Funny thing is, the new video game “wukong” character base off an old Chinese novel “journey to the west” published in 1592, “banality of evil" was already a part of teaching in Chinese culture. Even in a fictional Novel base off the true story set in Tang Dynasty.
I think that one thing that gets lost in the reading of Eichmann in Jerusalem is that the banality that Arendt sees in Eichmann is not everymanness- which supports his “just following orders” defense. Instead, it is a kind of craven mediocrity: the idea is that Eichmann is not a mastermind, just a self-serving little man. It’s not that he is simply complying with the bureaucracy around him; rather, he is willing to shut off part of his humanity, to spiritually lobotomize himself, so that he can maintain his position.
Thanks, Felipe, for this really thoughtful analysis. This is, I think, a very good reading of Arendt's argument. The banality of evil seems to creep into our lives when people are encouraged or pressured to think only of themselves and their most petty ambitions: promotion, recognition from superiors, etc. It seems to be associated with the evaporation of courage in public life.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair If I had a nickel every time a supervisor has told me that no change could be made when it clearly could, I'd be retired.
@@IosuamacaMhadaidhit's only more obvious now because of technology, and the people targeted have political influence.. maintaining the tyranny we are under has been the "national security issue" of the century.
@@GreatBooksProf I would argue that the banality of evil is still very relevant when it comes to unethical stuff some companies do. It may not compare to the holocaust, but if you do paperwork for some import from China that involves Uyghur forced labour, or you process data involving a supply chain in Congo where children are forced to work by militias you are participating in a 'banality of evil', too. You just do your desk work and go on with your day to day life, while your work actually supports grave human rights abuses or severe environmental degradation. And again, I am just talking about employees working normal desk jobs at fortune 500 companies, not necessarily bureacrats in totalitarian states.
I'm a software engineer that used to work for a medical insurance company. I was asked to make a change to the claims handling that would automatically put claims into "review" for the smallest inconsistency. This of course resulted in many claims being rejected and of course made many poor old ppl feel helpless and powerless against this monolithic insurance company - many just give up. I think this is an example of the banality of evil. I turned down the assignment. And then I lost my job.
I keep thinking of animal agriculture. Systematized, daily, institutional, legal and accepted, yet horrific violence, suffering, death, panic and oppression of animals.
Im of course aware of the outliers in the huge operations but most meat comes from family farms. Do you genuinely think that farmers spend.their days attacking the livestock ans nothing else? Their entire lives revolve around the well being of their animals, i dont think youve ever experienced even 1 day on a farm
Hannah Arendt has some really powerful ideas. I always find myself returning to her seminal work The Origins of Totalitarianism(I have several of her books). A very challenging read, but also incredibly relevant in our modern world. I commend you for doing this because a lot of these ideas are bottled up in a lot of exposition and context, and without taking the time to go through the text in detail, it's difficult to tease out the intricacies.
Great presentation on a nebulous moral topic, It has been said ‘ The only truly good thing is a good will ‘ , but evil can be brought about simply by obeying orders , doing an ordinary job , being brain dead / ignorant / deceived, living an unexamined life , surrendering your individual choice to the collective , abrogation of personal moral responsibility . It’s easy to immediately reach for the stones , but it IS commonplace . “ The colour of truth is grey “ , Perhaps it’s more utilitarian to seek the lesser of ‘two evils’ . Right conduct - is an eternal perplexing conundrum . In contrast , M Scott Peck defines evil as “ militant ignorance “. A lot of food for thought . Thanks .
Having no time to read anything but medical and scientific papers, I am making an effort to read something important to us. I chose this book. Hannah writes beautifully and has a vast amount of cultural knowledge to be able to put context to what is happening as it develops, but I was disappointed. Your explanation encourages me that there is still a lot to take from this book and I will keep going. Thanks. Then I'll be back to see what other books you have recommended. A needed channel.
Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate that! You certainly are taking on a challenge, reading some very tough political theory alongside your regular work. Arendt's work is dense and difficult, but you are right, there are moments where her writing is extraordinarily beautiful. The subject matter can be bleak, but it is also very important. I'm glad you found the video somewhat helpful. I made another video on Eichmann in Jerusalem a while back; you might find it useful too as you read: ua-cam.com/video/2LjAESuTW-U/v-deo.html
Thank you for the very important and digestible summary and look at Arendts work, I never knew her before I discovered her during a university philosophy class, but it is such a complex yet simple way of looking at evil as you have to put your own morals aside to understand that even the people that commit the most atrocious acts are essentially just like us. Beautiful explanation, thank you again!
Thanks, Emily, for your thoughtful comment. It is an extraordinary and disturbing argument. But I think, as you suggest, she is likely correct. Were you a philosophy major or did you take it as an elective?
Most of the people that work for a large company praticipate in this banale evil. When this is pointed out, they try to justify their actions by blaming the victim, usually the customer, or talk about having to do their job in order to pay the bills and feed the kids.
Hello professor, I am confused about Eichmann's thought process. Is Arednt trying to say that this modern and commonplace type of evil is rooted in people’s stupidity and ignorance? Or, does it come from our choice to look away in order to maintain our comfortable lifestyles? One modern-day example that came to my mind is the phenomenon of fast fashion. When we willingly buy clothes on Shein that are a product of child labor/slavery, are we exhibiting “banal” evil because we choose to ignore a problem that doesn't affect us? I’m not even a student, I just watched the Hannah Arendt movie for fun yesterday and I thought it was fascinating! Thank you!
Hi Victoria, Thanks for your question. I think it’s a bit closer to the second option you suggest. There is a kind of willing blindness that Arendt tracks in totalitarian states. It seems to be facilitated or exacerbated by an environment in which thinking and deliberating are deliberately made difficult. She notes, for example, strict language rules that are used to hide and obfuscate what people are doing - even from themselves. So killing becomes liquidation, etc. Totalitarian evil makes it hard to think. And if we cannot deliberate normally it becomes almost impossible to act morally. Your fast fashion example is a good one. I think sweat shops are definitely a form of modern evil that we all overlook and assume has nothing to do with us.
Having watched your other video on Foucault and power, would it be appropriate to suggest that a Foucauldian perspective of Arendt's analysis would suggest that Eichmann's actions are an illustration of how power, stemming from totalitarian ideological influence on institutions, reveals itself? (Your videos are excellent by the way- thank you for these! They've helped me have some breakthroughs as I work through my dissertation).
