidad en Hegel,” Isegoría, nº 14 (1996). See
also Martin Jay’s article on the link between Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller:
Martin Jay, “Women in Dark Times: Ágnes Heller and Hannah Arendt,” in Force
Fields. Between Intellectual History and Cultural Critique (New York & London:
Routledge, 1993).
9
Hannah Arendt, “A Reply to Eric Voegelin,” in Essays in Understanding, 1930-
1954 (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co, 1994), 402.
Contingency, History, and Narration in Hannah Arendt 123
In her reply to Eric Voegelin, Arendt declared: “my first problem was
how to write historically about something—totalitarianism—which I did
not want to conserve but, on the contrary, felt engaged to destroy.”10 She
continued by stating that describing concentration camps sine ira does not
mean being objective but, rather, condemning them. Moral indignation is
an essential ingredient if you want to describe the totalitarian model
arising in the midst of human society, rather than on the moon. However,
this need not entail an observation of the facts only from the victims’ point
of view, since doing so would mean ending with an apology, which by no
means is history.
Moreover, for Arendt the emergence of totalitarian regimes did not
only involve a political crisis but also a problem of understanding, given
that it was not understandable in terms of the conceptual categories of the
Western political tradition. In the reply to Voegelin cited above, she
recognizes that one of the difficulties of The Origins of Totalitarianism is
that it does not belong to any school, nor does it use any officially
recognized or orthodox tools.11 Thus she considers that totalitarian terror
should be analyzed according to its “unprecedented” character rather than
from the too easy standpoint of historians’ tendency to draw analogies.
10
Arendt, “A Reply to Eric Voegelin.”
11
Seyla Benhabib, The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 1996), 63.Seyla Benhabib echoes this difficulty in pointing out that,
from the standpoint of established disciplinary methodologies, the 1951 text defies
categorization and breaks numerous rules. Benhabib adds that for a strictly
historical account it is too systematically ambitious and over-interpreted; while as
social science it is too anecdotal, narrative-driven, and ideographical, and although
it has the vivacity of a work of political journalism, it is too philosophical to be
accessible to a broad public.
124 Chapter Six
things, they are not governed by a means-end logic and their results are not
limited or calculable, being characterized by their contingency. “The real
history, which we are committed to while we are living, does not have any
visible or invisible creator because it is not made.”12 It is because of this
that one of the fundamental questions in Arendt’s treatment of history and
understanding is how to account for the moments of human freedom in
history without eliminating contingency or opting for predictability, as
philosophy has always done. Arendt’s view is characterized by taking
seriously the fact that when we act, we never know the results of our
actions; if we knew, we would not be free. In acting, a relationship with
the unknown is established, so that in a way “one” does not know what
s/he is doing; the temporality and contingency of being-with-others are, to
a certain extent, the conditions imposed for disclosing her/his identity, for
being able to say the “who of someone.” Arendt thus understands that
there is no immediate knowledge of oneself but, rather, continuous
appropriations through stories. Perhaps, in answering the question “Who
are you,” one would have to respond “in the classic manner” like one of
Isak Dinesen’s characters: “and to tell you a story…”13
Arendt is not inclined to yield to the idea that in considering human
events we should ignore the concrete and particular and thus eliminate the
plurality and unpredictability of the action. As she wrote in her Denktagebuch:
“Sobald man der Beliebigkeit und Kontingenz des Konkreten entrinnen
will, fällt man in die Beliebigkeit und Kontingenz des Abstrakten, die sich
Darin äussert, dass das Konkrete bereit ist, sich von jeglicher gedanklichen
Notwendigkeit beherrschen zu lassen.”14
To counter this, Arendt tries to illuminate the world as a scene of
action and not as the site of the development of social processes. Hence,
she opts for reflective judgement and imagination, and also focuses on the
particular since, after the loss of tradition, understanding has the mission
of “anchoring man in the world that, without judgement, would not have
meaning or existential reality…”15 When we say, “we cannot understand
now,” we want to say, “we cannot send out roots, we are condemned to the
12
Hannah Arendt, “Labor, Work, Action,” in Hannah Arendt Papers 023216
(Lecture 1957).
13
Hannah Arendt, “Isak Dinesen 1885-1963,” in Men in Dark Times, Hannah
Arendt (Penguin Books, 2001), 106; Isak Dinesen, Last Tales (New York: Vintage
Books, 1991): Arendt quotes “The Cardinal First Tale.”
14
Hannah Arendt, Denktagebuch, Heft XXI, [75], January 1956 (München: Piper,
2002), 554.
15
Celso Lafer, La reconstrucción de los derechos humanos. Un diálogo con el
pensamiento de Hannah Arendt (México: FCE, 1994), 342.
Contingency, History, and Narration in Hannah Arendt 125
surface.” 16
16
Hannah Arendt, Heft XIV [17], March 1953 (2002), 322.
17
Hannah Arendt, XXVI (2004).
18
Hannah Arendt, “Truth and Politics,” in Hannah Arendt (1985), 262.
19
Melvyn A. Hill, “The Fiction of Mankind and the Stories of Men,” in Hannah
Arendt: The Recovery of the Public World, Melvyn A. Hill (Nueva York: Martin’s
Press, 1979), 298.
20
Olivia Guaraldo, Politica e racconto. Trame arendtiane della modernità (Roma:
Meltemi, 2003), 119.
21
Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1958), 192.
126 Chapter Six
being told.
Arendt emphasizes the unifying character of story: in a narrative we
make sense of the heterogeneous—actions, passions, circumstances, the
blows of fortune—without cancelling it or defining it. As Simona Forti has
written, “narrative is essentially a linguistic device that reconstructs that
which has happened in history through a plot that privileges human agents
more than impersonal processes and that no longer derives the meaning of
the particular from the general.” 22 We find ourselves far, then, from the
teleology of philosophers of history and causal explanations stemming
from the desire to make historiography a science. What is more, unlike
philosophers, Arendt understands that the continuist conception of history
is not defensible; there is no single story establishing the meaning of
actions. There are no single spectators or authors: “history is a story which
has many beginnings but no end.”23 An account must be given of how
much escapes to a closed rationality that does not allow room for ruptures
or the unexpected. This is “zu urteilen ohne den Anspruch, das Ganze in
der Hand zu haben, uns sogar ohne etwas Dahinter-stehendes, Verborgenes
zu verurteilen.”24 Although the story does not solve any problems and does
not master anything once and for all, it adds one element more to the
world’s repertoire; it enables us to endure, not as a species but as a
plurality of “whos.”
Although Arendt would be in complete agreement with the idea that
the work of narrating history never ends, there is no advocacy of
relativism here at all, but rather a move towards recognizing the unstable
and provisional quality of historical truth. Her emphasis on retrospective
narration and affirmation of the fragment are connected to her strong
concern for the importance of factual truths. Arendt is aware—and she had
experience of this—that before the onslaught of political power, facts and
events are much more fragile than axioms or theories and that, once lost,
no rational effort can recover them.
Likewise, in referring to the vulnerability of factual truths in history,
Arendt does not allude to the variety of predicates that actions carry, but to
the dangers of the contemporary attitude of dealing with facts as if they
were mere opinions. Despite the fact that generations of historians and
philosophers of history have shown that there are no facts without
interpretations, for Arendt this does not constitute an argument against the
existence of the objective fact, nor can it justify the elimination of the
22
Simona Forti, Vida del espíritu, tiempo de la polis (Madrid: Cátedra, 2001), 276-
277.
23
Hannah Arendt, “Understanding and Politics,” in Hannah Arendt (1994), 320.
24
Hannah Arendt, Heft III [3], February 1951, (2002), 58.
Contingency, History, and Narration in Hannah Arendt 127
25
Hannah Arendt, “Truth and Politics,” in Hannah Arendt (1985), 251. This is an
article written as an analysis of the attacks received after the publication of
Eichmann in Jerusalem.
26
André Enegren, La pensée politique de Hannah Arendt (Paris: PUF, 1984);
Ágnes Heller, “Hannah Arendt on Tradition and New Beginnings,” in Hannah
Arendt in Jerusalem, Aschrim, Steven ed. (1985) (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2001). Heller analyses three of Arendt’s stories:
The Origins of Totalitarianism, The Human Condition and On Revolution.
27
Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future, 20.
28
Ágnes Heller, “Hannah Arendt on Tradition and New Beginnings,” 21.
128 Chapter Six
29
Dagmar Barnouw, “Speaking about Modernity: Arendt’s Construct of the
Political,” New German Critique, No., 50 (1990): 22. On the role of storytelling in
Eichmann in Jerusalem, see also Annabel Herzog, “Reporting and storytelling:
Eichmann in Jerusalem as Political Testimony,” Thesis Eleven (2002).
30
Annabel Herzog, “Illuminating Inheritance: Benjamin’s Influence on Arendt’s
Political Storytelling,” Philosophy and Social Criticism, No. 26 (2000): 3.
31
Hannah Arendt, The Jewish Writings (New York: Schoken Books, 2007b), 468.
See Arendt’s letter to Gershom Scholem (July 24, 1963).
32
Hannah Arendt, “The Image of Hell,” in Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954,
Hannah Arendt (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co. 1994), 199.
33
Judith Shklar, “Rethinking Past,” Social Research, 44 (1977): 80-90 (currently
complied in Judith Shklar, Political Thought and Political Thinkers (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1998).
34
Fina Birulés, Una herencia sin testamento: Hannah Arendt (Barcelona: Herder,
2007).
35
Hannah Arendt, Between Friends (London: Secker & Warburg, 1995).This is
Contingency, History, and Narration in Hannah Arendt 129
38
In this part I follow Martine Leibovici, Hannah Arendt, une Juive (Paris:
Desclée De Brouwer, 1998), 72 and forward.
39
Hannah Arendt, “Action and the Pursuit of Happiness,” in Politische Ordnung
und menschliche Existenz. Festgabe für Erich Voegelin, eds. Hannah Arendt, Alois
Dempf and Friedrich Engel-Jonosi (Munich: Beck, 1962), 10. Arendt doesn’t
clearly define the term storytelling, so there are various interpretations of the same
thing, for example, Elisabeth Young-Bruhel, “Hannah Arendt’s Storytelling,”
Social Research, No. 44, (1977), 1; Seyla Benhabib, (1996); Lisa Jane Disch,
Hannah Arendt and the Limits of Philosophy (Nueva York: Cornell University
Press, 1994).
40
Martine Leibovici, “En la grieta del presente: ¿mesianismo o natalidad? Hannah
Arendt, Walter Benjamin y la historia,” Al margen, Num. 21-22, (2007), 195.
Contingency, History, and Narration in Hannah Arendt 131
41
Hannah Arendt, Reflections on Literature and Culture (Young-ah Gottlieb, ed.)
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007), see Introduction.
42
Arendt, Hannah, “Willing,” in The Life of the Mind, (New York: Harcourt,
1981), 158.
43
Arendt, Men in Dark Times. Quoted by Young-ah Gottlieb, p. XVIII of her
introduction to the work cited, note 40. Young-ah Gottlieb took this comment from
the German version of Beyond Personal Frustration. The Poetry of Bertolt Brecht,
a text previously used for the chapter included in Men in Dark Times.
44
Arendt, Men in Dark Times, 203.
132 Chapter Six
pearls are like poets’ tales: disease turned into loveliness, at the same time
transparent and opaque, secrets of the depths brought to light.”45
This passage leads me to affirm that the technique of extracting
fragments is used by Arendt in her own thinking, not only in her often-
cited reading of Kant's third Critique, but also, and especially, in reference
to the writings of Karen Blixen. She evokes the Danish writer often
throughout her work: to characterize the place of narration, the “who” of
the action, 46 and the relationship between “storytelling” and truth in her
political theory. According to Lynn R. Wilkinson,47 Arendt's work is
punctuated by quotes (not always accurate) from Dinesen’s stories; and, in
incorporating elements of her writings, Arendt establishes a kind of
dialogue similar to that she establishes with Benjamin, although not as
explicit. Perhaps her best known reference to Isak Dinesen is the opening
quote in the section on action in The Human Condition—"All sorrows can
be borne if you put them into a story or tell a story about them”—, a quote
we also find in Truth and Politics (1967) and in the review of Parmenia
Migel's biography (1968), included in Men in Dark Times. The words are
attributed to Dinesen, but nobody has been able to find them in her written
work; their origin, as Wilkinson says, may be from a phone interview
published on 3rd November 1953 in The New York Times Book Review.48
Curiously, in her correspondence, we only find one letter where Arendt
speaks about Dinesen: in November 1958, she remarks to Gertrude Jaspers
that she has just read a marvelous book, Anecdotes of Destiny, and says
that its Danish author is a great “storyteller,” a great lady, and an elderly
and wise woman.49 We know that, a year later, Arendt attended one of
Dinesen’s readings of her work on her first visit to New York.50 These
directly or indirectly quoted texts show that Arendt had read many of
Dinesen’s short stories. In The Human Condition, she clearly refers to The
45
Isak Dinesen, Anecdotes of Destiny (London: University of Chicago Press,
1960), 12. Dinesen also refers to Ariel’s song in another tale: “Tempests.”
46
See note 11.
47
Lynn R. Wilkinson, “Hannah Arendt on Isak Dinesen: Between Storytelling and
Theory,” Comparative Literature, Num. 78 (2004).
48
Interview with Bent Mohn, The New York Times Book Review (November 3,
1957). “I am not a novelist, really not even a writer; I am a storyteller. One of my
friends said about me that I think all sorrows can be borne if you put them into a
story or tell a story about them, and perhaps this is not entirely untrue. To me, the
explanation of life seems to be its melody, its pattern. And I feel in life such an
infinite, truly inconceivable fantasy.” Italics by FB.
49
Hannah Arendt-Karl Jaspers. Briefwechsel 1926 bis 1969, eds. Lotte Köhler and
Hans Saner (Munich-Zürich: Piper, 1985), 359.
50
Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Hannah Arendt (Barcelona: Paidós, 2006), 81.
Contingency, History, and Narration in Hannah Arendt 133
51
Hannah Arendt, “Isak Dinesen 1885-1963,” in Arendt, Men in Dark Times, 106.
52
Hannah Arendt, “Truth and Politics,” in Arendt, Between Past and Future, 262.
Arendt quotes Isak Dinesen, “The Cardinal First Tale.” (1991).
53
Hannah Arendt, “Isak Dinesen 1885-1963,” in Arendt, Between Past and
Future, 99.
134 Chapter Six
“We run no risks. For our changing of place in existence never creates, or
leaves after it, what man calls a way, upon which phenomenon—in reality
no phenomenon but an illusion— he will waste inexplicable passionate
deliberation.” The cowfish continues by talking of a marine species, which
it would say is characterized by its conformism or, to put it in the terms we
are using, by its absolute historical present, and again compares it with the
human species: “Man, in the end, is alarmed by the idea of time, and
unbalanced by incessant wanderings between past and future. The
inhabitants of a liquid world have brought past and future together in the
maxim: Après nous le deluge.”54
This fragment recalls the title of the compilation Arendt published in
1961, Between Past and Future, and also the words in her Dedication to
Karl Jaspers (1947),55 where she urges that “human beings …speak with
each other, despite the prevailing conditions of the deluge.”
What is more, it seems that Arendt concurs with one of Dinesen’s
mottos, “Je responderai,”56 a slogan referring to responsibility. Arendt's
work can be understood as a powerful call to political responsibility in the
contemporary world. It is a responsibility that aims to reshape the world
even though it is unable to control it. In other words, the issue of
responsibility responds to the aspiration to find a point of agreement
between receptivity and action, between accepting and changing. That is,
to say yes or no to abjection. “Storytelling” gives us resources to do so.
According to Arendt, we live and think in the shadow of a great
catastrophe, but we must pay attention to the human ability to begin, since
“a being whose essence is beginning may have enough of origin within
himself to understand without preconceived categories and to judge
without the set of customary rules which is morality.”57
54
Isak Dinesen, Anecdotes of Destiny (London: University of Chicago Press,
1960), 20.
55
Arendt, Hannah, “Dedication to Karl Jaspers,” in Essays in Understanding,
1930-1954, (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1994), 216.
56
Isak Dinesen, “On the Mottoes of my Life,” Ensayos completos (Madrid:
Losada, 2003), 371. (“On the Mottoes of my Life” is Dinesen’s Dinner Meeting
Address at the annual celebration held by the Institute of Arts and Letters in Nueva
York on January 28, 1959).
57
Hannah Arendt, “Understanding and Politics,” in Arendt, Essays in
Understanding, 321.
CHAPTER SEVEN
NEUS CAMPILLO1
1
Universitat de Valencia, Spain. This contribution was done under the financial
support of the Research Project FF2012-30645,2012-2015, “Filósofas del Siglo
XX: Maestros, vínculos y divergencias.” Directed by Rosa Rius Gatell, Universitat
de Barcelona, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Government of Spain.
Translation by Rosario Casas.
136 Chapter Seven
but the fact that it creates perishable products that are consumed and not
meant to last. The opposition between perishability and durability will
then be essential. Thus, it is necessary to examine Arendt’s analyses of
contemporary society as “mass” society and of how that mass society
gives rise to the “everything is possible” phenomenon represented by
totalitarianism. However, Arendt also attempted to understand the
consequences for society of mass culture linked to the phenomenon of
consumption. All of this represents a “crisis in culture.” The mass culture
typical of late capitalism does not escape Arendt’s critical eye, and her
interest in describing the original elements of critical thinking cannot be
separated from the latter’s genuinely political aspect. Consequently,
thinking and judging are the basis of a critical culture that sets itself up in
opposition to mass culture.
2
Jose Ortega y Gasset, La Rebelión de las Masas (1937), Col. Austral (Madrid:
Espasa Calpe, 1947).
3
Hannah Arendt, Los Orígenes del Totalitarismo, Parte III. El Totalitarismo
(1951) (Madrid: Alianza Universidad, 1981), 485. A new edition of this work has
appeared recently: Hannah Arendt, Los Orígenes del Totalitarismo, Trad. de
Guillermo Solana, Prólogo de Salvador Giner (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2006).
138 Chapter Seven
possible wherever there are masses who for one reason or another have
acquired the appetite for political organization. Masses are not held
together by a consciousness of common interest and they lack that specific
class articulateness that is expressed in determined, limited, and obtainable
goals. The term “masses” applies only where we deal with people who
either because of sheer numbers, or indifference, or a combination of both,
cannot be integrated into any organization based on common interest, into
political parties or municipal governments or professional organizations or
trade unions.”4
However, in addition to that non-belonging to any organization with
defined interests and objectives, to that apathy regarding political organization,
there is also “the indifference toward the arguments of political opponents.”
Arendt’s analysis of the mass phenomenon is genuinely political though it
includes sociological and psychological aspects. The issue that interests
her is the opposition between that which constitutes human beings as
“masses” and that which constitutes them from the perspective of
plurality. The superfluous character of human beings and indifference are
necessary for the rise of totalitarianism.
I would like to call attention to the “superfluous” character of human
beings, which is central to the rise of totalitarianism. Both aspects are
essential. The masses acquire political capacity where there is such an
extensive population that there are people who can be spared, superfluous
people, people who are not necessary. The totalitarian phenomenon arises
when an apathetic and indifferent mass arises.
Arendt uses the distinction between mass and mob to account for
another characteristic of the masses. While the mob (a byproduct of
capitalist production) embraces the standards and attitudes of the ruling
class, the masses “reflect and somehow pervert the standards and attitudes
toward public affairs of all classes.”5 Thus, what the masses represent is
not the adoption of the rules and standards of other classes, but the
elimination of the rules for public coexistence on the basis of
differentiated interests.