Thanks for this great question. It’s pretty complicated, it seems to me and highlights a deep difference between the Arendtian and Foucauldian accounts of power. Arendt defined power as acting in concert and for her it was closely connected to human deliberation and free action. We choose to exercise power and we can also choose to abdicate our abilities and responsibilities. Foucault seemed to have less confidence in our agency, at least in my reading. He seems to think of power as a much more ominous force which circulates around us, with us, and through us, but also perhaps? independent of us. They are both very interested in institutions too. Interesting comparison. Thanks for watching!
Happy to watch the video. :) Reading the book is something I’d love to do, however, I’d also like to read the book Eichmann before Jerusalem (originally german) - which suggests that Eichmann was, more than anything, controlling the narrative, portraying himself a thoughtless pawn while not being as unmindful. (from my understanding)
Excellent thank you ~ sadly we see it in the layers of bureaucracy in todays society, so first we need to recognize it, then think and act differently.
Dear prof, thanks for the explanation. Living in a totalitarian country, I can tell you that it's Big Brother that decides the definition of evil: anyone/anything contrary to what BB says is evil. From here, evil loses its original meaning, it becomes obedience. As a result, ordinary people would do evil things (in other words, they simply obey). Some are so brainwashed, they CHOOSE to do so because they really believe what they do is good; others HAVE TO do so, in order to survive (this part of people has to learn to doublethink like in 1984, otherwise, their conscience hurts).
The only issue with Arendt"s concept is that it is based on a character who was not banal at all. He was exceptionally creative in the fulfilment of his tasks. In Hungary in late 1944, he even went BEYOND Himmler's orders. In Vienna, in 1938, his exceptional organizer's qualities were amply demonstrated. Rabbi Mummerlstein, the sole survivor of the Jewish councils, who had daily contacts with Eichmann, confirms all this in his interview with Claude Lanzmann in the film The Last of the Unjusts. He wonders why Arendt never bothered to have a discussion with him about the case. He also confirms that Eichmann had ample autonomy and initiative and, far from being a banal bureaucrat, was a responsible and thinking leader.
It's not ignorance of wrongdoing that defines banality of evil, it's the simplicity of the motivation. The core principle behind Arendt's theory is that people will perform heinous actions for simple and petty motives, and they are capable of doing this not because they are exceptionally heinous individuals but merely because the damage of their actions has become routine and ordinary. Yes, Eichmann went above and beyond. But why did he go above and beyond? Him attempting to exceed his superior's expectations is, on the practical level, no different than an office worker taking extra hours to get a project done ahead of schedule in order to increase their likelihood of getting promoted. He was an effective organizer and manager, focused on just being exceptional in his job. It's not even that he was an ordinarily cruel person, it was just his job to be cruel. And he wanted to be good at his job.
Absolutely. I think it is terrible that this phrase has become the leitmotif of Hannah Arendt, who has many insightful things to say. Eichmann was a committed Nazi - i.e. in his head he was helping create a 1000 year riech, an 'Aryan' paradise unsullied by 'inferior' races. How is this banal? Unfortunately these cultish manias are all too human. Naturally Arendt was disgusted by Eichmann but I believe the phrase is a slip up in the attempt to see the world clearly. What we may be able to say is that given such a cultish belief, the desire to achieve the 'paradise' can become overwhelming and if some evil acts are required to get there then the believers can perform those acts with equanimity and even pleasure - in this sense the evil might be called banal but the belief system that motivates these actions is far from banal.
Nice piece - and particularly clarifying given all the current videos on the film "The Zone of Interest" which labor mightily to merely point out the obvious. Few people have actually figured how to talk about that film with genuine insight yet. That said, of course you don't need a totalitarian environment for the prospect of evil. Virtually any structure that consolidates power - political, social, financial - with the intent of impacting the lives of human beings and all that sustains them is capable of evil: corporate, religious and civic institutions have created myriad harms that we live with in the contemporary world. Global energy corporations conspired to hide research attesting to the effects of continued use of fossil fuels and the problem of global warming and even now continue their campaign to disinform and propagandize the public against the curbing of burning carbon-based fuels. The Catholic Church engineered a cover-up of a world-wide epidemic of child molestation among its clerical ranks. Social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook have found it very profitable to disseminate misinformation, lies and base bigotry in the service of autocratic regimes and movements. We now consider rogue mass shootings a normative part of the social backdrop of life in the US because there's nothing much we can do about it, or so certain politicians tell us. And so it goes. Evil? Yup, with a capital E! But we're beyond banality at this point. It's as though we're facing a teleology of inevitability. It's not even dangerous to oppose these things as it might be under a totalitarian regime. It's just futile because nothing really changes. It's a new kind of fatalism that we really haven't figured out yet. It's as though the fate of human beings is secondary to the fate of institutions that govern us. We are becoming absurd. We need a new humanism.
I think the best definition of banality professor is something that is so common place that it has become bland like a mediocre song that gets played over and over again on the radio
Interesting, at the end of the video Prof. Moore challenged the viewer a bit (I believe) to look at current and perhaps future societal affairs for signs of totalitarianism. None of the 57 comments so far are about the Covid19 narrative. Is it not allowed to draw parallels? I guess I am about to find out. I'd like to ask a question, please. Prof Moore, have you read "The psychology of totalitarianism" by Mattias Desmet?
I believe Hannah's banality of Evil is very Jungian - That we must embrace the shadow - or our potential for great evil masks our innate potential for infinite care and compassion... Chesed, a love that takes four and five words in other languages, and we invented one for English.
modern feminists are banal evil... at best. or insane evil at worst. Feminists mostly used to be insane evil feminists, but now around half are banal evil feminists... Simply because "the average woman" has absorbed these ideas in a very "banal" way. Even if she doesn't consider herself a feminist, shes a banal evil feminist. It used to be females had some traditionalism, or they were insane evil feminists. Actually mostly 70% insane.
A system of bureaus where it is impossible to identify culprits, I am not sure did she say it like that. The end of the line the gas factories she called them were the result of people like Eichmann who would not hurt a fly.
You should watch Jonathan Glazer's new film The Zone of Interest.. it comes out in a week or so. It takes the banality of evil head on in an unprecedented and haunting way
I've experienced this via the mental health system. It needs to be eradicated. I told them about my past experiences and told them I believed I had ptsd. They sectioned me for saying so and told me I'm not well psychologically. Which is a lie
Did Hannah explain her own Banality as a college student of Nazi professor of philosophy, Martin Heidegger a father of modern Existentialism and an unrepentant Nazi. Hannah was Jewish and also became Heidegger's Mistress while part of a group of students Heidegger would invite to his home for "lectures on philosophy."
So pertinent to the devastation we see being enacted in Palestine right now, and the fabric of modern/Western civilisation which remains one step removed, but complicit nonetheless.
Arendt’s description of Eichmann is factually wrong. In a series of discussions with a former Nazi journalist also living in Argentina, Eichmann admitted he was a fanatical National Socialism and that he would jump into his grave with joy, knowing he had murdered 5 million Jews. Eichmann did not push paper in an office. He travelled to Budapest to supervise the deportation of half a million Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz. He was in fact on the front lines. Her entire analysis is wrong
Exactly - has it never come up in her mind that Eichmann, during his trial, might have been lying and hiding his real inner sentiment about what happened? Of course he was lying, he wanted the judges to be mild.
@@michaelkennedy2395 Arendt heaps abuse on the Judenraat as if those Jews had freedom of choice. You are missing Arendt’s deep biases which Gershom Scholem called her out on
@@michaelkennedy2395 Arendt heaps abuse on the Judenraat as if those Jews had freedom of choice. You are missing Arendt’s deep biases which Gershom Scholem called her out on
That's a very good analysis... nevertheless I believe that what Arendt really focused on the most, was that evil is something banal because it is the reflection of our animalistic component. since we were all animals once and evolved into humans. As the lion mauls the gazelle...that's something absolutely banal and commonplace. Being good is something out of the ordinary because it makes us different than animals.
This is an interesting theory, and there are thinkers, like Hobbes, who would argue that the bad things we do are rooted in our animal nature. However, I don't think this is Arendt's position. She did not think that humans and animals were the same. Much of her work emphasizes the aspects of human life -- like politics -- that make us very different from other animals. In fact, her argument about Germany is that their efforts during WWII were precisely not utilitarian. Running the camps, for example, was expensive and a drain on resources. They were committed to it, not out of some "animal instinct," but because they had freely committed themselves to this ideology. Animals mostly do things just to survive and procreate. Humans have a greater range. We can do much better and much worse things than animals can.
@@GreatBooksProf She implicitly said that thoughtlessness is something that animals do. We are different than animals, but some humans are still animals in the sense that they are not capable of using thought to distinguish good from evil. Can animals distinguish good from evil? No...they cannot. They just do what other animals do, or what man tells them to do. And so did the hideous creatures like Adold Eichmann: they killed their own soul, so they could obey orders without thinking what those order would imply. I understand that you probably don't believe in evolution as I do...correct me if I m wrong. There is that great animal spirit of self-preservation that pushed those Nazis to obey orders, so nobody would have tried them and sentenced them to death for High Treason. Pardon my audacity, but I think I would acted differently. I would have preferred to die than to see those atrocities in Auschwitz. So the Nazis would have shot me right away, because I would have told them off. Primo Levi, who survived Auschwitz explains how he envies those who preferred to die free, than to obey and follow the Nazis along.
To help you a little with context, take a moment to think how Hitler would have reacted to a large group of Jews living in the Soviet Union suddenly storming into Germany and killing 1,700 innocent German citizens for no other reason other than the fact they are German, and taking another 200 citizens hostage.
Saya ke sini karena penjelasan rocky gerung tentang banality , dan hampir sama seperti di Indonesia, semua kejahatan hampir di anggap biasa, baik2 saja
Wouldn't this banality of evil also apply to countless tyrannies throughout history? Ancient Rome or a Chinese dynasty for example also had bureaucracies furthering totalitarian ends didn't they? Was Arendt arguing that this banality was purely a modern phenomenon or do I misunderstand?.
This is a good question. My sense is Arendt would argue that modern bureaucracies are different from ancient bureaucracies. A lot of it hinges on science and technology. Arendt seems to believe that the emergence of science fundamentally changes how we see the world. Pre-modern societies tended to see the world as something given and largely unchanging. It was the context in which we operated. Post-modern societies tend to view the world (and the planet) as something we can control and master -- or something we can leave behind (by going to Mars, for example). This ties into totalitarianism, which Arendt thinks is different than tyranny. A tyranny is constrained by certain natural human conditions. A tyranny is one guy exerting his will over a group of people. There are historically limits to what he's able to do and make people do. But totalitarianism, infused with the power of science and technology, tries to remake the world in its image. It tries to remake the human species in its image. It tries to bend nature itself to its will. And this means, that even those who seem to be pulling the strings are actually subject to it, so that even those who run the totalitarian regime get caught up in the vacuum. They too must agree that reality is whatever the state says it is. There is no objective reality, not even a natural law to which they can appeal outside the influence of the state. All of this would give bureaucracy in the modern world a much different character than bureaucracy in the ancient or pre-modern world. On top of all that, just straightforwardly, the size and complexity of modern governments would make the bureaucracies much more labyrinthine and dense. The key thing for her is the loss of human agency. In systems where people don't really have any power to make decisions or effect change, the banality of evil starts to emerge, especially if those systems are concerned with important things like housing or healthcare or justice. The Roman Empire would have had a sprawling bureaucracy, as you say, and insofar as exerting agency within the public or political realm was difficult or impossible, you could argue that the banality of evil was at work there. Arendt believed pretty strongly that the ancient world had a clearer sense of citizenship and agency than the modern world, but she could have been wrong about that. Whew! what a rant that was. Hope that's worth something. lol.
The banality of evil can only exist in a vacuum where the perpetrator of evil is unaware of any opposition to that evil. That is not the case in WW2 Germany, Mens Rea is well & truly present in any & all involved in its mob morality/mentality.