Ortega also makes culture dependent on rules, standards, and abidance
by civil legality. Not assuming norms and legality results in the absence of
culture. The opposition drawn by Ortega between culture and barbarism is
an opposition that is contained in Arendt’s characterization of the masses.6
According to Arendt, there is a “perversion” of the standards relating to
4
Arendt, op. cit. 485.
5
Arendt, op. cit. 493.
6
José Ortega y Gasset, op. cit. 95.
Mass Culture and Critical Culture in Hannah Arendt 139
7
Arendt, op. cit. 493.
8
Arendt, op. cit. 497.
140 Chapter Seven
who, eager to free itself from the falseness of the bourgeoisie at all levels,
made war and violence a central element of the egalitarian and value-
transforming endeavor.
The war presupposed a “community of fate:” “War had been
experienced as that ‘mightiest of all mass actions’ that obliterated
individual differences so that even suffering, which traditionally had
marked off individuals through unique un-exchangeable destinies, could
now be interpreted as ‘an instrument of historical progress.’”9
The postwar intellectual elites “did not read Darwin but the Marquis de
Sade.” In this statement, Arendt expresses the importance for that
generation of their disdain for the respectable bourgeoisie: “violence,
power, and cruelty were the supreme capacities of men who had definitely
lost their place in the universe and were much too proud to long for a
power theory that would safely bring them back and reintegrate them into
the world. They were satisfied with blind partisanship in anything that
respectable society had banned, regardless of theory or content, and they
elevated cruelty to a major virtue because it contradicted society’s
humanitarian and liberal hypocrisy.”10 They were elites fascinated by pure
activism, the heroic, the criminal, that which nobody had foreseen, the
pure action of totalitarian movements.
The European crisis that Ortega calls the “revolt of the masses” shows
the accession of the latter to “social power,” in such a way that it also
highlights the dichotomy between elites and masses, or, in Ortega’s terms,
between minorities and masses. Although Ortega does not grant minorities
the role that the elites played in totalitarian movements, as Arendt does,
there are some similarities between the analyses carried out by these
authors. In Ortega’s view, the masses are “a group of not especially
qualified persons;” thus, he does not understand the masses as made up
solely or mainly of “the working masses,” but rather, what he calls
“average man,” that is “man as undifferentiated from other men, but as
repeating in himself a generic type.”11
The division into excellent minorities (the elites) and the mass is not a
division into social classes but into types of men, as Ortega will say. What
Ortega wants to do is to specify that the elite that knows itself to be vulgar
tries to impose vulgarity, similarly to the way in which Arendt accounts
for the triumph of vulgarity “with its cynical dismissal of respected
standards.” However, she adds a detailed description of how the
inconformity of the elites with the falseness and duplicity of bourgeois
9
Arendt, op. cit. 513.
10
Arendt, op. cit. 514.
11
Ortega y Gasset, op. cit. 45.
Mass Culture and Critical Culture in Hannah Arendt 141
morality evolved into an admiration for the vulgarity of the mob, insofar
as it became a positive value in terms of subverting the values of the
respectable bourgeoisie.
Ortega is very much aware of the fact that social power in the hands of
mass man, of that caste he describes as “rebellious mass men who
endanger the very principles to which they owe their lives,”12 entailed the
danger of retrogression into barbarism.
In this same line of thought, Arendt shows how an alliance is gradually
created between the elites and the mob, on the basis of the fascination that
terrorism as the only form of activism had for intellectual minorities, an
activism of violence that was different from that of earlier revolutionary
societies and exercised attraction because it was a way of expressing
resentment.
However, Arendt finds a valid criterion for distinguishing the elite
from the mob in the fact that the latter “was charmed by the ‘radiant power
of fame.’” For this reason, it accepted the bourgeois appreciation for
genius, which contrasted with the elite’s contempt for it. In spite of this,
“the temporary alliance between the elite and the mob rested largely on
this genuine delight with which the former watched the latter destroy
respectability.”
Unmasking the hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie became an endeavor of
the elites in which Arendt sees a lack of self-interest similar to that
undefined interest that characterizes the masses. Thus, the elites or
minorities play a role in the social function of the masses, as Ortega saw.
Both the lack of hypocrisy of the mob and the lack of self-interest of the
masses exerted attraction on the intellectual elite.
Added to all this was the belief that the totalitarian movement had
abolished the separation between private and public life. Double morality,
with its lack of sincerity and its pompousness, was one of the elements of
the bourgeois spirit that was being criticized. However, Arendt emphasizes
another aspect introduced by the totalitarian movement and which is
characteristic of the masses: the affirmation of a superior Weltanschauung
“by which they would take possession of man as a whole,” in opposition
to the contrast between bourgeois and citoyen as a division between the
man who uses public institutions for his interests and the citizen who is
concerned with public affairs “as the affairs of all.” Arendt thought that
although it is true that the bourgeoisie is “totalitarian” in the sense of its
using institutions, the nation-state could defend itself more easily due to
the division of powers. It was the breakdown of class society and the
12
Ortega y Gasset, op. cit. 79.
142 Chapter Seven
13
Arendt, op. cit. 525.
14
Arendt, op. cit. 525.
Mass Culture and Critical Culture in Hannah Arendt 143
Culture: Its Social and Political Significance,”15 Arendt takes her analysis
beyond the totalitarian phenomenon in order to carry out a reflection on
the crisis in culture in a mass society such as consumer society. Here, the
analysis of the masses is no longer linked to the totalitarian phenomenon
but to consumer society, although there are some common elements, such
as the figure of the philistine who appears in The Origins of
Totalitarianism, and whose devotion to career and family is a basic
element of mass culture.
The problem underlying the whole discussion of mass culture is the
opposition between culture and barbarism. Arendt’s interpretation aims at
clarifying the possibilities of culture as an antidote to totalitarian
barbarism when she links culture to criticism and to art in the very specific
sense of humanity’s capacity for judgment and critical thinking.
15
Hannah Arendt, Entre el Pasado y el Futuro. Ocho Ejercicios sobre la reflexión
política (Barcelona: Península, 1996), 209-238.
16
Arendt, op. cit. 209.
144 Chapter Seven
The distinction between society and culture and the relation between
art and culture are important in order to understand the need of separating
society and culture and thus be able to assess the reasons for the crisis in
culture, which is directly related to the “utilization” of culture by society.
But, additionally, Arendt’s analysis constitutes a critique of consumer
society in terms that affect society as a whole since in this society art
becomes entertainment and cultural works lose their characteristic
durability to become something that satisfies the needs of a society. Thus,
consumer society literally eats up or devours those works whose durability
and the admiration they elicited made them works of art.
Arendt redefines “mass society” and “mass man.” Mass society comes
about when “the mass of the population has become incorporated into
society,” and “mass culture,” “when the mass of the population has been
so far liberated from the burden of physically exhausting labor that it too
disposes of enough leisure for “culture.”17
Then, these definitions are seen in the light of consumer society. Mass
man incorporates a series of traits that were already present in society: lack
of communication, lack of standards, capacity for consumption, inability
to judge, egocentricity, and alienation from the world. Thus, Arendt sums
up all the descriptions she had made of Modernity as the rise of the social
in The Human Condition and of the individual’s loneliness in that society.
But in consumer society, the trait that contributes to the fact that art and
culture will turn against it is philistinism: the mentality “that judged
everything in terms of immediate usefulness and ‘material values’ and
hence had no regard for such useless objects and occupations as are
implied in culture and art.”18
The utilization of culture for purposes of acquiring social status
entailed seizing upon cultural objects and ascribing value to them,
exchange value, thus erasing the durability of cultural objects, that is, their
immortality. At the same time, the capacity of those objects to catch our
attention, to move us, to produce admiration, is lost.
Society’s use of cultural objects, their valuation and devaluation, took
place in terms of utility but not of consumption. What happens in mass
society is that entertainment has replaced utility and cultural objects are
consumed like any other consumer goods, goods that have to be used up:
“The chief difference between society and mass society is that society
wanted culture, evaluated and devaluated cultural things into social
commodities, used and abused them for its own selfish purposes, but did
17
Arendt, op. cit. 210.
18
Arendt, op. cit. 23.
Mass Culture and Critical Culture in Hannah Arendt 145
19
Arendt, op. cit. 217.
20
Arendt, op. cit. 219.
146 Chapter Seven
2. A Philosophy of Mankind
Arendt suggests that philosophy be understood as a series of “exercises
in thought.” However, this does not mean that philosophy dissolves into
analyses or deconstructions of Western thought. What Arendt proposes is
philosophy as that which dissolves the great systems of thought into
“trains of thought which meet and cross each other” in order to retain only
what is universally communicative. The relationship between philosophy
and politics, of action and thought, entails the proposal of a critical
thinking from the perspective of a phenomenology of politics. Nevertheless,
this critical thinking is neither fragmentary nor structured as a “theory.”
Rather, it is rooted in a philosophy of mankind, for which reason it will be
necessary to examine the existential grounds for such a philosophy.
21
Arendt, op. cit. 221.
Mass Culture and Critical Culture in Hannah Arendt 147
organization of the masses that has not taken place in the same way in
consumer society. However, the radical nature of Arendt’s reflection needs
to be highlighted so that we may become aware of the disastrous
consequences produced by a society such as consumer society that
prevents the “creation of a world.” Arendt is referring to the fact that the
worldly character of art works and cultural objects distinguishes them
from the mere ornaments of a privileged class or of the elites. The ever
more advanced consumer society, together with the development of
technology, does not fabricate the type of world needed for action and
freedom, that is, a world of human relationships; on the contrary, what is
actually produced is a vital-biological process that engulfs everything.
Works of art and culture, like narratives and stories, like the memories
that create action and discourse, are an antidote to that process of
devouring the world that takes place due to unstoppable technological
development and consumption. Arendt’s critique of the modern world in
The Human Condition had already introduced that increasing disappearance
of works and action, which were replaced by “bare life,” by that biological
process which, together with technology and consumption, has come to
enclose everything. Technology makes the world available for
consumption. It is the dream of animal laborans, the man of needs, and of
metabolism with nature.
Culture, art, and politics represent another dimension: that of lasting,
immortal works, the works of intersubjectivity and human interrelations,
while enjoyment and immediate entertainment transform everything into a
biological process. This explains why Arendt criticizes the fact that works
of art and culture are transformed into entertainment, thus incorporating
them into that metabolic cycle.
Arendt opts for an alternative to that domination of the world animal
laborans, which leads her to carry out an analysis of art, culture, and
politics as critical thinking. Her objective is to make evident the need to
oppose the hegemony of that process with man’s capacity for initiative,
with freedom as the generating force of an authentically human world.
Arendt’s analysis of culture focuses on the latter’s relationship to art
and to the political world. Central to her reflection is the fact that the term
derives from the Latin term cultura, deriving, in turn, from colere,
meaning to cultivate, dwell, take care of, tend to, and preserve. Arendt
contrasts this relationship of cultivation and care with nature with the
Greek concept of “mastery over nature,” deriving from their understanding
of agriculture as a type of fabrication, a daring and violent enterprise.
There was no “cultivation of the land,” but rather “extraction” of its fruits.
Arendt takes this Roman meaning of the word as one of the key aspects of
148 Chapter Seven
What connects art and politics is that they are both “phenomena of the
public world,” which implies that it is the “spectator who judges,” who has
an active relationship with the beautiful, whereas taste is discernment,
discrimination, judgment.
We return, then, to the conception of judgment as an effect of thought.
Thought liberated judgment and made it visible in the world of phenomena,
and the capacity to judge, as we saw, is a way of thinking that involves
“putting oneself in the place of others,” an enlarged way of thinking that
involves a “potential agreement with others.” But in “The Crisis in
Culture,” Arendt gives judgment and the “enlarged mentality” a very
precise meaning in relation to their possibilities of creating a different
culture, which, in my view, could act as an antidote to mass culture and
consumer society.
Thus, the figure of the “disinterested spectator” enters into the analysis
of culture in order to give it the meaning of a new “humanitas,” or what
Cicero called “cultura animi.” How could that “cultura animi” be
understood in consumer society? Clearly, it would have to be as a
possibility of escaping the devastating process of the life cycle and
metabolism with nature that are presupposed in a society of consumers. It
is the “love for the world” that can save it and save us from having the
world available for consumption in the same way that consumer goods and
the works that become consumer goods are. The idea is to grant works of
art independence so that they can only be admired and judged, but not
22
Hannah Arendt, “La Crisis de la Cultura,” in Entre el Pasado y el Futuro. Ocho
ejercicios sobre la reflexión política (Barcelona: Penínsulas, 1996), 225.
Mass Culture and Critical Culture in Hannah Arendt 149
consumed. The world is not just another product of fabrication, and the
element of fabrication cannot be applied to it. On the contrary, it constitutes
itself as a totality in which we dwell, as well as intersubjectivity, something
which lies “between” people, through which we constitute a space for
action and speech. Art and politics are analogous in the sense that both
constitute a world we admire, judge, and are not available for consumption.
Thus, in addition to others characteristics concerning the capacity to
judge, that is putting oneself in the place of others, the potential agreement
with those in whose place I put myself and who also judge, Arendt
introduces an aspect of judgment that will make it possible to create a
“culture as humanitas:” judgment makes it possible for man to orient
himself in the public world, in the political sphere, but, additionally, taste
is that which allows for an experience of agreement among people, which
“decides not only how the world is to look, but also who belongs together
in it.”
For Arendt, “taste is the political capacity that truly humanizes the
beautiful and creates a culture.” By “humanizing the beautiful,” Arendt
means that taste “debarbarizes the world of the beautiful by not being
overwhelmed by it; it takes care of the beautiful in its own ‘personal’ way
and thus produces a ‘culture.’”23
Arendt refers to the humanism of the Roman tradition in order to
justify the meaning she wants to give to the humanist culture she defends:
“What Cicero in fact says is that for the true humanist neither the
verities of the scientist nor the truth of the philosopher nor the beauty of
the artist can be absolutes; the humanist, because he is not a specialist,
exerts a faculty of judgment and taste that is beyond the coercion that each
specialty imposes upon us.”24
Humanism in the Roman sense of “cultura animi” is, in the end, a
specific attitude “that knows how to take care and preserve and admire the
things of the world.” It is an attitude of free men who exercise their taste
freely.
Humanism as an attitude centered on judgment has little to do with
humanism considered as a doctrine. In his analysis of the Enlightenment,
Michel Foucault defines Enlightenment as modern attitude that is different
from doctrinaire, thematic humanism. That “attitude” would require an
elaboration, an asceticism of the subject, the care of oneself, which
includes a way of life and not merely knowledge. The modern subject
dares to know, but at the same time makes himself into a free individual.25
23
Arendt, op. cit. 236.
24
Arendt, op. cit. 237.
25
Michel Foucault, Qu’est-ce que c’est les Lumières? Magazine Littéraire, dossier
150 Chapter Seven
men. Philosophy and politics should complement each other rather than
oppose each other. Arendt thought that the case of Heidegger was strange,
since his philosophy entailed a critique of the “vita contemplativa,” a
critique of the conception of being from the perspective of pure presence,
the affirmation of the temporality of existence, and a revolution in the
sense that authentic existence and the philosophical way of life are not
rooted in theory but in existence itself. All of this, however, did not lead to
a valuation of plurality, as it should, or of interaction, or of that space
between persons in the world.
In order to account for the phenomenon of totalitarianism, Arendt
radicalized Heidegger’s critique of the “they-self” of average man in his
inauthentic existence, he who is not aware of, nor assumes, nor takes
responsibility for his own existence. But the alternative she proposes is not
the isolation of the self, but an ontology of plurality that, as we have seen,
entails interaction and enlarged thought.
The role of Jaspers is crucial to Arendt’s position, although, in a way
different to Jaspers, she will understand interaction as an “I-thou”
relationship in which the political sense prevails over that of friendship. It
is an interaction that includes all of those in whose place I might come to
put myself, that is, Kant’s “enlarged mentality.”26
The element of Jaspers’ philosophy that Arendt does reaffirm is the
responsibility of the philosopher as such, a responsibility derived from the
understanding that plurality is not something tangential to philosophy. In
this line of thought, Arendt will make it impossible for philosophy, as
critical thinking, to dissociate itself from politics. Critical thinking is in
itself political, and it cannot dissociate itself from a philosophy of
mankind, which is not the same thing as a philosophy of man. This is so
because a philosophy of mankind includes plurality. More than a political
philosophy, Arendt’s thought is a “phenomenology of human plurality and
human interaction.”27
Although I share this thesis, on the basis of my research, I would
disagree with this way of understanding Arendt’s philosophy of mankind.
I do agree that the ontological commitment implicit in her statements that
“Plurality is the Law of the Earth” and that “Men, not Man, live on the
Earth” is central to her thought. I also believe that the idea that “thinking is
a dialogue between me and myself” and that solipsism is the most
“persistent and pernicious problem” of Western philosophy, is part of the
26
In her excellent biography of Arendt, Elisabeth Young-Bruehl highlights
Arendt’s friendship with K. Jaspers.
27
Margarett Betz-Hull, The Hidden Philosophy of Hannah Arendt, (London:
Routledge Curzon, 2002), 3.
152 Chapter Seven
28
Margarett Betz-Hull, op. cit. 44.
Mass Culture and Critical Culture in Hannah Arendt 153
unique and distinct identity of the agent, built through word and action,
and which, as we saw, remains hidden for the individual, depends on the
others. This paradox of identity leads to the need for otherness, which
means that, without the space of appearance, it would be impossible to
establish one’s reality. It is here that particularity appears, in opposition to
the sameness of merely biological life.
Arendt’s critique of solipsism is radical, though this does not mean that
she denies private or intimate space. Arendt believes that both must be
preserved, but she disagrees with the psychological intimists and the
epistemological solipsists with respect to the meaning that those spheres
acquire. It is the public space in which we act as citizens that sacrifices
that private space that has become sacrosanct; but it is precisely that public
space where our individuality can be revealed. We have seen how the
“world” is a relationship among individuals, when that “space between” is
broken, as is the case in totalitarianism or in mass society, individuality is
also eliminated, and, with it, the “world.” Arendt provides the existential
bases for humanity’s political capacity, which arises in the manner
explained above, but which also includes the capacity for initiative, a new
beginning, and freedom.
That freedom arises as an appearance among appearances provided by
a shared world through which humanity discovers both a common world
and common knowledge. Common sense provides a plurality of
perspectives insofar as it produces the opinions of all the participants, thus
creating a “public space” that depends on the reality of the opinions that
appear as different perspectives. The interrelation between a philosophy of
mankind and politics would then be understood as follows: “of course the
philosophy of mankind cannot prescribe any particular political action, but
it may comprehend politics as one of the great human realms of life
against all former philosophies, which, since Plato, thought of the “bios
polítikos” as an inferior way of life.”29 Arendt’s philosophy of mankind
was rooted in a critical attitude that was undoubtedly an attitude of love
for the world.
My thesis is that this is the original element in Arendt’s thought,
insofar as it constitutes a defense of plurality in action and in thought:
“Plurality is the Law of the Earth,” and, we could add, the Law of thought.
It is possible to harmonize philosophy and politics on the basis of that
understanding of thought from the perspective of plurality. Thus, plurality,
in addition to being the condition of action and the condition of the “public
space” made up of the plurality of spectators, is also the nucleus of
29
Hannah Arendt, Hombres en Tiempos de Oscuridad, 98-99.