I don't understand how you so MASSIVELY miss the point but continuously repeating "in a totalitarian regime/totalitarianism" The point is that it is everyday, everywhere, and everywhen Evil does not require a totalitarian regime It only requires you to allow someone else to do your thinking for you It happens in every regime
Not really. Very few governments are totalitarian. Collapsing distinctions can lead us into errors. Even bad, even tyrannical governments are not totalitarian. And it doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not those governments are effective or not.
@@GreatBooksProf I agree,I was been very summarised as as in my view we have creeping authoritarianism in the west,and to be clear I don't mean in the MAGA sense but with the absolute rigid application of rules and regulations aided by technology resulting in the slightest transgression of any bureaucratic insanity been disproportionately punished and enforced,such as ROBODEBT here in Australia for example.I guess in short all government is malevolent as they all whether they will admit it or even notice it are ultimately fundamentalists who believe in process over outcome regardless of the cost to individuals and society. Thanks for your reply.
*_Does the Truth derive from Authority or_* *_Does Authority derive from the Truth?_* For the vast majority of people (say nineteen out of twenty) the Truth is whatever Authority chooses to tell us, and nothing more. This is especially so for SJ Guardians who severely doubt their own ability to think for themselves over the opinions of those given Authority. Mostly only Libertarian minded NT Rationalists choose to think for themselves... and they frequently face social ostracism for it, which most folks can't tolerate well at all?!!
Totalitarian moments happen everyday in all institutions. Banality of evil can manifest in the next minute if you so choose. The problem has always been choice. What do you choose.
And choices come up when you are able to think.. And that's exactly what a totalitarian state does to you.. You become thoughtless, hence no choices to go for, except what you have been ordered to do 🤷♂️
Good point Mr Chang. My coworker described it as a choice of rather being a hammer than a nail. Indicating his inclination towards choosing to inflict brutality on behalf of a regime as a way to avoid being the recipient of that brutality. It is a choice. A choice to abandon ones own humanity out of latent sadism or cowardice.
I hate the expression "crimes against humanity". The expression covers up the actual suffering that these crimes cause. These crimes are actually crimes against millions of people, people like you and me, and these crimes cause untold suffering, suffering of millions of people, people like you and me. When we use the expression "crimes against humanity" it's as if the crime's were committed against a single person. And far from emphasizing the magnitude of the crimes, actually minimizes them.
I fail to see the difference between Eichmann and the exploitation that is Capitalism except to say that Capitalism has more apologists than did the Nazi. If Nazis had won, the conversation would be different. I believe it was Arendt who noted that bureaucracy is violence, or perhaps that was Foucault.
Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods & services. Period. There are few things LESS exploitive than Capitalism. If we could return to a Capitalist system, rather than cronyism/oligarchy/fascist state we live under now, life would improve greatly. Unfortunately, delusional people always mess up the works, hence the unfortunate influx of Socialist thought, which has only served to inflate federal governmental authority and push us ever closer to totalitarianism. It's tragic.
@@DamePiglet You are conflating market mechanisms with means of production. A market exchange system can be maintained irrespective of who owns the factory or whatever means to produce goods to exchange.
@@philosophicsblog 😆 You're full of crap. What an inane, BS reply. 😆🤣 And, FYI: No, Foucault said many other dopey things (that sound insightful to simpletons), but "bureaucracy is violence" is not among them. Are you confusing that with "knowledge is power" perhaps? Because that's a Foucaultian concept.
You are totally wrong. Demonising others will not excuse you from being evil. You have to accept that ordinary people, living ordinary lives can produce evil results. I’ve seen so many of these, I’m a good person, we’re good people, we could never do that kind of thing, videos. All the evil committed in the world was done by good people.
I'm not sure if you watched the video if you think you are disagreeing with him here. At no point does he demonize anyone, and actually a major part of the video and book is about how many of us have the capacity to allow evil in different circumstances.
What's he "totally wrong" about? You're saying good people can do evil deeds. He's saying (or rather Arendt is saying) that totalitarian regimes can commit evil on a massive scale, much greater than was historically possible, without it ever "feeling" like evil. The two statements aren't contradictory.
📚You can find another lecture on Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem right here: ua-cam.com/video/2LjAESuTW-U/v-deo.html📚
Funny thing is, the new video game “wukong” character base off an old Chinese novel “journey to the west” published in 1592, “banality of evil" was already a part of teaching in Chinese culture. Even in a fictional Novel base off the true story set in Tang Dynasty.
I think that one thing that gets lost in the reading of Eichmann in Jerusalem is that the banality that Arendt sees in Eichmann is not everymanness- which supports his “just following orders” defense. Instead, it is a kind of craven mediocrity: the idea is that Eichmann is not a mastermind, just a self-serving little man. It’s not that he is simply complying with the bureaucracy around him; rather, he is willing to shut off part of his humanity, to spiritually lobotomize himself, so that he can maintain his position.
Thanks, Felipe, for this really thoughtful analysis. This is, I think, a very good reading of Arendt's argument. The banality of evil seems to creep into our lives when people are encouraged or pressured to think only of themselves and their most petty ambitions: promotion, recognition from superiors, etc. It seems to be associated with the evaporation of courage in public life.
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
If I had a nickel every time a supervisor has told me that no change could be made when it clearly could, I'd be retired.
Sounds exactly like what has happened to mainstream media in the western nations.
@@IosuamacaMhadaidhit's only more obvious now because of technology, and the people targeted have political influence.. maintaining the tyranny we are under has been the "national security issue" of the century.
@@GreatBooksProf I would argue that the banality of evil is still very relevant when it comes to unethical stuff some companies do. It may not compare to the holocaust, but if you do paperwork for some import from China that involves Uyghur forced labour, or you process data involving a supply chain in Congo where children are forced to work by militias you are participating in a 'banality of evil', too. You just do your desk work and go on with your day to day life, while your work actually supports grave human rights abuses or severe environmental degradation.
And again, I am just talking about employees working normal desk jobs at fortune 500 companies, not necessarily bureacrats in totalitarian states.
Her quote was brilliant; the goal was not to instill bad convictions. It was to destroy their capacity to have convictions.
I'm a software engineer that used to work for a medical insurance company.
I was asked to make a change to the claims handling that would automatically put claims into "review" for the smallest inconsistency. This of course resulted in many claims being rejected and of course made many poor old ppl feel helpless and powerless against this monolithic insurance company - many just give up.
I think this is an example of the banality of evil.