154 Chapter Seven
1
Universidad Metropolitana de México (UAM), Itzapalapa, Mexico. The author
thanks Columbia University Press for allowing her to publish this text, which is a
version of the final chapter of her book The Disclosure of Politics (2013) entitled
“Hannah Arendt's Model of the Autonomy of Politics: Semantic Innovation
Through Religious Disclosure.”
2
Hannah Arendt, Crisis of the Republic (San Diego, New York, and London:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972), 62. Arendt had other reasons to reject that the
notion of justice should play no role on politics, but I think that she was also wrong
about why justice could not be regarded as political. One of those reasons was that
she thought that morality is the proper territory of justice and that as such, it
belongs to the realm of the private. See, for example, this argument being
developed by her on her essay on civil disobedience.
156 Chapter Eight
3
I wish to thank Hauke Brunkhorst for his valuable suggestions and the insightful
commentaries he offered me about Arendt on the question of justice. I also wish to
thank all my students from my course “The Disclosure of Politics” at the New
School for Social Research. Special thanks to Mark Kelly, Celina Braganolo, and
Sunyoung Park for their helpful and stimulating participation during the
discussions in class.
4
Bonnie Honig, Emergency Politics: Paradox, Law, Democracy (Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2009), 3. This notion of the multitude is clearly
linked to Hardt and Negri, but I am also using it as Bonnie Honig has when she
claims that “the people, the so-called center of democratic theory and practice, are
always inhabited by the multitude, their unruly ungovernable double” in her most
recent work.
The Truth of Politics 157
conception of power and action. Arendt made a bold move when she
claimed that authority was lost in Modernity, and that there was no need to
recover it. She claimed that religion used this transcendental connection to
legitimize sovereign power and the result created a problematic dependence
of politics to religion. Part of her account is due to the fact that she did not
trust the Western tradition of philosophy because of its whole reliance on
the idea of epistemic truth occupying all validity spheres. Her reconstruction
of the question of authority is illustrative of how the idea of truth came to
be the term associated with political validity. In the essay on “What is
Authority,”5 she reconstructed how the use of the term authority was
linked to the political-religious notion of hierarchical power. Her strategy
was to see how the experiences of the Greeks’ political practices were not
taken into account by Plato when he first defined authority through
philosophy and not in relation to politics. Plato defined authority in a
transcendent way—not as persuasion or violence but in reason and truth.
Arendt claimed that, if authority is what makes people obey, Plato used
this notion as a way to establish the legitimacy of reason. Plato had to
connect validity to transcendence so that he could be able to avoid
violence. Arendt argues that it was Plato’s definition of politics as truth
that was later taken by the Christian interpretation of it,6 and that was how
the Western tradition connected authority to religion and tradition. This is
the explanation of why the link between politics and religion became
inextricable, and this is also the reason why Arendt claimed that we should
get rid of it. In a recent essay about this topic, Patchen Markell claims that,
“for some readers, Arendt’s most obvious contribution to our thinking
about rule lies in her forceful denial that ruling has any proper place in
politics at all, notwithstanding its central position in the tradition of
Western political thought.”7 Thus, Arendt fought forcefully to redefine the
understanding of politics by establishing a positive conception of power
5
Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future (New York: Penguin Books, 1977),
91-141.
6
Andreas Kalyvas, Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary. Max Weber,
Carl Schmitt, and Hannah Arendt (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008),
214. As Andreas Kalyvas argues, “For Arendt, although the was “Hebrew in
origin,” making its appearance for the first time in the Jewish tradition along with
the divine lawgiver and his demand for obedience, it was not until Paul that it was
elevated to an independent faculty—divine and human alike. The concept of the
will was born at the very moment humans were confronted with the tantalizing
moral question of whether to voluntarily obey a transcendental law and to freely
choose the good instead of evil.”
7
Patchen Markell, “The Rule of the People: Arendt, Arché, and Democracy,”
American Political Science Review 100 (2006): 1-14.
158 Chapter Eight
8
Arendt, Between Past and Future, 107.
9
Arendt, Between Past and Future, 108.
11
Maeve Cooke, Re-Presenenting the Good Society (Cambridge, Massachusetts
and London, England: The MIT Press, 2006).
The Truth of Politics 159
predicament that the philosopher resorts to what he has seen, the ideas, as
standards and measures, and finally, in fear of his life, uses them as
instruments of domination.”12 Since ideas become the standards of
measures beyond this world, the essential character of authoritarian
government legitimates the exercise of power beyond the sphere of power,
that is, by using the device of transcendence instead of immanence and
critique. Plato discovered that the rewards and punishments granted by
obedience worked in a much better way than actual violence but, by
establishing the connection of power to transcendence, he ended up by
fusing Herrschaft to das Heil. It was in the usefulness of this fusion that
Christianity used the concept of authority, which by then was not only a
fundamental part of the religious realm but also a necessary device for the
justification of political hierarchical power.
Arendt claimed that ideas had “nothing to do with political experience,
and the problem of action”—rather— they pertain to the experience of the
philosopher in his task of exercising contemplation. Plato—the philosopher—
is the expert on ideas, and it was he who also claimed that as standards
ideas can become the law (Laws). This is the step where authoritarian laws
compel citizens to blind obedience instead of allowing them to question
power and its sources. The metaphor of seeing instead of doing is what
Arendt claimed that Plato had constructed through his idea that
philosophy’s notion of truth was useful for the territory of politics. He
defined its validity sphere as: “[if]the interest of the philosopher and the
interest of man qua man coincide; both demand that human affairs, the
results of speech and action, must not acquire a dignity of their own but be
subjected to the domination of something outside their realm.”13 So Plato
became the fundamental influence of the Western tradition with regards to
the connection of truth and transcendence into the domain of politics.
12
Arendt, Between Past and Future, 110.
13
Arendt, Between Past and Future, 115.
14
Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (New York: Penguin Books, 1990), 141-178,
179-214.
160 Chapter Eight
the people as the sole legitimate actor. Arendt took interest in the historical
investigations of the past because she wanted to find a way out of the
theological legacy of a sovereign will, the hierarchical conception of the
notion of rule, and to purify politics from violence and nonpolitical
phenomena. In this search, she finally connected action to a modern,
immanent conception of it as freedom. With this interconnection, she
planned to disclose the nature of action as possessing a double feature: as
contingency and as the powerful and innovative way in which humans
could change things. The notion of authority continued to be on her mind
because she did not want to use other kinds of conceptions associated to
hierarchical power (the rule) or the nation state.15 It is in these essays
about foundation that she chooses to leave behind the perplexities and
“vicious circles” of the constituent power and constituted powers (Sieyés),
the notions of the creation and the creator (political theology), and the
differentiation between the moments of extraordinary politics as different
from the ordinary ones (Schmitt). At the bottom of this creative process,
was her concern not only with a conception of sovereignty and of
hierarchical power, there was also Arendt’s larger quest to ground
beginnings and actions into the realm of immanence. The two main
categories that she would use to do so were freedom and power.
In those essays, she also focused on the example of the American
Revolution in order to illustrate through it her conception of a proper
model of action as freedom associated to the Republican model of the
Romans and their notion of foundation. In her narrative, she conveys how
foundation is a way of augmentation as she wishes to re-establish the
Roman original meaning of religion as “religare,” that is, as a way of
building up the community. Hence, she defines two differentiated modes
of freedom: the freedom of the founding and the freedom of the disclosure
of actions. It is here where she also establishes the connection between
freedom and new beginnings. These beginnings are also the vehicles of
power since acting in concert is the way that communities experience the
immanence of power. Indeed, for Arendt, it is the community of free and
equal individuals who decide to jointly lay down the power of political
15
Andreas Kalyvas, Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary. Max Weber,
Carl Schmitt, and Hannah Arendt (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008),
211. Kalyvas argues that “Sovereignty transforms citizens from peers into obedient
subjects and dependent recipients. The rise of the omnipotent sovereign occurred
alongside the rise of the modern nation state and the formation of a central
bureaucratic and administrative apparatus. This parallel development signifies that
the modern state is somehow a mere replica, on a larger scale, of the private realm,
where a monological, mostly patriarchal rules over all its subjects.”
The Truth of Politics 161
actions that enact new beginnings and recover the past through its political
foundation. In her view, there is no room for an extra-political source, a
metaphysical principle, or any kind of transcendental agency. Instead,
what we find here is a model of equality and of Republican institutions
taken from her ideal of the Roman republic. What we miss, however, is
that there are no considerations about how those equals among the citizens
first got there. It is clear that Arendt moved to leave behind what she
thought to be the extra-political notion of justice because it pertained to the
sphere of morality (and the social). This is the reason that she invests so
much time in explaining why the Americans were the only ones that had
solved the problem of the social, and in how their past legacy allowed
them to qualify as equals despite the obvious problem of the existence of
slavery.16 At this point, in my view, even though she never refers to justice
as such, one can deduce how she conceptualized justice as a social
problem, and how she refused to consider it by giving it a political
dimension. After all, it was Aristotle who first mentioned that justice is
also a problem of politics. Her concept of immanence might be one of the
reasons why she was concerned to preserve the radical autonomy of
politics. My claim is that this problem could be avoided, if we consider
that there is a possibility to introduce a notion of justice that could be
suitable for the understanding of action and immanence.17 Actors can have
the chance to question the status quo of their places outside the political
order, and they do so precisely because they can understand that they are
not in the Kingdom of heaven, and that on earth there are things
(institutions) that need not be unfair as they are. After all, politics for
Arendt is all about constructing a world in common. Thus, it would have
been much more coherent and interesting to explore the historical process
of our present notion of equality since it is obvious that this concept has
greatly changed from its past understanding. We could begin by focusing
on examples of historical importance that owe nothing to the Greeks. The
idea of equality first appeared in the realm of cities and citizenship.
16
I owe this critical view of the problem to one of my students from the course
“The Disclosure of Politics”—Diana Mattison—who made a very critical
presentation about this problem on Arendt’s view of the American Revolution at
our spring seminar.
17
John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993),
11. Take, for example, a good definition of political justice given by John Rawls:
“The first concerns the subject of a political conception [of justice]. While such a
conception is, of course, a moral conception, it is a moral conception worked out
for a specific kind of subject, namely, for political, social, and economic
institutions.”
162 Chapter Eight
18
Marcel Detienne, The Greeks and Us (Cambridge, England: Polity Press, 2007),
102.
19
Detienne, The Greeks and Us, 110.
20
Detienne, The Greeks and Us, 110.
21
Gandhi’s efforts against the empire of England, Martin Luther King efforts to
grant rights to African Americans, and the most recent example of Mandela’s
efforts to prevent violence in post-Apartheid’s South African democracy.
22
Hannah Arendt, Crisis of the Republic (San Diego, New York, and London:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972), 123. Indeed, Arendt thought of slavery as
The Truth of Politics 163
how the notion of social inclusion and equality are political problems
about justice (and institutions) and how they can be thematized within the
realm of immanent actions. Social movements can and do have an
alternative way to react against injustice when this kind of institutional
violence entails political exclusion. Arendt’s views of the French
revolution are unfair in this regard.23 However, without the Arendtian
notion of new beginnings, we could hardly explore the political meaning
of the powerful new conception of freedom with which she was
concerned. Thus, one of my first conclusions is that we need to establish a
coherent link between justice and action, and action and democracy as
Patchen Markell has done in his essay “The Rule of the People: Arendt,
Arché, and Democracy.”24 In there, Markell explains, “recall that what
makes a beginning a beginning for Arendt, what lends it its eruptiveness,
is not its degree of departure from what preceded it, but rather our
attunement to its character as an irrevocable event, which also means: as
an occasion for response. This suggests that the status of being a
beginning is not a-contextual: beginnings are always beginnings for some
agent or agents; specifically, for those from “whom the beginning calls for
a response.” Now, however, Arendt has also told us that what it means to
act is to ‘call to full existence’ something that one would otherwise merely
suffer passively.”25 Thus, Markell highlights in this particularly eloquent
interpretation of Arendt’s work that those who suffer are those who can
make new beginnings possible.
Once we realize that actions as good beginnings are responses from
sufferers, it is not difficult to begin by tracing back good historical
examples of this kind of responsive reactions. One of those exemplars of a
sufferer—or hero—who responds to Roman slavery is none other than
providing reasons for violence, and this is why she thought they could lead to
dangerous ways of interminable chaos, as when she argues that “the rarity of slave
rebellions and of uprisings among the disinherited and downtrodden is notorious;
on the few occasions when they occurred it was precisely ‘mad fury’ that turned
dreams into nightmares for everybody.” Arendt thought that politics was related to
interventions of speech and action, therefore, she reacted against violent uprisings.
However, it was precisely the examples of Gandhi in the process of decolonization
from England, Martin Luther King’s efforts to struggle for social and political
rights for the blacks in USA, and Nelson Mandela’s efforts to prevent violence
once the Apartheid had been overcome, that should have given Arendt the opposite
examples of violent uprisings.
23
If only because this was the first experiment in Europe against an established
exclusionary regime.
24
Markell, The Rule of the People: 1-14.
25
Markell, The Rule of the People: 10.
164 Chapter Eight
CRISTINA SÁNCHEZ1
1
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. This paper has been supported by the
Research Program FFI2012-31635, Government of Spain.
2
Hannah Arendt, Hombres en tiempos de oscuridad (Barcelona: Gedisa, 1989).
166 Chapter Nine
3
Hannah Arendt, “Responsabilidad colectiva,” in Hannah Arendt, Responsabilidad y
juicio (Barcelona: Paidós, 2007), 156.
4
Hannah Arendt, Los orígenes del totalitarismo (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1981).
5
Karl Jaspers, El problema de la culpa (Barcelona: Paidós, 1998).
Political Responsibility in the Construction of the Public Realm 167
Like Jaspers, she rejects the notion of collective criminal or moral guilt.
Guilt, like innocence, is always individual, and is attributed to an
individual for his or her actions or omissions. In this sense, guilt has a
strong solipsistic orientation (toward the individual himself); it singles out
and is strictly personal. In the case analyzed by Arendt, that of Germany’s
involvement in the Holocaust, it makes sense not to insist on the collective
guilt of Germany, but rather on the identification and subsequent trial of
the guilty individuals, as was the case in the Nuremberg trials.
Responsibility, however, has a strong intersubjective component: we are
always accountable to someone or to a group. Hence, the question that
immediately arises is: to whom are we accountable? For Arendt, the
answer is to ourselves in the first place, but also to those with whom we
share a common public space for the preservation of that common world.
Unlike guilt, responsibility can be collective. This is what we call
“vicarious responsibility,” that is, responsibility for an action not
personally committed, but committed in our name and for which we are
responsible, given that we belong to a specific community.6 Thus,
according to Arendt, the political (vicarious) responsibility of governments
entails “assuming responsibility for the good and bad actions of their
predecessors.” Likewise, we can speak of a collective political and moral
(but never legal) responsibility “for the sins of our fathers, much as we
reap the rewards of their merits, but we are of course not guilty of their
misdeeds, either morally or legally, nor can we ascribe their deeds to our
own merits.”7 Vicarious responsibility is the price we pay for living in a
community.8 For this reason, the only way to escape the responsibility
would be not to belong to any community, to be isolated like Robinson
Crusoe. At the other extreme, it would imply being a stateless person or a
refugee, that is, a person expelled from a community. In turn, this would
lead us to affirm with Arendt that the stateless are completely innocent, an
innocence for which they pay the very high price of being unable to enjoy
social, political or legal recognition.
There is also a collective moral and political responsibility associated
6
H.L.A. Hart, „Responsibility and Retribution,” in Punishment and Responsibility
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1959). See the analysis of vicarious responsibility.
7
Hannah Arendt, “Responsabilidad colectiva,” op. cit., 153.
8
Karl Jaspers, El problema de la culpa, 91. Likewise, Karl Jaspers points out:
"There is a sort of collective moral guilt in a people’s way of life which I share as
an individual and from which grow political realities. For political conditions are
inseparable from a people’s whole way of life. There is no absolute division of
politics and human existence as long as man is realizing an existence rather than
perishing in eremitical seclusion.”
168 Chapter Nine
with the anonymous complicity with violence and terror, which promotes
or tolerates collective subjection to a dictator, complicity with socially
extended and accepted evil, a violence that has become commonplace and
quotidian, and is characterized by acquiescent and anonymous participation.
For Jaspers, recognition of this responsibility is the first step towards
constructing a new collective future, and the starting point for assuming
this responsibility is, as Arendt points out, to exercise the faculty of
judgment.
The issue of collective responsibility in the face of violence is
quintessential among Holocaust scholars. Between the victims and the
perpetrators, represented by the political elites, lies the anonymous mass of
bystanders indifferent to and unmoved by terror, those “ordinary men”
who did nothing to oppose it.9 Arendt, on the other hand, distinguishes
three degrees of responsibility with respect to the rise of Nazism: those
“responsible in a broader sense” or the “co-responsible irresponsible,”10
represented by those who contributed to the rise of Hitler, the
sympathizers of the regime, those who applauded, supported and voted,
and those who, like Heidegger, “demonstrated their incapacity to judge the
political organizations of their time” and “in a broad sense were co-
responsible for Hitler’s crimes.”11 But for Arendt, this connivance and
generalized acceptance does not differ greatly from the support for other
tyrannical regimes. In her view, what turned out to be totally new and
terrifying was the participation “of a whole people in the vast machine of
administrative mass murder,”12 meaning that “everyone is either an
executioner, or a victim, or an automaton, marching onward over the
corpses of his comrades.” According to Arendt, the triumph of the
totalitarian regime was to make the majority of participants cogs in an
enormous death machine. In this sense, the Nazi leaders understood
9
Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men. Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the
Final Solution in Poland (Aquellos hombres grises. El batallón 101 y la solución
final en Polonia) (Madrid: Edhasa, 2002). In this issue, see this valuable work on
the German situation. We can also say that to a great extent, Holocaust studies
have shifted their focus of interest from organizational structures to the role of the
bystanders. Thus, works such as that of Goldhagen concentrate on these aspects of
collective responsibility (although Goldhagen is not always clear on the distinction
between guilt and responsibility), while that of Robert Gellatelly, Not Only Hitler,
focuses on the participation of the German people in the implementation of terror
against the Jews.
10
Hannah Arendt, “Culpa organizada y responsabilidad universal,” in Ensayos
sobre la comprensión (Madrid: Caparrós, 2005), 158.
11
Arendt, “Culpa organizada y responsabilidad universal.”
12
Arendt, “Culpa organizada y responsabilidad universal.”
Political Responsibility in the Construction of the Public Realm 169
13
Arendt, “Culpa organizada y responsabilidad universal,” 162.
14
Arendt, “Culpa organizada y responsabilidad universal.”
170 Chapter Nine
comfort and security of his own private sphere, or, as we would probably
say today, protected by the walls of his condominium, observing the
menacing outside world through his home security camera system. The
citizen is the opposite of the bourgeois in that he or she is actively
committed to the world and to public interests, which are clearly
distinguished from private interests. In contrast to this public man, Arendt
sees in the bourgeois and his ignorance of civic virtues a suitable cultural
medium for the social and political conformism typical of contemporary
mass societies. Apart from this lack of a shared common world, another
factor that facilitates the rise of collective banality is “isolation,”
understood as a symptom of contemporary societies.15 Mass man lives in
isolation, secluded in “the sad opacity of his private life,” immersed in
moral and political solipsism. The triumph of totalitarianism in Europe
was possible largely because society was made up of isolated individuals
with no social or political links between each other: “Only isolated
individuals can be totally dominated.” Hitler was able to build his
organization on the firm ground of an already atomized society that he
then artificially atomized even further. The terms “atomized society” and
“isolated individuals” refer to a state of things in which people “live
together without having anything in common, without sharing any visible
or tangible part of the world.”16 This isolation, “the disease of our time,”
which totalitarianism regimes knew how to use in their favor, facilitated
the destruction of the public sphere and the expansion of mechanisms to
exercise control over individuals whose only reference to the world was
themselves.
In terms similar to those used by Arendt, holocaust studies and social
psychology studies have analyzed the importance of isolation and the
rupture of social bonds as key factors in understanding the mechanisms for
the social production of moral indifference towards the other. In this
context, Stanley Milgram’s studies on unquestioning obedience to authority
and acceptance of the harm inflicted have become classics.17 Milgram´s
analysis demonstrated that moral inhibitions against violence increase
when such violence is authorized by a person or group of persons endowed
with legal, social, political, or scientific authority, when violent actions are
15
In terms that are very similar to Arendt’s, Italian writer Alberto Moravia
describes the protagonist of his novel The Conformist, written in 1951, as a man
who, in the context of Italian Fascism, desperately seeks to do what the rest of
society is doing, to blend into the mass and display great moral indifference.
16
Hannah Arendt, “De la naturaleza del totalitarismo. Ensayo de comprensión,” in
Ensayos sobre la comprensión, (Madrid: Caparrós, 2005), op. cit. 429.
17
Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority (New York: Tavistock, 1974).
Political Responsibility in the Construction of the Public Realm 171
18
Helen Fein, Genocide: A Sociological Perspective (New York: Sage, 1993).
19
Emmanuel Levinas, Ética e infinito (Madrid: Antonio Machado Libros, 2000),
80.
20
Included in the cited work, Arendt, Responsabilidad y juicio.
172 Chapter Nine
21
Arendt, “Responsabilidad personal bajo una dictadura,” Responsabilidad y
juicio, op. cit. 60.
Political Responsibility in the Construction of the Public Realm 173
22
Arendt, “Algunas cuestiones de filosofía moral,” Responsabilidad y juicio, op.
cit., 117.
174 Chapter Nine
23
Hannah Arendt, “Thinking and Moral Considerations,” Social Research 38, 3
(1971:Autumn).
Political Responsibility in the Construction of the Public Realm 175
to as a moral idiot (from the Greek term, idiotes), that is, a morally
apathetic individual who lives in isolation from others, enclosed in
himself, in his privacy, concerned only about himself, and incapable of
thinking about the others.24 Upon observing Eichmann’s conduct during
the trial, Arendt described him in the following terms: “No communication
was possible with him, not because he lied, but because he was surrounded
by the most reliable of all safeguards against words and the presence of
others, and hence against reality as such.”25 The totalitarian system had
triumphed by instilling the dangers of critical examination in an entire
society, and the citizens had become used to not making moral decisions
and to not thinking.
In situations of generalized and accepted violence, however, we also
find dissidents who refuse to collaborate. In this respect, Arendt asks
herself about the types of moral arguments they used to justify their
conduct. The non-participants, in this sense, were the only ones who dared
to make their own judgment. They were the ones who had doubts about
the traditional moral rules, the skeptics. They did not dispose of a better
system of values. They did not automatically pre-judge. They were neither
among the most educated individuals, nor did they belong to a specific
social class (let us recall the Heidegger case). What led them not to
participate was a secular moral argument that is expressed in the Socratic
maxim according to which “it is preferable to suffer injustice than to
commit injustice.” And the reason for that preference, manifested in the
refusal to commit wrongs, is that otherwise those individuals would not
have been able to live with themselves, since this would imply living with
the wrongdoer or the assassin they would have turned into. In other words,
I cannot do certain things because, once I do them, I will not be able to
live in peace with myself.26 In the end, the moral issue of “What should I
do?” depends on what I decide about myself; thus, it is here a question of
self-imposed limits. Arendt is quite aware of the fact that the Socratic type
of moral proposed is a moral for times of crisis, for limit-situations. We
could then ask ourselves what it is that characterizes those limit-situations,
those exceptional moral and political situations. Undoubtedly, the answer
is that those situations are marked by the existence of violence, by the
threat of violence against public space and the shared world we have
created through our actions and deliberations. Morally speaking, in the
24
Norbert Bilbeny, El idiota moral (Barcelona: Anagrama, 1994).
25
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann en Jerusalen. Un estudio sobre la banalidad del mal
(Barcelona: Lumen, 2003), 78.
26
Arendt, “Responsabilidad personal bajo una dictadura,” Responsabilidad y
juicio, 71.
176 Chapter Nine
face of violence, the only solution is to reject it and not participate in its
acceptance. It is in these extreme situations that individual responsibility
acquires its strength and meaning. As Arendt says, “it is these limit-
situations that best provide clarity about issues that would otherwise
remain obscure and equivocal.”27
Thus, it is not appropriate to speak about “obedience” (a term that
would only be appropriate in the domain of religion) with respect to moral
and political issues. Consequently, the question addressed to those who
participated should not be “Why did you obey?” but rather “Why did you
support?” It is only possible to arrive at the maxim that “it is better to
suffer wrong than to do wrong” through the exercise of the capacity to
think. Those whom society often calls “good” or “respectable” people are
not precisely those moral dissidents that we are referring to. On the
contrary, as Arendt points out, those respectable people are those who
constantly appeal to elevated moral principles and adhere to any moral
norm available to them (the important thing is to “have principles,” the
habit of holding fast to something) without exercising the faculty of
judgment. Thus, Arendt tells us that those least inclined to think and judge
were generally those who were most willing to obey; those who most
firmly held fast to the old moral code prevailing before Nazism were also
the most anxious to assimilate the new Nazi moral code.28 In addition, as
we know, moral standards can be changed overnight and replaced by
others, even if the new ones are devoid of content. Let us recall, in this
respect, that the motto that prevailed in Auschwitz was as follows: “There
is only one road to freedom. Its milestones are: obedience, hard work,
honesty, order, cleanliness, sobriety, uprightness, and a sense of sacrifice
and love of the Fatherland.” This is a motto that could well be taken up
nowadays by political parties and a good part of respectable society.
In Nazi Germany, only those who withdrew completely from public
life or refused to go on having an active role in public life were able to
avoid being implicated in crimes. At this point, it is worth making
reference to the story narrated by the German historian and writer Joachim
Fest with respect to non-participation in the Nazi regime as a “moral
attitude,” given its profoundly Arendtian meaning.29 Fest’s father was a
professor who belonged to the German bourgeoisie and who would be
removed from public office under suspicion of carrying out “activities
hostile to the state,” and refusing to recant his opinions about the
government. His opposition to the regime brought about the family’s
27
Arendt, “Responsabilidad colectiva,” Responsabilidad y juicio, 158.
28
Arendt, “Algunas cuestiones de filosofía moral,” Responsabilidad y juicio, 118.
29
Joachim Fest, Yo no (Madrid: Taurus, 2007).
Political Responsibility in the Construction of the Public Realm 177
30
Arendt, “Algunas cuestiones sobre filosofía moral,” in Responsabilidad y juicio,
111.
Political Responsibility in the Construction of the Public Realm 179
1
University of La Laguna, Spain. This paper has been supported by the Spanish
Government that financed the Research Program “Justice, gender and citizenship.
Feminization of migration and human rights.” (FFI2011-24120).
2
Other approaches, in Spanish, to these topics, are: Fina Birulés, “Notas sobre
Hannah Arendt y los feminismos,” Revista Anthropos, n. 224 (2009), 151-157;
Cristina Sánchez, “Hannah Arendt y la teoría feminista: acuerdos y desacuerdos,”
in Hannah Arendt e a Condição Humana, Adriano Correia (Org.) (Salvador de
Bahía: Quarteto, 2006); Neus Campillo, “Mundo' y 'pluralidad' en Hannah
Arendt,” Intersticios, year 10, numbers 22-23 (2005): 87-100.
Arendt and Contemporary Feminisms: Ontology and Politics 181
3
Linda Zerilli. El feminismo y el abismo de la libertad (Buenos Aires: Fondo de
Cultura Económica, 2008). [Linda Zerilli, Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005)].
4
Seyla Benhabib. The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt (London: Sage,
1994).
5
Julia Kristeva, Hannah Arendt. El genio femenino (Buenos Aires: Paidós, 1999).
6
The following works continue to be essential for the topic that interests us:
Bonnie Honig (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt (Penn State Press,
1995); and, especially, Mary G. Dietz, “Feminist Receptions of Hannah Arendt,”
in op. cit., pp. 17-49. Another work that analyzes the feminist reception of
Arendt’s thought and its nuances: Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, “Hannah Arendt
between Feminists,” in Hannah Arendt. Twenty Years Later, eds. L. May and J.
Kohn (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997), 307-324.
182 Chapter Ten
7
Adrienne Rich, Sobre mentiras, secretos y silencios (Barcelona: Icaria, 1983).
[Adrienne Rich, On Lies, Secrets and Silence (Norton, 1995)].
Arendt and Contemporary Feminisms: Ontology and Politics 183
pointed out that the agonistic character of the public sphere, which
glorified the Greek model, was a result of her machismo, while Wendy
Brown, in agreement with O´Brien, emphasized the alleged “horror,” of
Greek origin, that Arendt felt at “the natural,” at necessity, which
prevented her from identifying with those who are in its service and to
take sides with those who are capable of situating themselves in a space
free of necessity, outside the responsibility for maintaining life.
Other feminists, such as Terry Winant, Nancy Hartsock, and Jean
Bethke Elshtain carry out a different reading that vindicates the feminine
in Arendt’s thought. The intersubjective, relational emphasis of Arendt’s
work was linked to her female being, which recognized our constitutive
vulnerability and our dependency on others. The concept of natality was
thus glorified in opposition to Western philosophy’s insistence on
mortality,8 on the fact that everything comes to an end, thus ignoring the
importance of new beginnings.9 In my view, a rather forced connection
between natality and maternity is used to defend the positive difference
between Arendt and other political theorists.
The 1980s, however, will see an inflection in interpretative trends.
Fortunately, the requirement that a female thinker had to be a feminist and
declare her loyalty to the women’s cause began to fade away. Such
demands for loyalty started to be considered narrow-minded and opposed
to an important feminist postulate, which obviously involves taking into
account the determinants produced by the so-called “sex-gender system.”
As Maria Markus says,
“For if being a woman is an experience of the importance ascribed to it
(...) by feminism, and then it has to have an impact upon theoretical
investigations produced by women, even if they are not related directly to
feminist issues. Not to take them into account cannot but impoverish the
perspectives and the ‘ways of seeing’ of feminist theory.”10
8
Adriana Cavarero, “Decir el Nacimiento,” in Diótima, Traer el mundo al mundo
(Barcelona: Icaria, 1996).
9
Hans Jonas, El principio de responsabilidad (Barcelona: Herder, 1994). [Hans
Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological
Age (University of Chicago Press, 1984)]. Arendt and her friend Hans Jonas linked
the concepts of natality and responsibility, proposing that we acknowledge the
imperative to conserve the “world” or the planet earth for the newly-born and for
future generations.
10
Maria Markus, “The "Antifeminism" of Hannah Arendt," in Thesis Eleven, num.
17 (1987): 76.
184 Chapter Ten
Additionally, Markus points out that Arendt’s real “heroine” was Rosa
Luxemburg, the unyielding, heterodox revolutionary who fought against
injustice and defended freedom,11 with whom she shared the belief that the
“woman question” could not be dealt with in isolation from “a wider
political struggle.” In “Le problème de la femme dans le monde
contemporain,”12 a review of Alice Ruhle-Gerstel’s book with that same
title, written in 1932, Arendt takes stock of the situation of women, in the
following terms. Women’s access to the professional world has been
regulated, but despite the fact that they enjoy formal equality, they
continue to be legally dependent on their husbands and the “social
evaluation” of their work does not conform to an egalitarian framework.
Women have lower salaries; they are professionally underestimated; they
have to deal with what we would call today a double work shift; there is a
great deal of social pressure on divorced women, etc. All of this is
embellished, at that early date, with a curious comment on the possibility
of “a united women’s front,” an idea that seems very remote to Arendt
who believes that a movement targeted at women as women, whose
situations are very diverse, appeals to an extremely “abstract” notion.
In this respect, Françoise Collin would say, also in the 1980s, that
Arendt’s commitment to politics gives rise to a new possibility of
separating feminism from the old social movement models inherited from
Marxism and giving it a strictly political definition:
“Since that which urges women to rebel is not the pressure of misery…,
but rather the absence of rights, the exclusion from the common world,
their being denied a voice.”13
11
Op. cit, p. 82.
12
Hannah Arendt, reprinted in Les Cahiers du Grif , num. 33, Printemps (1986):
69-72.
13
Françoise Collin, “Actualité de Hannah Arendt, » Les Cahiers du Grif, num. 33
(1986): 6.
Arendt and Contemporary Feminisms: Ontology and Politics 185
14
Seyla Benhabib, “La paria y su sombra: sobre la invisibilidad de las mujeres en
la filosofía política de Hannah Arendt,” Revista Internacional de Filosofía
Política, nº 2, noviembre, (1993). [Seyla Benhabib, "The Pariah and Her Shadow:
On the Invisibility of Women in Hannah Arendt's Political Philosophy," Political
Theory, 23 (Feb 1995): 5-24].
15
Joanne Cutting-Gray, “Hannah Arendt, Feminism and the Politics of Alterity,”
Hypatia´s Daugthers, ed. Linda Lopez McAllister (Indiana University Press,
1996).
16
Bonnie Honig, “Toward an Agonistic Feminism: Hannah Arendt and the Politics
of Identity,” In B. Honig, op. cit.
17
Celia Amorós. “De usos y abusos de las abstracciones”. In Tiempo de feminismo.
Madrid: Cátedra, 1997, 261-302.
186 Chapter Ten
18
Seyla Benhabib, “On Hegel, Women, and Irony,” in Situating the Self: Gender,
Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (New York: Routledge
and Chapman & Hall, Inc., 1992), 242.
19
Benhabib, “On Hegel, Women, and Irony.”
188 Chapter Ten
20
Seyla Benhabib, “El otro concreto y el otro generalizado. Sobre el debate en la
teoría moral entre Kohlberg y Gilligan,” in Teoría Feminista y Teoría Crítica
(1990): 119-149; Seyla Benhabib, “Fuentes de la Identidad y del Yo en la Teoría
Feminista Contemporánea,” Laguna, Revista de Filosofía, num. 3 (1995-1996),
162.
Arendt and Contemporary Feminisms: Ontology and Politics 189
inequalities that impede “isonomy” and “isegoria” in the public sphere are
generated. Iris Marion Young pointed this out when she stated that the
reversibility of perspectives entailed by the Kantian “putting oneself in the
place of another” with respect to judgment, to the maxims of common
sense, could prove to be hurtful or merely a mockery when applied to
subjects with asymmetrical social situations.21 In this respect, Arendt does
not help us to think about how to eradicate gender inequalities. Feminism
needs the Arendtian inspiration in order to think about politics, but it must
remain faithful to its own tradition when it comes to accounting for or
explaining the phenomenology of sexist oppression through the analytics
of gender. The political creativity of feminism has overflowed into the
social field, challenging liberal myths such as that of merit and questioning
the liberal vision that sees only individuals. The legislative and
institutional breakthroughs regarding policies of equality help pave the
way toward the material and symbolic conditions of possibility of political
equality between men and women.
Before assessing the attempt to label a political feminism as Arendtian,
however, we must first address a key ontological innovation in Arendt’s
thought, that is, natality.
21
Cristina Sánchez, “Seyla Benhabib,” in Teorías políticas contemporáneas ed. R.
Maíz, Tirant lo Blanc, (2009), 281.
22
Hans Jonas, "Acting, Knowing, Thinking: Gleanings from Hannah Arendt ‘s
Philosophical Work," Social Research, 44/1 (1977): 27, 30.
190 Chapter Ten
23
Françoise Collin, L´homme est-il devenu superflu? Hannah Arendt (Paris: Odile
Jacob, 1999), 203 ff.
24
Julia Kristeva, op. cit., 57.
Arendt and Contemporary Feminisms: Ontology and Politics 191
is not a value in itself, but is only “fully realized when it does not cease to
question both meaning and action.” The intelligibility of its narration is
what makes human life human. If, as Sartre held, we are condemned to be
free, it is because we have been born, because it is the renewal of life that
grounds freedom and that requires women as its protagonists. Kristeva
goes beyond Arendt when she speaks of the love for that “anyone” the
child is, who brings us face to face with the radical otherness of the
newborn and its constitutive fragility. The mother is the weaver of
individuation through love. The mother makes possible the transition from
zoe to bios: “life in the Arendtian sense shall be feminine or it shall not
be.”25 Ontologically and politically, the issue of birth as the foundation of
human freedom is thus revealed and laid open.
In sum, care and responsibility toward others are the feminine traits
found in the feminist readings of Arendt that interpret natality beyond
Arendt. Indeed, Arendt shows a great awareness of the intersubjective and
of responsibility for others, an awareness that she shares with other
thinkers of her generation who had also been Heidegger’s students, such as
Jonas and Levinas. Compared to these authors, Arendt’s proposal features
a markedly political sense, which, in turn, rethinks plurality, differences,
and politics itself, from the standpoint of the ontology of natality. The
feminist emphasis on the ethics and politics of responsibility for others, for
the common world, or for nature, is inspired, according to Kristeva, in the
female experiences of care. Unknowingly, Arendt was to contribute to
curing amnesia regarding the fact that we come from others, from men and
women who loved each other, and, unintentionally, through her emphasis
on the centrality of birth, she was to stress the role of women. In brief,
Arendt helps us in correcting the original matricide on which the western
philosophical and political tradition has been based. This “forgetting the
mother” has historically led to the political death of women. By opening
up the issue of birth, Arendt allows us to go further, to open up the road to
women’s freedom, as we shall see below.
In our opinion, natality, that original key concept of the Arendtian
conceptual framework, goes beyond the generic fact of procreation or of
the rediscovery and celebration of maternity. Natality points to the original
irruption of a new being into the common world, as the seed containing the
possibility of new beginnings.26 Action, as opposed to labor and work, is
thought from the standpoint of natality. Arendt’s philosophy lays the
ground for a new type of humanism that vindicates every individual’s
25
Op. cit., 63.
26
Jacques Taminiaux, "La vie de quelqu'un," Les Cahiers du Grif, num. 33, 35
(1986).
192 Chapter Ten
An Arendtian Feminism?
Finally, I shall carry out an assessment of Linda Zerilli’s proposal of
an “Arendtian feminism.” The theoretical filiations of feminisms are many
by now. Foucault, Habermas, Derrida, Deleuze, and, now, Arendt mark
the proposals of famous feminist theorists such as Butler, Benhabib,
Cixous, Braidotti, and many others. In order to understand feminist theory
and its current debates, such as the recently resumed discussion between
gender theorists and theorists of sexual difference, it is essential to
understand how feminism has made conceptual and theoretical use of
contemporary philosophy.29
Zerilli proposes Arendt’s onto-political philosophy as a means of
overcoming the “sterile” feminist debates regarding identities. This
polemical trend dates back to the late eighties and played itself out against
the background of the postmodern attack, whose diagnosis of the crisis of
Enlightenment reason destabilized the very concept of women as subjects
of the feminist struggle. The eruption of differences—sexual orientation,
race, ethnic background, culture...—expressed itself in different ways, but
Judith Butler’s thought acquired a certain hegemonic status, given her
proposal of a feminism inspired in Foucault and Derrida, aimed at
27
Wolfgang Heuer, “Europe and its refugees: Arendt and the politicization of
minorities,” Social Research, vol. 74, Winter (2007): 1159 – 1172.