I turned down the assignment.
And then I lost my job.
It requires a good moral compass to recognize and even greater courage to fight against such acts of evil. You made the right choice.
You are not alone. Itoo work in the medical field & refused to do something & was removed.
Bless your heart, you are adorable.
You did good
hope you found somewhere better
I’ve been a public defender for eight years. I’ve never heard such a succinct description of how the prosecutors I deal with think.
I keep thinking of animal agriculture. Systematized, daily, institutional, legal and accepted, yet horrific violence, suffering, death, panic and oppression of animals.
Have you ever been on the average farm?
Im of course aware of the outliers in the huge operations but most meat comes from family farms.
Do you genuinely think that farmers spend.their days attacking the livestock ans nothing else?
Their entire lives revolve around the well being of their animals, i dont think youve ever experienced even 1 day on a farm
Lol.
Sad about the chicken. Unfortunate comparison to 20 centuries of murdering Jews. Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe you’re missing something.
Hannah Arendt has some really powerful ideas. I always find myself returning to her seminal work The Origins of Totalitarianism(I have several of her books). A very challenging read, but also incredibly relevant in our modern world. I commend you for doing this because a lot of these ideas are bottled up in a lot of exposition and context, and without taking the time to go through the text in detail, it's difficult to tease out the intricacies.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Great presentation on a nebulous moral topic, It has been said ‘ The only truly good thing is a good will ‘ , but evil can be brought about simply by obeying orders , doing an ordinary job , being brain dead / ignorant / deceived, living an unexamined life , surrendering your individual choice to the collective , abrogation of personal moral responsibility . It’s easy to immediately reach for the stones , but it IS commonplace . “ The colour of truth is grey “ , Perhaps it’s more utilitarian to seek the lesser of ‘two evils’ . Right conduct - is an eternal perplexing conundrum . In contrast , M Scott Peck defines evil as “ militant ignorance “. A lot of food for thought . Thanks .
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for your thoughtful comment!
"...personal moral responsibility..." That sums it up.
Having no time to read anything but medical and scientific papers, I am making an effort to read something important to us. I chose this book. Hannah writes beautifully and has a vast amount of cultural knowledge to be able to put context to what is happening as it develops, but I was disappointed. Your explanation encourages me that there is still a lot to take from this book and I will keep going. Thanks. Then I'll be back to see what other books you have recommended. A needed channel.
Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate that! You certainly are taking on a challenge, reading some very tough political theory alongside your regular work. Arendt's work is dense and difficult, but you are right, there are moments where her writing is extraordinarily beautiful. The subject matter can be bleak, but it is also very important. I'm glad you found the video somewhat helpful.
I made another video on Eichmann in Jerusalem a while back; you might find it useful too as you read: ua-cam.com/video/2LjAESuTW-U/v-deo.html
Thank you for the very important and digestible summary and look at Arendts work, I never knew her before I discovered her during a university philosophy class, but it is such a complex yet simple way of looking at evil as you have to put your own morals aside to understand that even the people that commit the most atrocious acts are essentially just like us. Beautiful explanation, thank you again!
Thanks, Emily, for your thoughtful comment. It is an extraordinary and disturbing argument. But I think, as you suggest, she is likely correct. Were you a philosophy major or did you take it as an elective?
Most of the people that work for a large company praticipate in this banale evil. When this is pointed out, they try to justify their actions by blaming the victim, usually the customer, or talk about having to do their job in order to pay the bills and feed the kids.
The banality of evil today can hardly been overseen. Thank you for reviewing Hannah Arendt's book. ❤
Thank you making her work so clear.
Brilliant explained 🎉🎉
Thank you!
Thank you so much! You explained the concept very well. I finally understood!!! :)
I’m so happy to hear that. Glad I could help!
Hello professor,
I am confused about Eichmann's thought process.
Is Arednt trying to say that this modern and commonplace type of evil is rooted in people’s stupidity and ignorance? Or, does it come from our choice to look away in order to maintain our comfortable lifestyles?
One modern-day example that came to my mind is the phenomenon of fast fashion. When we willingly buy clothes on Shein that are a product of child labor/slavery, are we exhibiting “banal” evil because we choose to ignore a problem that doesn't affect us?
I’m not even a student, I just watched the Hannah Arendt movie for fun yesterday and I thought it was fascinating!
Thank you!
Hi Victoria,
Thanks for your question. I think it’s a bit closer to the second option you suggest. There is a kind of willing blindness that Arendt tracks in totalitarian states.
It seems to be facilitated or exacerbated by an environment in which thinking and deliberating are deliberately made difficult. She notes, for example, strict language rules that are used to hide and obfuscate what people are doing - even from themselves. So killing becomes liquidation, etc.
Totalitarian evil makes it hard to think. And if we cannot deliberate normally it becomes almost impossible to act morally.
Your fast fashion example is a good one. I think sweat shops are definitely a form of modern evil that we all overlook and assume has nothing to do with us.
@@GreatBooksProf Thank you so much for your answer!
@@Victoria21415 Sure thing!
I stumbled across this looking for a poem from a video game. I was instantly converted into a fan. Fantastic video.
That was great. I've just started to read the book and it really helped my desire to finish it. Thanks
Wonderful! It can be a challenging book to get through. Happy to hear you enjoyed the video. Thank you!
I have a problem with this video. It's not long enough! You did a great job explaining Arendt's theory.
Thanks!
This phenomenon also happens in companies where workers and CEO's participate in repressing democracy and destroying the earth's ecology.
Thank you for easy explanation!
You’re welcome.
Fantastic explanation. Thank you.
You’re very welcome! I’m glad you found it helpful.
perfect video! thanks bro!!
Thanks.
Thank you for this. Subscribed.
You’re welcome! And thanks!
Thank you for this amazing and beautiful explanation😊
You're very welcome! I'm glad you liked it.
Having watched your other video on Foucault and power, would it be appropriate to suggest that a Foucauldian perspective of Arendt's analysis would suggest that Eichmann's actions are an illustration of how power, stemming from totalitarian ideological influence on institutions, reveals itself? (Your videos are excellent by the way- thank you for these! They've helped me have some breakthroughs as I work through my dissertation).
Thanks for this great question. It’s pretty complicated, it seems to me and highlights a deep difference between the Arendtian and Foucauldian accounts of power. Arendt defined power as acting in concert and for her it was closely connected to human deliberation and free action. We choose to exercise power and we can also choose to abdicate our abilities and responsibilities. Foucault seemed to have less confidence in our agency, at least in my reading. He seems to think of power as a much more ominous force which circulates around us, with us, and through us, but also perhaps? independent of us. They are both very interested in institutions too. Interesting comparison. Thanks for watching!
@@GreatBooksProf That makes a lot of sense. I appreciate the thoughtful response, and I hope you have a wonderful holiday!
Thank You for this lesson.
It helped me a lot :)
You're very welcome!
Happy to watch the video. :) Reading the book is something I’d love to do, however, I’d also like to read the book Eichmann before Jerusalem (originally german) - which suggests that Eichmann was, more than anything, controlling the narrative, portraying himself a thoughtless pawn while not being as unmindful. (from my understanding)
Thanks G i have a test tomorrow
I’ve got your back.
Excellent thank you ~ sadly we see it in the layers of bureaucracy in todays society, so first we need to recognize it, then think and act differently.
Well put.
Dear prof, thanks for the explanation. Living in a totalitarian country, I can tell you that it's Big Brother that decides the definition of evil: anyone/anything contrary to what BB says is evil. From here, evil loses its original meaning, it becomes obedience.
As a result, ordinary people would do evil things (in other words, they simply obey). Some are so brainwashed, they CHOOSE to do so because they really believe what they do is good; others HAVE TO do so, in order to survive (this part of people has to learn to doublethink like in 1984, otherwise, their conscience hurts).
6:17 YES!!!
This happening right now to the Palestinians
came to say this!
The only issue with Arendt"s concept is that it is based on a character who was not banal at all. He was exceptionally creative in the fulfilment of his tasks. In Hungary in late 1944, he even went BEYOND Himmler's orders. In Vienna, in 1938, his exceptional organizer's qualities were amply demonstrated. Rabbi Mummerlstein, the sole survivor of the Jewish councils, who had daily contacts with Eichmann, confirms all this in his interview with Claude Lanzmann in the film The Last of the Unjusts. He wonders why Arendt never bothered to have a discussion with him about the case. He also confirms that Eichmann had ample autonomy and initiative and, far from being a banal bureaucrat, was a responsible and thinking leader.
It's not ignorance of wrongdoing that defines banality of evil, it's the simplicity of the motivation.
The core principle behind Arendt's theory is that people will perform heinous actions for simple and petty motives, and they are capable of doing this not because they are exceptionally heinous individuals but merely because the damage of their actions has become routine and ordinary.
Yes, Eichmann went above and beyond. But why did he go above and beyond?
Him attempting to exceed his superior's expectations is, on the practical level, no different than an office worker taking extra hours to get a project done ahead of schedule in order to increase their likelihood of getting promoted.
He was an effective organizer and manager, focused on just being exceptional in his job.
It's not even that he was an ordinarily cruel person, it was just his job to be cruel. And he wanted to be good at his job.
Absolutely. I think it is terrible that this phrase has become the leitmotif of Hannah Arendt, who has many insightful things to say. Eichmann was a committed Nazi - i.e. in his head he was helping create a 1000 year riech, an 'Aryan' paradise unsullied by 'inferior' races. How is this banal? Unfortunately these cultish manias are all too human. Naturally Arendt was disgusted by Eichmann but I believe the phrase is a slip up in the attempt to see the world clearly.
What we may be able to say is that given such a cultish belief, the desire to achieve the 'paradise' can become overwhelming and if some evil acts are required to get there then the believers can perform those acts with equanimity and even pleasure - in this sense the evil might be called banal but the belief system that motivates these actions is far from banal.
Nice piece - and particularly clarifying given all the current videos on the film "The Zone of Interest" which labor mightily to merely point out the obvious. Few people have actually figured how to talk about that film with genuine insight yet. That said, of course you don't need a totalitarian environment for the prospect of evil. Virtually any structure that consolidates power - political, social, financial - with the intent of impacting the lives of human beings and all that sustains them is capable of evil: corporate, religious and civic institutions have created myriad harms that we live with in the contemporary world. Global energy corporations conspired to hide research attesting to the effects of continued use of fossil fuels and the problem of global warming and even now continue their campaign to disinform and propagandize the public against the curbing of burning carbon-based fuels. The Catholic Church engineered a cover-up of a world-wide epidemic of child molestation among its clerical ranks. Social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook have found it very profitable to disseminate misinformation, lies and base bigotry in the service of autocratic regimes and movements. We now consider rogue mass shootings a normative part of the social backdrop of life in the US because there's nothing much we can do about it, or so certain politicians tell us. And so it goes. Evil? Yup, with a capital E! But we're beyond banality at this point. It's as though we're facing a teleology of inevitability. It's not even dangerous to oppose these things as it might be under a totalitarian regime. It's just futile because nothing really changes. It's a new kind of fatalism that we really haven't figured out yet. It's as though the fate of human beings is secondary to the fate of institutions that govern us. We are becoming absurd. We need a new humanism.
thank you
excellent
if possible, in future take out the extra sounds and beeps it is somewhat painful to manage with earphones.
Working to get better at this all the time. Thanks! 👊
6:15 *cough Israel on Palestinians
I think the best definition of banality professor is something that is so common place that it has become bland like a mediocre song that gets played over and over again on the radio
Interesting, at the end of the video Prof. Moore challenged the viewer a bit (I believe) to look at current and perhaps future societal affairs for signs of totalitarianism. None of the 57 comments so far are about the Covid19 narrative. Is it not allowed to draw parallels? I guess I am about to find out.
I'd like to ask a question, please. Prof Moore, have you read "The psychology of totalitarianism" by Mattias Desmet?
I believe Hannah's banality of Evil is very Jungian - That we must embrace the shadow - or our potential for great evil masks our innate potential for infinite care and compassion... Chesed, a love that takes four and five words in other languages, and we invented one for English.
modern feminists are banal evil... at best. or insane evil at worst.
Feminists mostly used to be insane evil feminists, but now around half are banal evil feminists...
Simply because "the average woman" has absorbed these ideas in a very "banal" way. Even if she doesn't consider herself a feminist, shes a banal evil feminist.