28
Françoise Collin, Op. cit.,144.
29
Rosi Braidotti, Metamorfosis. Hacia una teoría materialista del devenir,
(Madrid: Akal, 2005). [Metamorphoses: Toward a Materialist Theory of
Becoming].This debate is mapped by Braidotti in “Becoming Woman, or Sexual
Difference Revisited,” where she adds a Deleuzian inspiration to the theoretical
current of sexual difference that starts out with Irigaray, in opposition to gender
theory.
Arendt and Contemporary Feminisms: Ontology and Politics 193
30
Neus Campillo, “Comprensión y juicio,” Daimon, Revista de Filosofía, nº. 26
(2002): 125-140.
194 Chapter Ten
31
Linda Zerilli, op. cit, 330.
Arendt and Contemporary Feminisms: Ontology and Politics 195
ongoing controversy over her proposals.32 The point is that our path has
taken us from an initial wave of incomprehension of Arendt’s thought, to
the exploration of “intersections” and “incisions” on the part of Benhabib,
Kristeva, and Zerilli herself, which link Arendtian interpretations to some
of the burning issues of contemporary feminist debates: tradition,
identities, differences, plurality, life, and freedom, all of this in order to
rethink feminist politics and its challenges.
I would venture the conclusion that the “radicalism” of the Arendtian
feminism proposed by Zerilli has, as a consequence, objecting to practices
of world-building, to use her own terms, associated with the institutional
and theoretical creativity of the feminism of the last decades. Both the
advances in public policies of equality—at the local, national, and
international levels—and the endeavors of women’s and gender studies are
challenged by Zerilli as efforts that should be laid aside in favor of a
feminist politics that gives priority to freedom.
As stated before, I believe that the initial feminist objections to
Arendt—disregard for the social, underestimation of labor, and the rigid
distinction between the public and the private—were not completely out of
focus. Arendt never realized how the machinery of the sex-gender system
and its capacity to reproduce inequalities between men and women
disqualified political equality itself. The achievement of social equality,
however, is what has allowed women to gradually have access to
citizenship. It would be practically impossible to understand the history of
feminism itself without taking into account the dialectics between both
values: equality and freedom. Radical gestures contribute refreshing and
necessary innovations, such as that of presenting us, in an Arendtian
manner, with the possibility of a post-gender space of politics as an
anticipatory utopia, but the facts, the situation of inequality of women
around the world prevent us from neglecting the social question or
addressing women’s subjectivities. I do not believe that it is possible to
subtract the cognitive dimension—the study of social reality—or the
normative dimension—the processes of institutionalization—from politics,
although it is true that one must be wary of the dogmatism and the
sclerosis that these usually tend toward. The theoretical and political
practice of feminism is plural and polemical and subject to dislocation and
relocation processes due to the relevance of the transnational processes
that we are living today, such as migrations, globalization, media cultural
imperialism, feminization of poverty, postcolonial demands, and
32
As an example: Leslie Paul Thiele, “Judging Hannah Arendt: A Reply to
Zerilli,” Political Theory, num. 33 (October 2005): 706-714.
Arendt and Contemporary Feminisms: Ontology and Politics 197
ÁNGEL RIVERO1
Along the years, Ágnes Heller has developed a sustained interest in the
philosophy of Hannah Arendt. She has written some pieces dedicated to
the author of On Revolution and she also addressed many questions to her
in a plurality of books. Although both thinkers belong to different
experiences and there was no personal relationship between the two, it can
be said that there was a dialogue among them. Of course, a dialogue
between two persons that speak from different places and different times
without addressing each other (only Heller addressed Arendt) can be seen
as a term of abuse. Why not to talk of a monologue of Heller on Arendt?
Nonetheless, it is a dialogue, and the answer is not rhetorical in as far as
Heller in her essays always gives voice as a partner to Arendt. For
instance, Heller stated that, “if Arendt lived today, she would surely write
a new preface to her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, as she did every
time historical junctures called for further explanation. The greatest tribute
I can pay to her memory is to try to perform this task.”2 It seems to me
that, for Heller, Arendt is not simply a topic to be studied, the passive
recipient of philosophical analysis, but a living philosopher, always prone
to engage in discussion. So, there was, in this sense, a dialogue between
the two.
Underneath this dialogue, Heller´s will to discuss with Arendt, there
are also some striking similarities between the lives of the two. And, not
least important, significant differences in relation to the topic I will
address: their understanding of freedom-liberty. To begin with the most
1
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.
2
Ferenc Fehér and Ágnes Heller, Eastern Left / Western Left (Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1987): 244-245.
The Concept and the Experience of Freedom 199
3
Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future (London: Penguin, 1968): 157.
200 Chapter Eleven
freedom and action, can establish their own reality. So, freedom, above all,
means the capacity men have to create a world for themselves. Not a world
apart for individuals, but a world that results from a collective effort.
Arendt’s freedom is, in a nutshell, political action, and given that this
understanding of freedom declined in the history of the West, its rare
apparitions should be celebrated as great events. In fact, in her view, what
we call liberties understood as rights, the basic stuff of modern
democracies, is not freedom. Arendt is very conscious in making clear this
distinction. For her, one thing is to be liberated and another, very different,
is freedom. Of course, freedom implies liberty in a negative sense, the
very possibility of action, but it is a misunderstanding to equate freedom
and liberty. In her view, the reason of this misunderstanding was that, in a
world with no freedom, liberty was the highest social value. And from
what she perceives as an error follows almost an axiom in political theory:
to understood political freedom not as a political event but, on the
contrary, as a panoply more or less wide of non-political activities that a
political body allows or warrants to those that make part of it.4
Arendt is crystal clear in her understanding of liberty and freedom. The
most valuable liberal understanding of liberty, negative liberty, is not
freedom for her. Freedom, in her understanding, is solely the collective
exercise of political power. Freedom is not private enjoyment; freedom is
what we call political liberty, the participation in political life, collective
self-government.
We find here the reason why Arendt values so much the models of
ancient democracy and the contributions of moralists, like Cicero, that
make a call in favor of civic virtues as the best foundation of the republic.
The republic is not a mere State. The republic is, in her view, the
incarnation of citizens’ public-political action. In this picture, the
American Revolution is revalued because it incarnates the Machiavellian
moment of the “constitutio libertatis,” the making of a republic by political
participation. And, her peculiar view on freedom and political action
explains why her concerns on the crisis of the republic are raised by what
she sees as lack of civic virtues. The American Republic is in decline
because the people are losing the freedom faith of political action, and that
means the abandonment of the commitment with politics for the mere
enjoyment of private liberty.
In this line, Arendt, in the second edition of The Origins of
Totalitarianism, added a new chapter on the Hungarian revolution of 1956,
which she celebrated again as a new instance of political freedom. To her,
4
Arendt, Between Past and Future, 149.
The Concept and the Experience of Freedom 201
the uprising of the Hungarian people against soviet domination was a new
instance of freedom as political participation because soldiers, workers,
and citizens created institutions, as councils, where freedom was deployed
through direct political participation. For Arendt, this last instance was
especially important because it showed a direct confrontation between a
political revolution and a social one. Politics is about arranging collective
life, but the social question is a failed intent to go beyond politics. The
social question triggers political life, but to dream about solving social
questions without politics is simply a nightmare.
For Arendt, Europe´s evasion of politics ended in the totalitarian
regimes of Fascism and Communism. On the other hand, America had a
political revolution that today, almost two hundred years later, is under
threat. It is threatened because citizenship as active political participation
is under decline. America was her shelter from persecution but her shelter
is losing its connection with the civic ideals of the ancient polis. America
exemplifies now the “Crisis of the Republic.”5
The biographical experience of Ágnes Heller was quite different, to the
effect that, although sharing many common ideas, they arrive to radically
different conclusions. For Arendt, the Great Republic was America; for
Heller, the Great Republic was a utopia located east of the Elbe River. In
Heller´s defense of a Great Republic, of course, Arendt is present in a
conversational way: “Arendt was enthusiastic about the institutions which
mushroomed during the ten free days of the Hungarian revolution of
1956.”6 But, beyond sharing enthusiasm for the 1956 Hungarian
revolution there is discrepancy: their understanding of freedom-liberty is
radically different, and it is also radically different their reading of
totalitarianism and the assessment of the value of liberty and democracy.
Ágnes Heller was a survivor of the Holocaust and, at the same time,
she was also harassed by Communism. In her works, there are very few
references to Nazism and the references to the Holocaust are also rare. On
the contrary, she has dedicated many pages to the study of communist
societies, either alone or with Ferenc Fehér and other members of the
Budapest School. She understood this task as a way of coming to terms
with her own hopes. As known, Heller was a pupil of Georg Lukács. With
her master and with other members of the School of Budapest, she worked
in providing theoretical foundations to the democratization of the socialist
societies. The project failed for the very reason that reform was impossible
5
Hannah Arendt, Crisis of the Republic (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1972).
6
Ferenc Fehér and Ágnes Heller, Eastern Left / Western Left (Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1987): 189.
202 Chapter Eleven
in those types of societies. What they called the “dictatorship over needs”
made part of the very structure of soviet type societies and, as such,
democratization was simply out of place. So, the main lesson learned by
the Budapest School was that their aim was wrong, that Lukács’s dream of
a democratic socialism far more advanced than social capitalism was a
total misrepresentation of the reality of communist dictatorships. Exile is
what followed for the vast majority of the members of the school. Given
that they were the representatives of the New Left in the East, their
message was received with contempt in the West. The Western Left was
interested in the crisis of capitalism, in the crisis of representative
democracy, or in the crisis of the Welfare State but not in the crisis of
Socialism. So, for Heller, exile meant the abandonment of her self-
delusions but also the beginning of a new understanding of Modernity.
From that moment onwards, Modernity was no longer a process of social
transformation from traditional societies to socialism, the final station of
Modernity, but a process of social transformation from closed societies to
open ones. For Heller, Modernity means the removal of certitudes and the
realization of contingency, and that is freedom.
To Heller, Communism has its roots in the modern ideology of
industrialism and, as said, it is best described as a dictatorship over needs.7
Communism is, to Heller, a dead end of Modernity, a path that goes to
nowhere, and the societies that embarked on it have to go back to retake
the main Modernity route: democracy. That is, openness.
Let me state here my point. Arendt can be seen as someone that has
homesickness of the ancient polis and, in this sense, she was a critic of the
liberty of the moderns and, in fact, a strong critic of Modernity. And for
good reasons, totalitarianism can be seen as the last stop of Modernity.
Heller, on the contrary, is hyper-modern. To her, our task today is to keep
open the project of Modernity, and this means to accept our contingency,
and by doing that to accept and enjoy our freedom.
Hilary Putnam, the American philosopher, pointed out that we
westerners tend to assume the notions of tolerance and pluralism.8 Thus,
when we read in the classics a conflict of opinions, we tend to think that
that was an instance of the vitality of those societies. But it should be
stressed that those societies contemplate conflict in a different mood. For
the classics of the Ancient world, the diversity of opinions was a clear sign
7
Ferenc Fehér, Ágnes Heller and Gyorgy Markus, Dictatorship over Needs
(London: Palgrave-MacMillan, 1983).
8
Hilary Putnam, Pragmatism. An Open Question (Cambridge USA: Blackwell,
1995), 1.
The Concept and the Experience of Freedom 203
9
Putnam, Pragmatism, 1-2.
10
Ágnes Heller, A Theory of Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 4, 54.
204 Chapter Eleven
11
Heller, A Theory of Modernity, viii.
The Concept and the Experience of Freedom 205
12
Simon Tormey, “Interviews with Professor Ágnes Heller,” Daímon, Revista de
Filosofía, 17 (1998): 23.
206 Chapter Eleven
historical memory to see that the margin was able to get to the center. So,
Arendt had a point, but she drew a very negative consequence from it. She
said that there should not be general elections at all, but rather that people
should always be participants. This is dangerous.”13
In this chapter, I have tried to show that there was in fact a dialogue
between Arendt and Heller. But, given that this dialogue was imaginary,
some qualifications have to be made. Heller discusses with Arendt not as a
device to give authority to her own statements but leaving room to her
voice in order to have a real conversation. One of the topics of this
conversation is freedom and, as in every dialogue, there are some points of
agreement but also striking differences. Arendt developed a strong
criticism of Modernity through her analysis of totalitarianism and, at the
same time, she made an idealization of the ancient polis and its modern
incarnation in political revolutions, like the American Revolution. She
behaved like a witness of the malaises of Modernity and as a defender of
the alternative tradition of civic freedom. On the contrary, Heller has a
different experience of Modernity, and also a different understanding of
freedom. Modernity, by destroying all previous social bonds throes us into
freedom. But freedom has many faces. One of the faces of modern
freedom is political freedom, which points to the possibility of organizing
our political life by constituting a political community. This is clearly one
of the possibilities that Modernity offers us in order to cope with
contingency. But contingency is in itself the modern condition, so freedom
is not limited to political life but to all spheres of human activity in
modern societies. Thus, as far as liberal democracy institutes freedom as
the basic condition of individuals, that is, creates an institutional
framework where individuals can give themselves a destiny, this kind of
freedom is as important as the political one.
In my view, Arendt´s experience of the twentieth century makes her a
critic of Modernity, whereas Heller´s experience of the same century
makes her a defender of radical Modernity. To Arendt, freedom to be real
is something to be exercised with others. However, for Heller, this is only
one aspect of freedom because freedom is not only action but contingency
understood as openness to forge our own destiny.
13
Tormey, “Interviews with Professor Ágnes Heller.”
PART III:
ÁNGEL PRIOR1
1
Universidad de Murcia, Spain. Translation by Suzanne Islas Azaïs.
2
Ágnes Heller, “La situación moral en la modernidad,” in Políticas de la
postmodernidad. Ensayos de crítica cultural, trans. Montserrat Gurgui (Barcelona:
Península, 1989), 51.
Politics and Morality in the Dialogue of Heller with Arendt 209
3
We cannot but note the similarity that both Heller and Arendt were awarded with
the Lessing prize of the city of Hamburg and, also, that they both wrote papers on
the author in their acceptance speeches. Arendt won the prize in 1951, Heller in
1981. Arendt´s speech: “Sobre la humanidad en tiempos de oscuridad. Reflexiones
sobre Lessing,” in Hombres en tiempos de oscuridad, trans. C. Ferrari (Barcelona:
Gedisa, 1992), 13-41. Heller´s speech: “Ilustración contra fundamentalismo: el
caso Lessing” can be found in Crítica de la Ilustración, trans. G. Muñoz y J. I.
López Soria (Barcelona: Península, 1984), 5-19. In her essay, Arendt stresses
Lessing´s attitude of selbstdenken, while Heller moral universalism. Both defend
Lessing´s idea of Enlightenment.
4
Heller, “La situación moral en la modernidad,” 51.
5
Ferenc Fehér's role in Heller's thought cannot be obviated here given the division
of tasks between her and her husband. The development of an own political theory
dates from the time in Australia. In the interview with S. Tormey on days 1 and 2
in July 1998 in Budapest and published in the journal Daímon, Heller talks about
Fehér's talent for political philosophy and says that he thought they both should
work on a political philosophy and so a certain division of labor was established
between them (Daímon, "Modernidad y teoría política en Ágnes Heller,” num. 17,
July-December 1998, 45). Regarding the intellectual relationship between the
spouses, once again we cannot but mention the similarity with the relationship
between Arendt and her husband Heinrich Blücher, as evidenced by their
210 Chapter Twelve
republic.”10
The distinction between “the social” and “the political” is important in
Arendt. According to Fehér, it would be present in all her work and it
would reach its highest point in The Human Condition. It would be
something proper of modern times, where we can find that local and
temporal separation of the social from its initial area, the private, by the
combination of technological innovation and division of labor. The
consequence of these changes would be the "socialization of politics.”
"With this, Arendt means a type of politics whose sole and growing
interest was not anymore the issue of free self-government, an end in
itself, but the ‘social question.’ To put it in other words, the inclusion of
economic issues in the agenda of a certain political body."11
The author echoes the accusations at that time of Arendt's "elitist
arrogance," also the more nuanced criticism of Richard Bernstein, who
proposed that Arendt´s private-social-political trichotomy should be
reduced to a dichotomy between private and the political, since insisting
on the social realm is “methodologically misleading and politically
dangerous.” Not all issues are political, but may become political.12 From
here, Fehér proposes a compensatory criticism of Arendt's trichotomy. He
accepts her point against Marx that the political sphere must not be
abolished nor struck down, but it has to be maintained and also keep its
primacy. But—following Ágnes Heller—, the social actor has different
skills, so the problem turns into a different one. Revolutions cannot solve
the social question, particularly the problem of poverty, but the actors of
free institutions, the citizens of a republic, can and should try it to do it,
even if only in a provisional—and not final—sense.13
10
Ferenc Fehér, “El paria y el ciudadano (sobre la teoría política de Arendt),” in
Políticas de la postmodernidad. Ensayos de crítica cultural, Ágnes Heller y Ferenc
Fehér (Peninsula, 1994), 268-269.
11
Heller and Fehér, Políticas de la postmodernidad, 275.
12
Heller and Fehér, Políticas de la postmodernidad, 277; Ferenc Fehér, “Contra la
metafísica de la cuestión social,” in Politicas de la modernidad. Ensayos de crítica
cultural, Ágnes Heller y Ferenc Fehér (Peninsula, 1994), 248-249). In “Contra la
metafísica de la cuestión social,” Fehér recognizes some of Arendt´s specific
insights but does not agree with her position because, for him, eliminating the
social question from the permanent agenda of Modernity is something as
impossible as retrograde. He does not believe either that Marx turned into a
philosopher of the social question instead of a philosopher of freedom.
13
Heller and Fehér, Políticas de la postmodernidad, 280. Fehér insists on stressing
that the citizen must act to solve the social question because of three reasons: a) the
scandal of tolerating poverty, b) because the perpetuation of poverty could become
a suicide for freedom, and c) because of the false spiritualization of freedom if we
212 Chapter Twelve
would have to divide the world in deeds that belong to freedom, and deeds that
satisfy needs (pp. 280-281). In his article, “Freedom and the ‘social question’
(Hannah Arendt´s Theory of the French Revolution),” Philosophy & Social
Criticism, (1987), 12, 1, 1-30, Fehér considers the issue of the “social question” in
Arendt´s analysis of the French revolution in On revolution.
14
Ágnes Heller, “Tradizione e Nuovo Inizio in Hannah Arendt,” trans. F. P.
Vertova, Iride, nº. 27, May-Aug. (1999): 277-290. On Heller´s paper, see Pedro
Medina Reinón in “Horizontes para una nueva Europa,” in Los dos pilares de la
ética moderna. Diálogos con Ágnes Heller, eds. Ágnes Heller and Ángel Prior
(Zaragoza: Libros del Innombrable, 2008), 69-82.
15
Ibid., 284. Even though the tone is mostly sympathetic, Heller states that, to her,
The Human Condition as a story on the decline of the West is a reading not entirely
wrong, but unilateral.
16
Ibid., 285. In a brief exposition, for Arendt, pure action, pure political action, is
in the birth of Europe, among Greeks and Romans. Later it becomes marginal
because labor and work have taken the top honors among the Europeans. But it is
always possible to act, even in the midst of a “society of workers,” because it is
possible in all times. It is always possible to start an action and there can always
Politics and Morality in the Dialogue of Heller with Arendt 213
20
Ágnes Heller, “Nueva visita a ‘El concepto de lo politico,’” in Historia y futuro
¿Sobrevivirá la modernidad? trans. Montserrat Gurguí, (Barcelona: Península,
1991), 81-97. This quotation in page 87.
21
Ibid., 81.
22
Ibid., 84. Heller goes on saying: for Schmitt, “politics is direct action, mob
action in which friends are mobilized against enemies. Schmitt´s concept of ‘the
political’ is, thus, equivalent to the permanent state of war against both internal and
external enemies.”
23
Heller, Ibid., 86.
Politics and Morality in the Dialogue of Heller with Arendt 215
24
Ibid., 87.
25
Idem.
26
Idem., 88. Heller goes on saying: “Again, I do not question here Arendt´s partial
vision of politics; rather, I´m opposed to her self-created dilemma, that of being
committed to democracy on the one hand, and, on the other, her exclusion of a
wide variety of issues that men and women consider as political matters really
urgent in their everyday life. This obsession with the exclusively political, as well
as the disdain of the ‘mere daily practices,’ is a typical problematic feature of the
radical branch of political philosophy.”
27
Idem.
216 Chapter Twelve
supposedly trivial of our everyday life.28 In the end, her proposal is based
on "the concretization of the universal value of freedom in the public
domain.”29
With regards to Arendt´s link with the concept of the political, we still
have to find out if she is linked to the political decisionism of Carl
Schmitt. The issue is addressed by Heller in her text "Decision, a matter of
will or of choice,” a paper from the same period of “New visit to the
‘concept of the political.’” In Schmitt, the term "decisionism" designates
theories with three features: a) they attach key importance to the decision
in political issues, b) they understand sovereignty as the power of final
decision, and c) they consider the state of exception as the purest
manifestation of that power.30 It is in the second feature where Heller
comments Arendt's position. Schmitt defends sovereignty as the will of the
state based on the power of decision, but he rejects the alternative
definition of sovereignty as the emanating source of all powers, because
then the delegation of power would be at least reasonable, representativeness
and parliamentarism would become viable political forms, and the clash of
interests, the discussion, and the compromise could be assumed as political
events.31 According to Heller, Arendt too “looks down upon the alternative
concept of sovereignty," and so she hailed in the American Revolution,
"the alleged absence of the concept of sovereignty within its institutional
framework. Unlike Schmitt, Arendt fiercely advocated for heterogeneity
and discussion. Anyways, it is interesting that she never went beyond the
identification of decision and will. This is the main reason why she had to
ignore the problem of decision in her political philosophy. She focused
instead, quite simply, in actions, awarding the ability to judge to political
actors.”32
28
Ibid., 97.
29
Ibid., 96. An acute analysis on the problems with the Hellerian concept of the
political can be found in Rafael Herrera Guillén, “El concepto de lo politico de
Ágnes Heller (Interrogantes histórico-conceptuales),” in Los dos pilares de la ética
moderna. Diálogos con Ágnes Heller, eds. Ágnes Heller and Ángel Prior (Libros
Del Innombrable, 2009), op. cit., 167-176.
30
Ágnes Heller, “La decisión, cuestión de voluntad o de elección,” in Zona
abierta, trans. by Maria Martínez-Lage, num. 53 (1989), 149-161. The quotation
here 149. A. Kalyvas offers a relatively similar recapitulation of decisionism and
also elaborates on the analogies between Schmitt and Arendt, but unfortunately he
does not quote Heller´s essay (Andreas Kalyvas, “From the Act to the Decision.
Hannah Arendt and the Question of Decisionism,” Political Theory, 32, num. 3
(June 2004): 323.
31
Ibid., 153-154.
32
Ibid., 154.
Politics and Morality in the Dialogue of Heller with Arendt 217
33
Heller, "The concept of the political revisited," 94, emphasis added. In fact, in
her reformulation of the concept of the political the actors´ decision plays a
relevant role. Justifying a formal approach to the concept she says: "The specific
nature of things that are included or not has been left undefined. In fact, anything
that satisfies other criteria of ‘the political’ really become political if men and
women decide that it should be discussed of answered in the public domain; in the
same way, anything can stop being political if removed from the agenda of interest
public."
34
Heller, “La decisión, cuestión de voluntad o de elección,” 157.The reference to
Kierkegaard is also important because of what entails separating decisionism from
anthropological pessimism. Kierkegaard, who rejected the doctrine of human
depravity, considered that "men, in general, are neither good nor bad: they may
choose themselves as good and can also misunderstand the choice. They can also
opt for a choice of an aesthetic nature and remain open to the influence of evil, to
which they eventually succumb or not. In short, the philosophy of existential
choice in no way prejudges political philosophy: it leaves all options open.”
35
Ibid., 158.
36
Ibid., 159.
218 Chapter Twelve
we should not blame the model.”37 Regarding the third feature, Heller, on
one hand, believes that Schmitt caught with realism the usual fact of
governments or presidents taking actions as if the state of exception had
been proclaimed. On the other, it is "better to endorse the principle that all
decisions should be taken, at last and final resort, under the jurisdiction of
the sovereign people. If the principle of modern democracy is strictly
followed real sovereignty and nominal sovereignty fully coincide."38 The
author warns us that it is dangerous to want to perpetuate the exceptions
under extreme situations, such as the changes of sovereignty, but it is also
dangerous to forget that exceptions are present in the rule. "Schmitt
succumbed to the first of these dangers; his opponents sometimes succumb
to the second one.”39
37
Idem.
38
Ibid., 160.
39
Ibid., 161.
40
Ágnes Heller, “Hannah Arendt on the vita contemplative,” in The Grandeur and
Twilight of Radical Universalism, Ágnes Heller and Ferenc Fehér (New
Brunswick-London: Transactio Publishing, 1991), 427. Quotation here page 427.
First published in Philosophy & Social Criticism. num. 12, (1987): 281-296. We
will follow the 1991 edition.
Politics and Morality in the Dialogue of Heller with Arendt 219
41
Ibid., 430.
42
Ibid., 429. In An Ethics of Personality, Heller states that “the life of the mind” is
a beautiful expression since it notes constant fluctuation, a condition that Heller
says she loves. Ágnes Heller, An Ethics of Personality (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996),
244.
43
Heller, “Hannah Arendt on the vita contemplative,” 431.
220 Chapter Twelve
44
Ibid., 432.
45
Ibid., 433.
46
Ibid., 434.
47
Idem.
48
Ibid., 435.
Politics and Morality in the Dialogue of Heller with Arendt 221
and the limits to which that area must be submitted. In this regard, we find
paradigmatic her article "Truth and Politics," from 1969, included in
Between Past and Future. Eight exercises in political thought.
The central issue is about the so-called factual truths, that is, the deeds,
facts, and events that occurred, which therefore belong to the past and to
the present. Arendt stresses the contingency of those truths that have
always resisted the unifying narrative of the philosophies of history; also,
their fragile, but at the same time uncomfortable, nature since they demand
an element of recognition and therefore of coercion. Factual evidence
requires witnesses, records, documents, and monuments, all susceptible to
counterfeiting. The tone of the essay emphasizes precisely the conflicts
brought on the tendency of the political sphere in various situations to
result in an organized lie,49 at odds with the recognition of factual truth.
Under such situations, less exceptional than they might seem and of which
no government is free from, the defense of factual truth by judicial
institutions or higher education institutions plays a major political role.
Our author ponders especially the important political role of the historical
sciences and the humanities. Deeds and events refer to objective reality
and therefore to a political problem; they ultimately shape the political
thought. In her own words, "factual truth is always tied to other persons: it
refers to events and circumstances in which many are involved; it is
established by direct testimony and depends on statements: it only exists
when we talked about it, even if it occurs in the private field. It is political
in nature. Facts and opinions must be kept separate but are not each other
antagonistic, they belong to the same realm. Facts give rise to opinions,
and opinions, inspired by different interests and passions, can differ widely
and be legitimate while they respect factual truth. Freedom of opinion is a
farce unless factual information is guaranteed and facts themselves are not
disputed. In other words, factual truth shapes political thought as well as
the truth of reason shapes philosophical speculation."50
49
Hannah Arendt, “Verdad y política,” in Entre el pasado y el futuro. Ocho
ensayos sobre la reflexión política, trans. A. Poljad (Barcelona: Península, 1996),
239.Under a totalitarian rule, of course, but also under a free government.
Throughout the text we can note the presence of the “Eichmann case” and the
debate on the role of Jewish councils. The author herself states in an initial note
that her essay stems from the "alleged dispute arose following the publication of
Eichmann in Jerusalem" and that she seeks to address two issues; first, the
question of whether it is always legitimate to say the truth, second, the role of lies
concerning facts. Both topics are treated from the perspective of the gap between
past and future.
50
Ibid., 250. Emphasis added.
222 Chapter Twelve
From this approach, Arendt stresses the role of the various forms of
being alone, those which require truthfulness as a virtue or fundamental
mode of existence, like in the case of the scientist, the philosopher, the
journalist, etc.., all of them committed to truthfulness, to telling what
exists. She also weighs the element of narrative inherent to such
occupations and its role in making that the merely contingent has a
graspable meaning. Who tells the factual truth leads to "reconciliation with
reality." Both the historian and the novelist achieve something that is near
to the transfiguration linked to the poet alluding, with Aristotle, to the role
of catharsis as the poet's political function. To put it in her words, “the
political function of the storyteller—historian or novelist—is to teach the
acceptance of things as they are. From this acceptance, which can also be
called truthfulness, comes the power to judge."51 The disinterested pursuit
of truth, objectivity (proper of Western civilization in an observation that
echoes the spirit of Weber), has a long story that our author backs to
Homer and Greek history. Homer's greatness is that he knew how to tell
the deeds both of Trojans and Achaeans. From here, derive important
political functions that fall outside the political arena, whose limitation is
highlighted, since by no means they encompass the entirety of human
existence.
51
Ibid., 276.
52
Ágnes Heller, “Los dos pilares de la ética moderna,” trans. by Jorge Pérez
Politics and Morality in the Dialogue of Heller with Arendt 223
moral basis, how can the modern individual distinguish between good and
evil and acquire any moral content? Heller responds in the spirit of the
Kierkegaard of the second part of Either / Or. The person, the exister, in
her personal freedom, can choose herself as moral personality. "One
chooses oneself as such and such and becomes what one is. One can give
weak moral content to the existential choice if one chooses oneself as a
good and honest person and becomes what one is, namely a good, honest
and decent man. Since the choice is existential and therefore autonomous
and self-founding, the existential choice is not the choice of something. I
do not choose goodness or honesty, nor any virtue or particular values, but
myself as a good and honest person,” which means that one chooses the
choice between good and evil.53
There is no reference here of Heller to Arendt and, at first sight, in the
latter there is not either an explicitly Kierkegaardian existential choice, so
it appears that in this point there would be no agreement at all. However,
in an important text, which we believe has not hitherto been commented
on, by Heller, "Some questions of moral philosophy,” Arendt reviews the
problem of morality in a way that demonstrates some affinities with the
Hellerian approach. The various prosecutions of the sixties, both
Eichmann´s as well as others that took place in Germany, put Arendt on
the track of the moral collapse that occurred with the Nazi regime. She
does not consider, here, the direct agents of terror, with their ideological
load and direct and enormous criminality, but the evil infringed by
ordinary people, the so many collaborators, actively or passively, of that
regime.
Once stated the individual responsibility of such collaborators, Arendt
is forced to deal with moral issues, those which her generation had
believed non–problematic and that are now in need of a critical light.
Given the debacle of habits, customs and any kind of commandments, and
not admitting either, as Heller, a universe of moral nihilism that refuses to
discriminate between good and evil, Arendt understands the words ethics
or morality beyond their etymological meaning, so they do not have much
to do with customs, neither with virtues, but with that which enables us to
distinguish between good and evil as an absolute distinction that any
human being would have to be able to establish.54 She addresses the issue
Zamora, in Los dos pilares de la ética moderna. Diálogos con Ágnes Heller,.eds.
Ágnes Heller y Ángel Prior (Zaragoza: Libros del Innombrable, 2008), 3-25. This
quotation on page 5.
53
Ibid., p. 12.
54
Hannah Arendt, “Algunas cuestiones de filosofía moral,” in Responsabilidad y
juicio, trans. M. Candel, intr. and notes J. Kohn (Barcelona: Paidós, 2007), 95
224 Chapter Twelve
not in abstract terms, but by identifying what she calls "moral personalities"
with those "very few people that in the midst of the moral collapse of Nazi
Germany remained intact and free from all blame," and that said, "That, I
cannot do it," instead of, "That, I should not do it,” since they never
doubted that "crimes were still crimes even when they were legalized by
the government, and that it was better not to participate in those crimes
under any circumstances."55
According to Arendt, unlike political action linked to plurality, moral
behavior,—and here we believe we can find an affinity with Heller´s
approach—rests on the dealings of man with himself, it has nothing to do
with obedience to any law enacted from outside and in that sense legality
is morally neutral. Moral personality depends on the activity of thinking.
"Taking here the justification given by Socrates of his moral proposition,
we can say now that through this thinking where I update the difference
specifically human of speech I explicitly constitute myself as a person, and
I will remain one as long as I am capable of that constitution again and
again. If that is what we commonly call personality and has nothing to do
with talents and intelligence, it is the simple and almost automatic result of
the activity of thinking. To put it in a different way, when one forgives, it
is the person, not the crime, which is forgiven. With radical evil, there is
no person left to which at least forgive.”56 We can then find a coincidence
between this person morally constituted through the activity of thinking
and the formation of the moral character, Kierkegaardly created on the
basis of existential choice.
57
Ágnes Heller, “Presentando a la Razón, la Voluntad y otros personajes,” in Una
filosofía de la historia en fragmentos, trans. by M. Mendoza Hurtado (Barcelona:
Gedisa, 1999), 122.
58
Ibid., 145.
59
Ibid., 147.
226 Chapter Twelve
60
Ibid., 150.
61
Ángel Prior, Voluntad y responsabilidad en Hannah Arendt (Madrid: Biblioteca
Nueva, 2009), 95.
62
Hannah Arendt, La vida del espíritu. trans. by R. Montoro y F. Vallespín
Politics and Morality in the Dialogue of Heller with Arendt 227
Heller confronts Hannah Arendt with the Goethian dichtum, "The actor
is always guilty, only the spectator is innocent," at the same time
committing her to it. From here, she shows her doubts on the second part
of the formula, arguing that the spectator may be guilty of neglect if it fails
to detect the evil. We really do not find it clear that Arendt could have
much trouble with this conclusion. The argument is most probably aimed
at some relatively repeated formulas on the thesis of the banality of evil as
the absence of judgment. If there are some judgments reinforcing bad
maxims, then positive judgments may well be attached to evil actions, and
not only the lack of judging.
But beyond Heller's dissatisfaction with the thesis of the banality, it
may be recalled that Arendt´s aim also exceeded the negative formula and
so she embarked on an investigation on the normative potential that might
result from each of the mental activities. Thus, the main emphasis should
be put on the faculty to distinguish between good and evil. The three basic
notes of a morality based on this faculty would be as follows: first, the
reflective judgment that without pre-given rules is aimed at the particular
(actors, actions, events); second, the enlarged mode of thinking that
considers the points of view of the others, attempting an integration
between these views and our owns; and third, the exemplary validity, the
fact that we take our guidance from examples that not only crystallize a
concept in a certain historical form, but that they take exemplary
validity.63 These three components may well be seen as factors that help
discriminate between good and evil. What we find decisive in Arendt's
position is, precisely, the linking of the absence of judging with that
indifference that leads to evil. She affirms it in the final paragraph of
"Some questions of moral philosophy:” “From the unwillingness or
inability to choose the examples and the company of one, and from the
reluctance or inability to relate to others through judging, the real skándala
are born, the real cause of setbacks that human powers cannot eliminate
because they do not come from human motivations and humanly
comprehensible motives. There lies the horror and, at the same time, the
banality of evil."64 The author relates, then, the choice of examples, the
choice of company and judging. Furthermore, in a paper dated those same
years, she establishes a relation between assuming an example and
responsibility.65 All this leads us to the problem of responsibility, a subject
in which both authors agree to put a special emphasis.
Referring to what we might call her normative concept, Arendt
distinguishes between political responsibility and legal or moral culpability,
so the former is collective and vicarious, that is, we have it in terms of our
membership to a political body, a group or community, and someone can
even be held accountable for things not done. We can only get rid of it by
abandoning the community, which would only mean a change of
community and that the terms of a specific responsibility would also vary
to a different one. In some way, it would be the price we would have to
pay for living our lives among our fellow human beings and because the
faculty of agency can only become real in any of the multiple forms of
human community.66
A relatively similar notion of collective responsibility can be found in
Heller´s conceptualization of the second pillar of modern ethics. The
subject of this pillar is a “We” that does not take for granted the force of
the “constitutio libertatis” but that actively promotes its signing. Modern
states take their foundation on the fiction that they have been founded by
the citizens themselves, who become citizens precisely in and through the
founding act. Heller considers just constitutions those that guarantee
freedom, at least in her interpretation of political freedoms as the supreme
substantive value on which the just State rests.67 Human rights as natural
64
Arendt. “Algunas cuestiones de filosofía moral,” in Responsabilidad y juicio,
cit., 150.
65
Hannah Arendt, Diario Filosófico (Barcelona: Herder, 2006), 626. Note of
January, 1966, in Diario filosófico. The quotation goes like this: “Everyone who
acts wants to be followed. Action is also always an example. Thought and political
judgment are exemplar (Kant) because action is exemplar. Responsibility means,
in essence, to know we set an example others ‘will follow;’ in this way we change
the world.”
66
Arendt. Responsabilidad y juicio, p. 159. A summary can be found in Prior,
Voluntad y responsabilidad en Hannah Arendt, 45-46.
67
Ágnes Heller, “Los dos pilares de la ética moderna,” in Los dos pilares de la
Politics and Morality in the Dialogue of Heller with Arendt 229
rights work as regulative theoretical and practical ideas whose truth can
only be demonstrated in practice by the signatories of the founding
sentences. That is why even they claim an absolute validity, they “are and
remain transient.”68 The pillar, then, is a fiction, as it is the pillar of
existential choice. They both have something in common: they require the
effort of an Atlas to be sustained. "To stand firm, to carry the weight of a
word which remains unfounded, they require the strength of an Atlas. The
decent, upright men and women carry the weight of one of the pillars and
the good citizens the weight of the other one…Both have something in
common: they take responsibility."69
For Arendt, collective and political responsibility does not absolve the
person of an individual responsibility of legal and moral character for
those things done or not done. Since Eichmann in Jerusalem, the reflection
on moral issues grows stronger in her work, in a peculiar battle against
Hegelianism and the trends that exonerate the individual of any personal
responsibility justified with a “not being able to act otherwise” applied,
both to those who have surrendered to a situation of terror and to those
who have not faltered. Heller agrees with this attribution of personal
responsibility and in fact her breaking with the philosophy of history in
general, and with the Marxist one in particular, is one of the essential
points where she evolves to positions close to Arendt's thesis. Concerning
the philosophy of history, both authors agree in emphasizing history as a
narrative in which the threads of individual action do not depend on
historical laws, lest on supra-historical forces.