It used to be females had some traditionalism, or they were insane evil feminists. Actually mostly 70% insane.
Nuanced, thanks.
Concise. Thank you.
A system of bureaus where it is impossible to identify culprits, I am not sure did she say it like that. The end of the line the gas factories she called them were the result of people like Eichmann who would not hurt a fly.
Because humans can be made to believe is where many of our problms lie.
You should watch Jonathan Glazer's new film The Zone of Interest.. it comes out in a week or so. It takes the banality of evil head on in an unprecedented and haunting way
yes!
I've experienced this via the mental health system. It needs to be eradicated. I told them about my past experiences and told them I believed I had ptsd. They sectioned me for saying so and told me I'm not well psychologically. Which is a lie
Did Hannah explain her own Banality as a college student of Nazi professor of philosophy, Martin Heidegger a father of modern Existentialism and an unrepentant Nazi. Hannah was Jewish and also became Heidegger's Mistress while part of a group of students Heidegger would invite to his home for "lectures on philosophy."
I grew up in a banality of evil. Since I noticed the wickedness I was then seen as an enemy.
Evil was the enemy not you
@joelhc9703 thank you. I think it's ironic that family is quick to deem you crazy when you realize their wicked, uncivilized behavior.
Consolations of Divine Justice
youre great
So pertinent to the devastation we see being enacted in Palestine right now, and the fabric of modern/Western civilisation which remains one step removed, but complicit nonetheless.
awesome channel
Thank you!
Arendt’s description of Eichmann is factually wrong. In a series of discussions with a former Nazi journalist also living in Argentina, Eichmann admitted he was a fanatical National Socialism and that he would jump into his grave with joy, knowing he had murdered 5 million Jews.
Eichmann did not push paper in an office. He travelled to Budapest to supervise the deportation of half a million Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz. He was in fact on the front lines.
Her entire analysis is wrong
Exactly - has it never come up in her mind that Eichmann, during his trial, might have been lying and hiding his real inner sentiment about what happened? Of course he was lying, he wanted the judges to be mild.
You are missing the point.
@@michaelkennedy2395 Arendt heaps abuse on the Judenraat as if those Jews had freedom of choice.
You are missing Arendt’s deep biases which Gershom Scholem called her out on
@@michaelkennedy2395 Arendt heaps abuse on the Judenraat as if those Jews had freedom of choice.
You are missing Arendt’s deep biases which Gershom Scholem called her out on
The Banality of the Jim Crow laws…
Yep.
I gave you your 999th thumbs up 👍
Ha. Thanks!
That's a very good analysis...
nevertheless I believe that what Arendt really focused on the most, was that evil is something banal because it is the reflection of our animalistic component. since we were all animals once and evolved into humans. As the lion mauls the gazelle...that's something absolutely banal and commonplace.
Being good is something out of the ordinary because it makes us different than animals.
This is an interesting theory, and there are thinkers, like Hobbes, who would argue that the bad things we do are rooted in our animal nature. However, I don't think this is Arendt's position. She did not think that humans and animals were the same. Much of her work emphasizes the aspects of human life -- like politics -- that make us very different from other animals. In fact, her argument about Germany is that their efforts during WWII were precisely not utilitarian. Running the camps, for example, was expensive and a drain on resources. They were committed to it, not out of some "animal instinct," but because they had freely committed themselves to this ideology. Animals mostly do things just to survive and procreate. Humans have a greater range. We can do much better and much worse things than animals can.
@@GreatBooksProf She implicitly said that thoughtlessness is something that animals do. We are different than animals, but some humans are still animals in the sense that they are not capable of using thought to distinguish good from evil. Can animals distinguish good from evil? No...they cannot. They just do what other animals do, or what man tells them to do. And so did the hideous creatures like Adold Eichmann: they killed their own soul, so they could obey orders without thinking what those order would imply.
I understand that you probably don't believe in evolution as I do...correct me if I m wrong. There is that great animal spirit of self-preservation that pushed those Nazis to obey orders, so nobody would have tried them and sentenced them to death for High Treason. Pardon my audacity, but I think I would acted differently. I would have preferred to die than to see those atrocities in Auschwitz. So the Nazis would have shot me right away, because I would have told them off.
Primo Levi, who survived Auschwitz explains how he envies those who preferred to die free, than to obey and follow the Nazis along.
The irony of this being studied in Israel.
Hurt people hurt people
@@JoshuaShepherd Supremacist dehumanize people.
I was about to say this.
To help you a little with context, take a moment to think how Hitler would have reacted to a large group of Jews living in the Soviet Union suddenly storming into Germany and killing 1,700 innocent German citizens for no other reason other than the fact they are German, and taking another 200 citizens hostage.
What about animal suffering?
no one, and I mean NO ONE can avoid participating in “the banality” of evil. Some examples are simply more severe.
So, It is just the lack of crítical thinking, conviction or any capability of introspection?
So this applies now in Palestine right Prof?
Examples today - Management consulting firms helping drug companies get people addicted to opiates.
Thank you so much for your efforts and well explanation. It helped me understanding clearly 🌟
You’re very welcome. Glad it helped.
We see now that we were lied to about the details leading to and occurring in Germany at that time.
He was a cog in the machine, frightenely normal.
Saya ke sini karena penjelasan rocky gerung tentang banality , dan hampir sama seperti di Indonesia, semua kejahatan hampir di anggap biasa, baik2 saja
Wouldn't this banality of evil also apply to countless tyrannies throughout history? Ancient Rome or a Chinese dynasty for example also had bureaucracies furthering totalitarian ends didn't they? Was Arendt arguing that this banality was purely a modern phenomenon or do I misunderstand?.
This is a good question. My sense is Arendt would argue that modern bureaucracies are different from ancient bureaucracies. A lot of it hinges on science and technology. Arendt seems to believe that the emergence of science fundamentally changes how we see the world. Pre-modern societies tended to see the world as something given and largely unchanging. It was the context in which we operated. Post-modern societies tend to view the world (and the planet) as something we can control and master -- or something we can leave behind (by going to Mars, for example).