In the case of Heller, the essential moral responsibility is that of the
existential choice of oneself since it represents the basis for a moral
conduct, for the constitution of the person as a moral personality in a
world of cultural and evaluative plurality, with no place for a strong
common “ethos.” She then assumes a maximalist model based on a fiction:
"Every decent person is decent at its own way...We are approaching to a
center, even though for the modern man the center is the form of its
integrity, not its contents.”70 Elaborating on this, one of the most prominent
notes of Heller's ethical stance is her consideration of the two pillars of
modern ethics as equally necessary, referring thus not only to an ethics of
justice and political freedom, but also to an ethics of the decent and honest
person. Together, they both refer to a theory of good life already
ética moderna, eds. Ágnes Heller y Ángel Prior (Zaragoza: Libros del
Innombrable, 2008), cit., 15-16.
68
Ibid., 19.
69
Ibid., 23.
70
Ibid., p. 22.
230 Chapter Twelve
71
Ágnes Heller, “La responsabilidad,” chapter four of Ética general, trans. Ángel
Rivero (Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, 1995), 89-106.
72
Ágnes Heller, An Ethics of Personality (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 3-4.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
WOLFGANG HEUER1
1
Hannah Arendt Center, Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York.
232 Chapter Thirteen
2
«Intervista ad Ágnes Heller.
un'etica della personalità,»
di Andrea Vestrucci, in:
Secretum, Num. 25, http://www.secretum-online.it/default.php?idnodo=721
(28/7/2014).
3
«In nicht adressiertem Kuvert auf die Welt geworfen. Ágnes Heller über die
zerbrechlichen Grundlagen von Gut und Böse, Recht und Gerechtigkeit in einer
Welt des suspendierten Absoluten,» Carl von Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg,
Uni-Info 6/2001, http://www.presse.uni-oldenburg.de/uni-info/2001/6/thema.htm
(28/7/2014).
The Ethics of Personality in Ágnes Heller and Hannah Arendt 233
4
«Intervista ad Ágnes Heller», ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Ágnes Heller, Ethics of Personality (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), 24.
7
Ibid., 88.
234 Chapter Thirteen
8
Ibid., 79.
9
Ibid., 129.
10
Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind, Vol. 1: “Thinking,” Ch. 18, (Harcourt,
Brace & Company, 1978).
11
Heller, Ethics of Personality, 173.
12
Ibid., 81.
The Ethics of Personality in Ágnes Heller and Hannah Arendt 235
13
Ibid., 252.
14
Ágnes Heller, “Aufklärung gegen Fundamentalismus: Der Fall Lessing,” in
Lessing Yearbook, Vol. XIX, 34.
15
Ibid., 38.
16
“In nicht adressiertem Kuvert auf die Welt geworfen,” ibid.
17
Arendt, The Life of the Mind, Vol. 1: “Thinking,” 39.
18
Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1958), 255.
236 Chapter Thirteen
all reality and ‘senses’ only itself.”19 Hence world views and ideologies
can easily replace common sense and reality.
This diagnosis should be understood in the context of Arendt’s analysis
of totalitarianism rather than as an incidental analysis of modern times. For
Arendt, totalitarianism did not occur out of the blue but emerged from
elements of modern times, including the loss of common sense and the
capacity to judge. Descartes is, of course, by no means the precursor of
totalitarian thinking. He merely reflects the withdrawal to the self and the
gradual loss of worldliness that culminated in its total loss under
totalitarianism. Arendt’s characterization of the basic experience of man at
that time as “loneliness” translates to loss of orientation. Worldliness
means plurality and a variety of perspectives, common sense and the
capacity to judge. It means intersubjectivity. The loss of all of this in
modern times paved the way for catastrophe. Consequently, Arendt is not
concerned with the reconstruction of the pre-totalitarian situation and all
its weaknesses. Introspection and trust in the force of logic and reason do
not suffice as a basis for orientation. In Arendt’s view, it is not the self that
gives certainty but the in-between. It is dialogue, it is intersubjectivity.
Her crucial contribution consists of taking this in-between as the basis
of her analysis of political phenomena in the broadest sense. She thus
defines freedom, authority, violence, power, law, and peace on the basis of
intersubjective relationships and not in the tradition of political philosophy
on the basis of a distinction between dominators and dominated, between
state and individual or between individual and society. From this
perspective, freedom is neither the sheer possibility to be free nor the
frequently cited freedom of will and of thought. Freedom emerges in the
very moment of action itself. “...Man would know nothing of inner
freedom if he had not first experienced a condition of being free as a
worldly tangible reality. We first become aware of freedom or its opposite
in our intercourse with others, not in the intercourse with ourselves.”20
Freedom is “the substance and meaning of all things political. In this
sense, politics and freedom are identical, and wherever this kind of
freedom does not exist, there is no political space in the true sense.”21
The same holds for authority, which stems from active consent. In the
case of violence and power, the former is mute, the latter communicative
and rests on common action, which is why Arendt, in contrast to Heller,
19
Ibid., 258.
20
Hannah Arendt, “What is Freedom?” in Between Past and Future, Eight
Exercises in Political Thought (Penguin Books, 2006), 147.
21
Hannah Arendt, “Introduction into Politics,” in The Promise of Politics
(Schocken Books, 2005), 129.
The Ethics of Personality in Ágnes Heller and Hannah Arendt 237
22
Arendt, The Life of the Mind, Vol. 1: “Thinking,” 187ff.
238 Chapter Thirteen
23
For the importance of imagination for judgement in Arendt, see Wolfgang
Heuer, “Verstehen als Sichtbarmachen von Erfahrungen. Die Brücke zwischen
Denken und Urteilen,” in Dichterisch denken. Hannah Arendt und die Künste, eds.
Wolfgang Heuer and Irmela von der Lühe (Wallstein Verlag, 2007), 197-212;
Wolfgang Heuer, “Ein Bild von den Flüchtlingen. Erfahrung, Sichtbarkeit,
Einbildungskraft,” in Raum der Freiheit. Reflexionen über die Idee und
Wirklichkeit, eds. Waltraud Meints, (Bielefeld, 2009), 359-372.
24
Ágnes Heller, Beyond justice (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), 273.
25
Hannah Arendt, “The Jew as Pariah: A Hidden Tradition,” in The Jewish
Writings (New York: Schocken Books, 2007), 275-297.
The Ethics of Personality in Ágnes Heller and Hannah Arendt 239
community.26
Arendt’s portrayals in Men in Dark Times, among them of Rosa
Luxemburg, Waldemar Gurian, and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, are further
examples. Speaking of Rosa Luxemburg and her “peer group,” Arendt
emphasizes the “authenticity of their morality,”27 which they owed to their
youth in a world that was not yet out of joint.
In Waldemar Gurian, a friend, a refugee and later dean of the University
of Notre Dame, Arendt praised characteristics she saw as symbolizing
political virtues: firstly, his capacity for friendship, not private friendship
but a public friendship based on the common responsibility for our fate;
secondly, “his faithfulness to his friends, to everybody he had ever known,
to everything he had ever liked, became so much the dominant note in
which his life was tuned that one is tempted to say that the crime most
alien to him was the crime of oblivion, perhaps one of the cardinal crimes
in human relationship;”28 thirdly, his humanity that was more than mere
friendliness and benevolence, “We are inclined to identify ourselves with
what we make and do, and frequently we forget that it remains the greatest
prerogative of every man to be essentially and forever more than anything
he can produce and achieve, not only to remain, after each work and
achievement, the not yet exhausted, sheer inexhaustible source of further
achievement, but to be in his very essence beyond all of them, untouchable
and unlimited of them,”29 Gurian was one of the few people Arendt knew
who “remained completely independent from the bourgeois concept of
achievement;”30 fourthly, his independent capacity for judgement, his
“unerring sense for quality relevance...In the not frequent cases where men
have possessed it and have chosen not to exchange it for more easily
recognizable and acceptable values, it infallibly had led them far—far
beyond conventions and established standards of society—and carried
them directly into the dangers of a life that is no longer protected by the
wall of objects and the support of objective evaluations;”31 finally, his
simultaneous status as a non-conformist and a realist, “His whole spiritual
existence was built on the decision never to conform and never to escape,
26
Hannah Arendt, “We Refugees,” in: ibid., pp. 264-274. Also: Wolfgang Heuer,
“Europe and its Refugees: Arendt on the Politicization of Minorities,” Social
Research, Vol. 74, no. 4 (Winter 2007): 1159-1172.
27
Hannah Arendt, Men in Dark Times (Mariner Books, 1968), 41.
28
Ibid., 254.
29
Ibid., 257.
30
Hannah Arendt and Kurt Blumenfeld, "... in keinem Besitz verwurzelt,"
(Briefwechsel: Rotbuch Verlag, 1995), 52.
31
Arendt, Men in Dark Times, 257.
240 Chapter Thirteen
which is only another way of saying that it was built on courage.”32 “He
was delighted when he could break down these barriers of so-called
civilized society, because he saw in them barriers between human souls.
The source of this delight were innocence and courage, innocence all the
more captivating as it occurred in man who was so extremely well versed
in the ways of the world, and who therefore needed all the courage he
could muster to keep his original innocence alive and intact. He was a very
courageous man.”33
This last aspect, in particular, is a strong reminder of Arendt’s
characterization of Lessing, whom she, more than Heller, regarded as a
humanist citizen rather than a humanist man. His radical critical attitude
towards the world, his anger and his laughter, his partisanship for the
world and his ability to think independently—a political attitude hitherto
neglected in Lessing research. “For Lessing, thought does not arise out of
the individual and is not the manifestation of a self. Rather, the
individual—whom Lessing would say was created for action, not
ratiocination—elects such thought because he discovers in thinking
another mode of moving in the world in freedom.”34
When Arendt praises the good man, it is always from the perspective
of the good citizen. In her view, the former is neither possible nor
desirable without the latter. Today’s civil society needs an ethics of
intersubjectivity. Living in a political world of liberalism, we face its
ambivalence more clearly than ever as a result of the changes accompanying
the 21st century. Liberal freedom is ambivalent and it is weak. Political
freedom is dominated by bureaucratic administration; the search for
independence and autonomy is governed more and more by our need to act
as entrepreneurial selves;35 the environmental disarming of our industrial
society has acquired a biological turn that allows biotechnology to
radically change our visions of body and nature, our values of life and
death, of nature and culture, and of fate and responsibility; finally,
globalized freedom simultaneously connects and uproots people, creating
what Nancy Fraser calls a situation of “abnormal justice.”36 The ethics of
32
Ibid., 262.
33
Ibid., 258ff.
34
Ibid., 9.
35
Ulrich Bröckling, Das unternehmerische Selbst. Soziologie einer
Subjektivierungsform, (Suhrkamp Verlag, 2007). Nikolas Rose, Powers of Freedom.
Reframing Political Thought, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
36
Nancy Fraser, “Abnormal Justice,” in Scales of Justice. Reimagining Political
Space in a Globalizing World (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 48-
75.
The Ethics of Personality in Ágnes Heller and Hannah Arendt 241
ANDREA VESTRUCCI1
Introduction
Given the complex and multifaceted relationship that binds the two
philosophers, Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller, the analysis here
proposed concerns the role and the place Hannah Arendt occupies within
Heller’s Trilogy of Morals, constituted by the works General Ethics, A
Philosophy of Morals, and An Ethics of Personality. By this, it is possible
to deepen an aspect of the link between the two thinkers, as a mirror, a
symbol of the general, whole relationship.
The present essay is divided in three parts. The first two are devoted to
the analysis of two common themes of the two thinkers: the human
condition and the relationship between spectator and actor within the
ethic-aesthetic kind of judgment. The third part presents a synthesis
between the parallelisms and differences resulting from the first two parts,
with reference to Heller’s interpretation of the biographical figure of
Hannah Arendt outlined in the final pages of An Ethics of Personality as
the exemplification of the modern person’s good life.
1
Institute Eric Weil, France; University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 243
General Ethics,2 the quasi-totality of the moral thoughts of the past started
with or referred to a particular conception of human nature. This
conception concerns an axiological judgment (human nature is good or
bad, or neutral, adiaphor), with or without a topological division (either
tripartition or bipartition of human nature).
But given the plurality of different conceptions of human nature
proposed in the history of philosophy,—i.e., given the pluralism of the
concept of human nature itself—Heller prefers to eliminate this kind of
ground from her moral theory and substitute it with the concept of “human
condition,” which suits better Heller’s theoretical ends for two reasons: the
3
first one refers to the “polymorphism” of the first metaphor; the second
one refers to the introduction of the possibility of a relationship between
the human individual and his or her destiny, “No great sophistication is
needed to discover that ‘human condition’ can be associated with the age-
old notion of ‘human destiny’ […] The concept of ‘human destiny’ elicits
images of ‘being destined to something’ or, alternatively, ‘living up to our
4
destiny.’”
At this point, for the first time in Heller’s Theory of Morals, Hannah
Arendt makes her appearance. Heller refers to her as someone who has
“already made a strong case” for the interpretation of the concept of
“human condition” as fruitful ontological ground for answering the
fundamental question of the moral theory: “How are good persons
possible?”5
In fact, in parallel with Heller’s negation of the concept of human nature,
at the beginning of The Human Condition, Arendt states very clearly that
“the problem of human nature, the Augustinian quaestio mihi factus sum,
seems unanswerable in both its individual psychological sense and its
general philosophical sense.”6 A human being cannot say anything
concerning its own nature—“only a god could know and define it.”7 Heller
seems to share with Arendt the same point of view: it would be extremely
hard that a very concept of human nature could ever be determined by
human beings.8
2
Ágnes Heller, General Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989),13-6.
3
Ibid., 16.
4
Ibid., 17
5
Ibid., 17.
6
Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1998), 10.
7
Ibid.
8
A plurality of commentators not only confirmed Heller’s already explicit debt
towards Arendt on the assumption of the notion of “human condition” but also
244 Chapter Fourteen
most general ones: “natality and mortality,”10 as common references for all
determinations of both “Vita Activa” and “Contemplativa.” In fact, each of
the different internal divisions of both kinds of Vita contributes to the
function of giving meaning to natality (as the introduction of the new-born
in an organized world or the betterment of birth’s condition), and in a
certain sense it deals with the overcoming of the mortality (for instance by
sustaining human life, or through the creation of artifacts that would last
more than the artisan’s life).
Nevertheless, it is possible to go beyond the mere discordance in
terminology and analyze more theoretically the differences and parallelisms
concerning the two positions. At least two elements should be outlined:
the notion of “being conditioned” and the issue of the introduction of a
novelty in the world.
The first concept is negatively derived from Arendt’s position: she
clearly states that human condition could only be radically modified by a
reduction of the degree of the “being conditioned” characterizing human
life—for instance, after the emigration to a different planet.11 This reduction
would change both “Vita Activa” and “Vita Contemplativa” with a
consequential deep reshape of human condition. But (and here lies the
point of interest) this change would never annul the “being conditioned” itself
of the human being: hence it can be stressed that the most primordial
element (the “Urphänomen”) of Arendt’s conception of the human
condition is the fact that, necessarily, the human being “is conditioned.”
This position is quite similar to Heller’s, concerning the fact that the
human being is conditioned by the two a priori: it can be inferred from this
point that, for Heller, the possibility of an absolute autonomy does not
pertain to the human condition—or, otherwise, if absolute autonomy is a
human being’s end, the realization of this end will contribute to the
determination of a monster, i.e., of a non-human being trying to eliminate
the contingency of the two a priori.
This argumentation seems at first glance circular: the impossibility of
absolute autonomy is derived from the notion of human being, which is,
on its turn, defined by the absence of absolute autonomy. This circularity
can even be extended to Arendt’s argumentation concerning the concept of
(even limited) “being conditioned.” But this fallacy is only apparent: in
both cases the notion of human being is “prescriptive” and not
“descriptive”—i.e., it is not defined by the non-absolute autonomy or the
non-absolute a-conditioned of the human being: these concepts are rather
10
Arendt, The Human Condition, cit., 8.
11
Ibid., 10.
246 Chapter Fourteen
one’s life, and, finally, the faculty of judging is the possibility for the
individual to reach the absolute autonomous level of humankind in himself
or herself. For Heller, the existential choice consists in choosing the two a
priori of the individual, the double choice of the genetic set and the social
world: hence all heteronomous determinations are chosen by the
individual as his or her own destiny. This transformation of contingency
into necessity is by no means a gesture of absolute autonomy, given that
the existential choice does not annul the two conditions: they are
positively “recognized” as conditions, and chosen as necessities. The
individual elicits its own authenticity, i.e., the form of its uniqueness, by
this choice—anyway, as we will see further, Heller proposed a strict
limitation to the absolute autonomy of the existential choice, and this
limitation is nothing but the condition itself of the realization of the
choice, and of the happiness of the individual.
The second element of similarity between the two conceptions of
human condition is represented by the “novelty” that every single human
life is potentially able to introduce in the world. For Arendt, this element is
strictly linked to the precedent condition of natality—and, as a consequence, it
is one of the elements of human condition: there is a “new beginning
inherent to birth,”12 expressed by the “uniqueness” of the individual.13 For
Heller, the novelty is represented by the uniqueness of the individual
resulting from the two kinds of existential choice, under the category of
the difference and under the category of the universal. The first kind
concerns a specific vocation by which the individual attributes to its own
life a direction different for every human being; the choice under the
category of the difference is the choice of one’s destiny—the kind of
person performing this choice is called by Heller, following Nietzsche, the
“lucky throw of the dice.”14 The second kind refers to the choice of oneself
as a decent person, it is the moral choice. This kind of choice is under the
category of the universal, given that no difference with the rest of
humankind is elicited: the decent person intends to act as every other
decent person would act. But the qualification of universality does not
negate the element of specificity in the decent person’s goodness: as
Heller states clearly, “Once you choose yourself as a good (decent) person
existentially, you choose under the category of the universality, for you
choose something everyone else can also choose—but you choose no one
but yourself;”15 “Everyone is good in his or her own way, idiosyncratically
12
Arendt, The Human Condition, cit., 9.
13
Ibid., 175-6.
14
Ágnes Heller, An Ethics of Personality (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 13.
15
Ibid., 130.
248 Chapter Fourteen
16
Ibid., 129.
17
Arendt, The Human Condition, cit., 9.
18
Ibid., 177-8.
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 249
19
Arendt, The Human Condition, cit., 237.
250 Chapter Fourteen
object of the choice—on the other hand, the fact that the person is an
exister is manifested by the fact he or she is able to keep a promise. This
capacity of the person is strictly linked to the “virtue” of “authenticity:”
authenticity means “to be true to oneself,”20 “to being true to one’s leap, to
the [existential] choice of oneself,”21 and the everyday gesture of keeping
the promise of being true to existential choice shows the authenticity of the
person—i.e., the fact that a person is that person, that individual who
made that specific existential choice. Given that the existential choice is
existential because it can be made only once in one’s life and cannot be
changed in order to have a true existential value, the capacity of keeping
one’s word presents a very clear insight to the truthfulness of one’s
existential choice. For that reason, promise is, for Heller, strictly related to
the prospective responsibility,22 referring to the maintaining of a task or
duty one decides to be committed to. It is the kind of responsibility
concerning the future. Applied to the existential choice, it refers to the
exister’s (the person who performs an existential choice) willingness to be
devoted to his or her own choice and to endure it in everyday life. Finally,
given that the existential choice determines the place and the role of the
individual in the human world, and given that via the existential choice the
individual becomes a personality, a uniqueness, and given that the capacity
of being true to this own personality has its everyday “analogon” in the
capacity to keep a promise, the promise is strictly related to the question of
the identity of the individual.23
20
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, cit., 161.
21
Ágnes Heller, A Theory of Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 227.
22
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, cit., 60.
23
The importance of keeping a promise has Nietzschean roots. Arendt, The Human
Condition, cit., p. 245: “Nietzsche, in his extraordinary sensibility to moral
phenomena, and despite his modern prejudice to see the source of all power in the
will power of the isolated individual, saw in the faculty of promises (the ‘memory
of the will,’ as he called it) the very distinction which marks off human from
animal life.” Heller, An Ethics of Personality, cit., 55: “[For Nietzsche] man is an
animal with the [capacity] to make promises” (see also ibid., page 304 note 108: “I
prefer my translation ‘the capacity to make promises’ to the ‘right to make
promises’ of Kaufman”). In Heller, the presence of Nietzsche is particularly
significant in An Ethics of Personality, where she treats the connection between the
capacity for keeping promises and the possibility of the decent person: the third
volume of the moral trilogy is consecrated specifically to “the lucky throw of the
dice,” and its connection with the existential choice of the morality.
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 251
24
Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Maximen und Reflexionen, ed. W. Von Hoyer
(Leipzig: Dichterich, 1953), 241.
25
Hannah Arendt, Denktagebuch, eds. Ursula Ludz and Ingeborg Nordmann
(Zurich: Piper, 2002), vol. 1, book I, p. 10, and book IX, 215.
26
Ágnes Heller, An Ethics of Personality, cit., p. 14. Very significant the note 11 at
page 298: “Hannah Arendt liked this Goethian aphorism; she was also inclined to
accept an ethics of personality rather than any other kind.”
252 Chapter Fourteen
the action itself; second, the individual can always switch from the
position of the actor to the position of the spectator—and we will see that
this is a point of difference from Arendt’s position.
Following these conclusions, the second aspect can be introduced
concerning the difference between observation and action. If the
imputation requires another person who is not the actor, the observation is
not an action, or at least it is an action whose status differs from all other
forms of action—i.e., the spectator is not accomplishing an action as the
one performed by the actor. The difference between observation and all
other kinds of action consists in the “passivity” of the former opposed to
the activity of the latter: an action is qualified as “action,” and, for
consequence, a person is an “actor” if the action introduces itself in the
world, and if, following this introduction, it produces a “modification in
the world itself.” In short, an action exists as far as it is possible to speak
of “consequences.” On the contrary, the observation does not introduce the
spectator in the world, does not modify the framework or the display of the
environment where one is placed, does not produce any consequence of
the action. Obviously, the act of observing can be imputed to a spectator,
and this imputation may be even morally or legally negative (for instance
if the observation stands for an omission of help), but even in this negative
case the observation presents itself as the absence of an action. It can be
concluded that observation and action represent a sort of practical “aut-
aut:” who acts does not observe, who observes does not act.
To sum up: the actor is the person whose action modifies the world,
introducing some direct consequences. This is the reason why the actor is
always “guilty:” he or she is always guilty, not for the action (i.e., the
imputation of the action is not always negative) but more generally of the
action (i.e., this action can and must be imputed to him or her). Therefore,
the actor is always responsible for his or her action, responsible for the
modification of the world status, following up the action, as consequence
of the action—and only the spectator is not responsible.27
This position is clearly reprised from Arendt: “That deeds possess such
an enormous capacity for endurance, superior to every other man-made
product, could be a matter of pride if men were able to bear its burden, the
burden of irreversibility and unpredictability, from which the action
process draws its very strength. That this is impossible, men have always
known. They have known that he who acts never quite knows what he is
27
Ágnes Heller, General Ethics (Oxford: Blackwells, 1988), cit., chap. 4. See also
John Grumley, Ágnes Heller. A Moralist in the Vortex of History (Pluto Press,
2004), cit., 184: “Actions have irreversible consequences. For Heller the admission
of responsibility it is simply the recognition of this fact.”
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 253
28
Arendt, The Human Condition, cit., 233.
29
Ágnes Heller, “Hannah Arendt on the ‘Vita Contemplativa,’” in The Grandeur
and Twilight of Radical Universalism, eds. Ágnes Heller and Fehér Ferenc (New
Brunswick: Transaction, 1991), 432: “Although judgments are passed by
spectators, they are passed on actors. The faculty of judgment judges political
actions.[…] Although judgment is passed by the spectator […] it is passed from
the vantage point of the sensus communis.”
30
Ibid., 237
31
Heller, A Philosophy of Morals, 174. In the note at the passage, Heller refers
directly to Arendt’s analysis of forgiveness.
254 Chapter Fourteen
32
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, cit., 238. “Goethe once wisely said, I do not
know where, that everyone over thirty is responsible for his or her face.”
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid., 249: “In the ‘good face,’ ‘bad face’ game one makes a judgment of the
fundamental ethical character and not on the whole character, not even on the
whole moral character.”
35
Heller enumerates some of the different possible kinds of freedom: autonomy,
freedom as spontaneity, recognition of the necessity, determination by law, play of
imagination, self-realization, freedom of the existential choice (ibid., 139); moral
autonomy, choice, clearing, spontaneity, self-realization… (ibid., 244).
36
Ibid., 240: “What I call harmony is the coexistence of different – many, perhaps
even all – kinds of openness, of freedom”. This harmony of the beauty character is
compared by Heller to the harmony of a quartet, where each instrument plays its
own music, and the beauty of the composition consist only in the harmony between
the different musics (see also ibid., 255-6).
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 255
37
Ibid., 272.
38
Ibid., 241: “It would be odd even to say that that we feel ourselves harmonious
and beautiful after having stopped acting, given that we are never in the position of
pure self-observation or self-reflection.”
39
Ibid., 248.
40
Ibid., 268.
41
Ibid., 269.
42
Ibid.
256 Chapter Fourteen
43
Ibid., 252. Heller states in fact how this judgment is not constituted by the free
game of faculties (given that it is not as simple as a mere aesthetic judgment), but
principally by “life-experience, moral taste, refinement, especially emotional
refinement.”
44
Ibid., 248.
45
Ibid., 283-4.
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 257
46
Ibid., 172. See also ibid., p. 173: “In ethics the absolute relationship is entirely
symmetrical; this is why disclosure is also mutual.”
47
Ibid., 174.
48
Ibid., 170.
49
Ibid., 171.
50
Heller is perfectly aware of the difference between loneliness and solitude, in
reference to Arendt’s conception of the individual inner dialogue with oneself. See
ibid., page 170: “I agree with Hannah Arendt that loneliness—in contrast with
solitude—is something essentially anti-ethical and unpolitical.” The issue of
loneliness seems particularly present in the work A Philosophy of Morals; the
loneliness of modern men and women, especially in big cities, is linked to the loss
of an important constituent of the human goodness: the possibility of discussion
with reliable persons (e.g. friends or lovers) concerning moral problems or morally
problematical actions. See ibid., chap. II § 2, and p. 175: “It is wise to spend some
of the time available for decision discussing the problem (the choice) with a ‘third
party’ or with impartial judges of the matter. In bygone times there was always a
friend, ‘the natural counsellor,’ to offer advice; nowadays, the lamentable
loneliness of people, particularly in big cities, is in part caused by the
disappearance of such friends. ‘Professional counsellors’ fit their place.”
258 Chapter Fourteen
51
Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1978), 4-5.
52
Hannah Arendt, “Thinking and Moral Considerations,” Social Research, vol. 51,
nº 1 (Spring 1984), 35.
53
Arendt, The Life of the Mind, cit., 193.
54
Ibid.
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 259
the judgment is a medium between the “vita active” and the “vita
contemplative” whether referring on actions, Heller stresses a “union”
between the actor and the observer: both of them are determined and
characterized by the same dispositions (openness, emotional refinement,
love towards the beauty of the other), and then both of them share the
same condition of equilibrium between the two aspects of the matter (the
observer must be always ready to switch from a passive attitude to an
active one, and the action of the observed is nothing but the self-
presentation to the observation of the other).
Secondly, this equilibrium between the two dimensions of action and
observation is true even in the case of the individual in his or her
loneliness. This also seems to be the position of Arendt: the individual, if
ready and willing to cultivate the faculty of thinking, could become the
good judge of his or her own actions. But Heller pushes the connection
between the two aspects even farther, by stating the impossibility for the
individual to be in the position of the pure observer—i.e., the impossibility
to be in the situation or in the attitude of pure thinking. Now, given that
the position of the pure observer can be realized only by interrupting the
action, it can be concluded that the attitude of pure thinking is unrealizable
because the individual never stops acting—never stops being an actor. The
person is always in the position of the actor, even if he or she does not
accomplish any specific action, because of the constant realization of the
existential choice—a movement, an action, that is not equal to the sum of
all singular actions of the individual, but that is the matrix of
determination of all possible actions in past, present, and future. For that
reason, the conception of the individual Heller proposes can positively
overcome all analytical differences between action and observation (even
though always recognizing them): both attitudes have their only meaning
in the movement of the existential choice—because the existential choice
is nothing but the expression of the human condition.
This conclusion is confirmed by the last aspect concerning the
connection between actor, spectator, and the faculty of judgment: the fact
that the moral conscience is not the by-product of the two-in-one, the inner
“Selbstdenken,” but of the relationship between two persons. As Heller
states: “Sören [Keirkegaard] would not subscribe to Hannah Arendt’s
suggestion that a decent person converses within himself with his own
other self as Socrates did.55 Socrates was an exceptional man, the Judge
would tell you, but we are not exceptional people, we are just common
55
[The reference is probably to Arendt, “Thinking and Moral Considerations,” cit.,
29-30.]
260 Chapter Fourteen
men and women. We do not conduct ethical discussions within our soul
with our other self, we need another flesh and blood person, another
exister. Two separate persons, two existers in mutual disclosure and trust
replace the dialogical relations of ‘two-in-one.’ Not ‘two-in-one’ but ‘one-
in-two.’ With ‘two-in-one’ there can be suspicion, but with ‘one-in-two’
there cannot, for these two love one another.”56 Hence, the ethical
dimension is expressed by the relationship of mutual disclosure and trust
between two persons; the decent person can become what he or she is (i.e.,
this idiosyncratic beautiful person), can develop his or her own virtues and
limit his or her own weaknesses, can cultivate his or her own emotional
refinement through and for the absolute relationship of erotic love.
It is confirmed in the previous hypothesis that Heller presents a
community of beautiful and decent persons interwoven by a relationship of
erotic love as the closest mimesis of the symmetrical reciprocity. Hence,
what is the utopia on the political level, the realization of the “gesellige
Geselligkeit” among the individuals in the framework of an objective
“Sittlichkeit,” could become reality in the “private sphere,” in the narrower
dimension of the cycle of friends and lovers. In this community, the
individuals are mutually judged and appreciated on the basis not of their
specific actions, but of their meaningful idiosyncrasies—i.e., of their
existential choices. The disclosure is mutual because all the individuals
share the same condition: all of them have chosen themselves existentially,
all of them could realize their own choice by the contribution of the others,
all of them recognized each other as existers, exactly as the observed and
the observer, the actor and the spectator, recognizes himself or herself,
understands his or her own beauty and the goodness of the own existential
movement in the openness to the other. In the harmony between the two
dimensions of the passivity and of the activity, in the balance of what is
nothing but different forms of freedoms (i.e., the constituents of the beauty
of the decent person), the individual could become what he or she is, could
reach the maximum of self-realization, and attain the happiness the decent
person deserves—a happiness that, for Heller, has its true exemplary
model in the lived person of Hannah Arendt.
56
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, cit., 173.
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 261
57
Ibid., 202, where Joachim, a fictional character created by Heller in order to
illustrate the case of a decent person within a Kantian matrix, confesses: “I desire
for the miracle to happened, I am longing for someone, for one single person, t do
the impossible, to ease my resistances, to make me transparent to himself, and
through himself, to myself. I see what felicity could be: Judge William and his
wife, ‘one in two’ instead of ‘two in one,’ the lived history of shared experience.”
58
Ibid, 175: “The judge says that for him his wife is the most beautiful of all
women, and he also says that her beauty increases with age.”
59
Ágnes Heller, “The Beauty of Friendship,” The South Atlantic Quarterly, vol.
97, num. 1 (1998): 17.
262 Chapter Fourteen
60
On the relationship between happiness and the two forms of existential choices,
see Ágnes Heller: a philosophical suite, special issue of Thesis Eleven, 125 (2014).
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 263
with other persons and if the richness of talents informs his or her life. But
given that all these elements are nothing but the expression of the
existential choice—or better of the co-presence of the two forms of it—the
meaning of the life, its maximum value, derives from the existential
choice. A person’s life is satisfied if this life is determined in an
autonomous way by the existential choice: “If someone succeeds in
transforming his/her contingency into his/her destiny, if someone can
reiterate Luther’s words: ‘here I stand and I cannot do otherwise,’ if
someone is aware that his/her existence makes a difference, that he/she
leaves a trace on the face of the world, such a person will be satisfied with
his/her life as a whole and can say that he/she has become what, in the
light of available possibilities, he/she was able to become.”61 If one has the
courage to perform the leap of the existential choice, the life will be a
moment of happiness, even in the moments of unhappiness.
One of the incarnations and the model of this form of existential
happiness, and therefore of this form of satisfied life, is Hannah Arendt:
“Jane Austen, George Sand, Rosa Luxemburg, Hannah Arendt. None of
these women can be said ‘happy’ in an ordinary sense. They were all
exiles, either in fact, or in a metaphorical sense; they all had a difficult life.
None of them lived out their life in full […]. Still, they were beautiful—
and they were happy! They were not suffering from the malaise of
insecurity, they were noble characters, they constantly kept their freedoms
in balance. All these four women surrounded themselves with beauty, they
loved beauty, as they also loved good conversation and good company.
They were loyal friends and they also cultivated friendships, emotional
attachments and sentiments. Naturally, they also loved the beauties of
nature. They were women of emotional density and richness.”62
The happiness of the life of Hannah Arendt coincides, for Heller, with
the affirmation of the direction given to life itself, according with the
suggestions and the cares of beloved persons. Her happiness, as
exemplification of the happiness of the beautiful, rich, existential person,
stems from the plenitude of her life, the nobility of her spirit, her love
towards beautiful persons and things, her involvement with other persons,
chosen as they are, in their idiosyncratic beauty. Given that this happiness
coincides with the fullness of life, it longs even through the moments of
suffering: unhappiness is not opposed to happiness, but it is rather a
component of the good and happy life. The suffering is the proof of the
61
“On Being Satisfied in a Dissatisfied Society – I,” in The Postmodern Political
Condition, eds. Ágnes Heller and Ferenc Fehér (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988),
34.
62
Heller, An Ethics of Personality, cit., 275.
264 Chapter Fourteen
63
Simon Tormey, Ágnes Heller: socialism, autonomy and the postmodern
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 173: “[The existential choice is]
a choice of what kind of person we are to be. It is a choice of our Being or,
following Aristotle, energeia: the choice of ourselves as an end or telos.”
64
Ágnes Heller, “Hannah Arendt on the ‘Vita Contemplativa,’” Philosophy and
Social Criticism Vol 12, Issue 4 (1987).
Hannah Arendt and Ágnes Heller’s Theory of Morals 265
4. Schluss
There is a lesson, proposed by Arendt, with which Heller seems to
agree, as a viable prescription for the happiness of actors, spectators,
thinkers, judgers, and human beings of modern times: “Act in such a way
to inform your life as an end in itself.”
There is another lesson, proposed not by Arendt’s thoughts but instead
by her life—a lesson that stems from Heller’s interpretation of the
happiness of Hannah Arendt, and that becomes the lesson Ágnes Heller
herself proposes for the happiness of modern human beings: “Act in such a
way to choose your heteronomy (choosing other persons, similar to you, to
love), and to limit your autonomy (developing your talents according to
the advices of the beloved persons).”
The two lessons are not in contrast: they define each other, they give
meaning to each other. Only in mutual connection can they insert the
human being into his/her own condition—i.e., into the finitude that
presupposes the existential choice, and that is always confirmed by the
possible failure of the movement of the existential choice. This human
condition is chosen by the individual, and loved, as the only source of true
happiness, happiness, which at the same time coincides with and informs
every single action as end in itself—as constant reintroduction of the
individual within a “Geselligkeit” as most “gesellig” as possible.
65
Martin Jay, “Women in Dark Times: Ágnes Heller and Hannah Arendt,” in The
Social Philosophy of Ágnes Heller, ed. John Burnheim (Amsterdam: Rodopi,
1994), 52.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
ÁGNES HELLER
Above all, thank all of you for your interesting and important
contributions to the understanding of my work. As you will see, I could
not consider all concrete remarks and had to gloss over several issues,
although they deserved to be discussed. To reflect on all of them would
have demanded writing a new book. I decided rather to pick from each
contribution a few central problems that, in my view, called for additional
clarification.
fundamental one. Thus, I have to return to the first question of this short
paper, to the question of needs.
The second paper (on which I reflected here) mentioned the needs of
the “people” and I answered with the distinction of distribution and
redistribution, to the question of justice, to the difference between
recognition and satisfaction. Yet now I am in trouble. We need to be
loved. But can love be distributed or redistributed? Is there justice in love?
The love of God stands beyond justice, we know. But what about friends,
lovers, parents, and children? Are they distributing or redistributing their
love? There is a hunger for love, a thirst for love. And not just for acting
goodness as love (charity), not just for empathy (that can be felt for people
we do not even know), but for love as an emotion, a feeling, something
very personal, that cannot be commanded, although it is verily our
ultimate confirmation.
Moral philosophy has its limits. All philosophy has. What we cannot
say, not even know, poets can still tell. But poetry does not ask questions
and does not answer the never asked ones. It presents, represents the
paradigmatic singular, which remains always beyond our reach.
the human condition is a constant, its formal constituents remain the same
within all the changes, even dramatic changes of the historical, social life
matter.
In the Kantian tradition, I also distinguish between reflective and
determining judgment.
But I, as so many philosophers before me, do not think that reflective
judgment of any kind, aesthetic judgment included, could raise claim for
universal acceptance. I certainly would not subscribe to the dichotomy
between a merely subjective judgment of taste on the one hand and a claim
for universal validity on the other. Reflective judgment normally moves in
between, whether it goes about judgment of taste or judgment of human
character One passes a judgment, but one can always modify it, although
there are cases when one is responsible for it.
True, both judgment of taste and judgment of human character are
passed from the position of the spectator, but they can directly or
indirectly also influence action. My judgment may not just influence but
also may guide my action. I act upon my judgment of taste when I buy, or
don’t buy, a painting for a museum, I act upon my judgment of human
character when I trust a person with an important assignment.
Determining judgment is always action–oriented, even if action is, for
a while, withheld.
In order to pass determining judgment, one has first to accept the norm,
the law, the theory that is to be applied and applied well to a concrete case
or circumstance.
While speaking about determining judgment, one can still rely on
Aristotle. Good judgment (good application of some general norm, law, or
theory on a single case) is also a special mental ability. One has to practice
this mental ability (phronesis) in order to learn how to do it best. In case of
determining judgment, there is a right way to do it, perhaps even a true
way to do it
In human matters (for example in case of judge), one speaks of just or
unjust judgment; I refer here to Derrida rather than to Aristotle. Aristotle
said that there is one single right judgment, the entirely just one. Derrida
says that there is no absolutely just judgment at all. No judge can be
entirely just.
Here, one could return to the issue of responsibility. The judge (not just
in the court of justice) takes a decision and passes a judgment, she must be
aware of the painful truth, that her judgment cannot be entirely just. The
judgment is preceded by a chain of deliberation, by hesitations, by
outbalancing pros and cons, and all this boils down to one single act of
judgment. Thus, all judges carry responsibility for the justice of their
Reflections on Some Friendly Papers 281
determining judgments, yet not for all (even most) of their reflective
judgments.
CONTRIBUTORS