This ties into totalitarianism, which Arendt thinks is different than tyranny. A tyranny is constrained by certain natural human conditions. A tyranny is one guy exerting his will over a group of people. There are historically limits to what he's able to do and make people do. But totalitarianism, infused with the power of science and technology, tries to remake the world in its image. It tries to remake the human species in its image. It tries to bend nature itself to its will. And this means, that even those who seem to be pulling the strings are actually subject to it, so that even those who run the totalitarian regime get caught up in the vacuum. They too must agree that reality is whatever the state says it is. There is no objective reality, not even a natural law to which they can appeal outside the influence of the state.
All of this would give bureaucracy in the modern world a much different character than bureaucracy in the ancient or pre-modern world. On top of all that, just straightforwardly, the size and complexity of modern governments would make the bureaucracies much more labyrinthine and dense. The key thing for her is the loss of human agency. In systems where people don't really have any power to make decisions or effect change, the banality of evil starts to emerge, especially if those systems are concerned with important things like housing or healthcare or justice. The Roman Empire would have had a sprawling bureaucracy, as you say, and insofar as exerting agency within the public or political realm was difficult or impossible, you could argue that the banality of evil was at work there. Arendt believed pretty strongly that the ancient world had a clearer sense of citizenship and agency than the modern world, but she could have been wrong about that.
Whew! what a rant that was. Hope that's worth something. lol.
The banality of evil can only exist in a vacuum where the perpetrator of evil is unaware of any opposition to that evil.
That is not the case in WW2 Germany, Mens Rea is well & truly present in any & all involved in its mob morality/mentality.
We're all Eichmanns as we all pay taxes.
Spokesperson Matt Miller is the 21st-century Adolph Eichman.
💖
Fantastic video!
Thank you!
Contemporary examples would be anyone who works at the Pentagon.
Great video, and I subscribed. Only one suggestion-cut the annoying sound effects.
Looking for modern case of Banality of Evil, Islamic Republic govt running Iranian society. 6:18
I don't understand how you so MASSIVELY miss the point but continuously repeating "in a totalitarian regime/totalitarianism"
The point is that it is everyday, everywhere, and everywhen
Evil does not require a totalitarian regime
It only requires you to allow someone else to do your thinking for you
It happens in every regime
Thanks for taking the time to watch the video!
So in summary totalitarian evil is simply government getting it's own way.
Not really. Very few governments are totalitarian. Collapsing distinctions can lead us into errors. Even bad, even tyrannical governments are not totalitarian. And it doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not those governments are effective or not.
@@GreatBooksProf I agree,I was been very summarised as as in my view we have creeping authoritarianism in the west,and to be clear I don't mean in the MAGA sense but with the absolute rigid application of rules and regulations aided by technology resulting in the slightest transgression of any bureaucratic insanity been disproportionately punished and enforced,such as ROBODEBT here in Australia for example.I guess in short all government is malevolent as they all whether they will admit it or even notice it are ultimately fundamentalists who believe in process over outcome regardless of the cost to individuals and society. Thanks for your reply.
DUTY!!!
*_Does the Truth derive from Authority or_*
*_Does Authority derive from the Truth?_*
For the vast majority of people (say nineteen out of twenty) the Truth is whatever Authority chooses to tell us, and nothing more. This is especially so for SJ Guardians who severely doubt their own ability to think for themselves over the opinions of those given Authority. Mostly only Libertarian minded NT Rationalists choose to think for themselves... and they frequently face social ostracism for it, which most folks can't tolerate well at all?!!
Totalitarian moments happen everyday in all institutions. Banality of evil can manifest in the next minute if you so choose. The problem has always been choice. What do you choose.
And choices come up when you are able to think.. And that's exactly what a totalitarian state does to you.. You become thoughtless, hence no choices to go for, except what you have been ordered to do 🤷♂️
Good point Mr Chang. My coworker described it as a choice of rather being a hammer than a nail. Indicating his inclination towards choosing to inflict brutality on behalf of a regime as a way to avoid being the recipient of that brutality. It is a choice. A choice to abandon ones own humanity out of latent sadism or cowardice.
So…basically…israel.
The banality of Smeagal ... my precious
The Raytheon stock in your 401(k)
I hate the expression "crimes against humanity". The expression covers up the actual suffering that these crimes cause. These crimes are actually crimes against millions of people, people like you and me, and these crimes cause untold suffering, suffering of millions of people, people like you and me. When we use the expression "crimes against humanity" it's as if the crime's were committed against a single person. And far from emphasizing the magnitude of the crimes, actually minimizes them.
I fail to see the difference between Eichmann and the exploitation that is Capitalism except to say that Capitalism has more apologists than did the Nazi. If Nazis had won, the conversation would be different. I believe it was Arendt who noted that bureaucracy is violence, or perhaps that was Foucault.
Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods & services. Period.
There are few things LESS exploitive than Capitalism.
If we could return to a Capitalist system, rather than cronyism/oligarchy/fascist state we live under now, life would improve greatly.
Unfortunately, delusional people always mess up the works, hence the unfortunate influx of Socialist thought, which has only served to inflate federal governmental authority and push us ever closer to totalitarianism.
It's tragic.
@@DamePiglet You are conflating market mechanisms with means of production. A market exchange system can be maintained irrespective of who owns the factory or whatever means to produce goods to exchange.
@@philosophicsblog
😆 You're full of crap. What an inane, BS reply. 😆🤣
And, FYI: No, Foucault said many other dopey things (that sound insightful to simpletons), but "bureaucracy is violence" is not among them. Are you confusing that with "knowledge is power" perhaps? Because that's a Foucaultian concept.
Said, by what sounds like, an Adolf apologist...
Covidism.
Why do you have a rope around your neck?
You are totally wrong. Demonising others will not excuse you from being evil. You have to accept that ordinary people, living ordinary lives can produce evil results. I’ve seen so many of these, I’m a good person, we’re good people, we could never do that kind of thing, videos. All the evil committed in the world was done by good people.
I'm not sure if you watched the video if you think you are disagreeing with him here. At no point does he demonize anyone, and actually a major part of the video and book is about how many of us have the capacity to allow evil in different circumstances.
What's he "totally wrong" about?
You're saying good people can do evil deeds. He's saying (or rather Arendt is saying) that totalitarian regimes can commit evil on a massive scale, much greater than was historically possible, without it ever "feeling" like evil.
The two statements aren't contradictory.