Hannah Arendt and Critical Theory

 

Critical Theory- critique of society in terms of the standards it upholds i.e. whether it does actually meet them…freedom, justice, truth, aesthetic standards etc.

Arendt as an influence on Habermas’s theory of communicative  action- the lifeworld as the basis of society, social systems

Arendt and phenomenological social theory. Influenced in turn by Schutz’s  idea of the life world as an open horizon where we avoid the classification, stereotypes, pigeonholing, objectification etc. found in institutional life. Lifeworld as taking everything in as we go along through the day etc., absorbing the formal world as a series of unstructured experiences which can then be  modelled/personalised to suit the individual’s outlook, situation. Improvisation.

Importance for Arendt: unpacks the power associated with  institutional life  e.g. bureaucracy, the world of strategic action. Weber’s iron cage melts away- institutional power depends on the people ultimately.

The public realm.  A concept from which Habermas derived his public sphere as the world of political action. Salons, debating societies, political groupings, parties, pressure groups. Engagement with the media as means of debate, spreading of ideas…

Political Action is foundational. It’s only through action in the public realm that we can create new departures- laws, constitutions etc. Arendt derives this insight from the Roman republic with its mass meetings in the Forum where the citizens decided state policy. Plebleian v. Imperial factions.  No neutral bureaucracy, direct democracy.

 

Differences with Habermas

Habermas argues that instrumental rationality allows a value- neutral consideration of ‘the facts’ about policies by disinterested state officials (following Weber). Arendt claims there is no value neutral instrumental rationality. Goals always influence our  calculations…we will go for a goal even if it less ‘efficient’ in terms of profit etc. See below.

Also,   rejects Habermas’s view that political action can take place effectively through the established institutions of the state in modern societies- Parliaments, state administration and parties

Gives examples from history of politically foundational action outside mainstream institutional life. Change from ‘below’: the people invent their own institutions-  French Revolution, Paris Commune, Russian Revolution, Hungarian workers’ councils (1956). Other examples might be the spontaneous self -organisation of workers and students in Paris in May ’68  (‘Autogestion’).

Habermas is opposed to the idea of direct democracy as bureaucracy contains neutral rationality- a systems functional rationality which is required for the coordination of society- follows Parsons here.

He also sees the rationality of the lifeworld and public realm as diminished by blocking mechanisms used by money and power to prevent arguments being heard e.g. press monopolies, advertising, concentrated political power, big business (food and drinks industries etc. re sensible eating/drinking) etc. He calls this censorship of ideas/understanding  ‘structural violence’.

 

Power

For Arendt power exists wherever people come together to act in concert  (cited in Habermas, 1986, p.78).

As with Foucault Arendt argues that the political system cannot dispose/use power at will. Power is a good for which the political groups struggle (slightly circular!) and with which a political leadership manages things.

Both find this good already at hand, already existing. They do not produce  it.

‘The impotence of the powerful’- they have to borrow their power from the producers of power

The producers of power- the people acting within the public realm. 

Idea of  the sovereign people.

 

Totalitarianism

Arendt- it is constituted out of elements existing in any contemporary setting- if they come together in a certain way (e.g. state securitisation, war on terror, surveillance techniques etc.)

4 Elements of totalitarianism

1.    Imperialist and capitalist expansionism  (also mimicked by Hitler and Stalin in Europe)

2.     Decay of the nation-state  (crisis in nation -state ). Brought about by imperialism- nation dominates over state- ethnicity dominates state in terms of rights , citizenship (see Hollande and the Hijab)

3.    Racism-  imperialist justification for conquest and biological basis for community makes citizenship redundant

4.    Alliance between capitalists/bourgeoisie and the mob. The  mob as the socially rootless, unscrupulous adventurers, chancers engaged in on-going criminality

NB. In a crisis bourgeois society abandons/downgrades economic goals and plays the race card- restricting immigration, scapegoating immigrants and minorities- as at present, arguably? Here the mob might include tabloid journalists as operating on the margins of criminality, perhaps?

 

 

 

Arendt: the Public Sphere and Totalitarianism

 The decline of the public sphere or realm  is associated by Arendt with the growth of totalitarian tendencies. Power of the state and business over the people/public (‘the totally administered society’- Frankfurt School  -important parallels with Critical Theory)

Canovan  (1992, p.121) –the distinctiveness of her position is that instead of seeing modern society as impersonal, rational, individualistic…she sees it as stiflingly uniform, paternalistic and monolithic. …it is like the familiar liberal nightmare of bureaucratic socialism (E. Europe under ‘communism’)  except that for her that nightmare includes liberal societies themselves

 

The political & cultural  trends behind totalitarianism:

1.    The Enlightenment- bureaucracy, homogenisation, abstraction, rationalisation, reification, erosion of individuality, spontaneity, difference

2.    Romantic Conservatism (neo-feudal view)- rejection of the following: reason in favour of myth e.g. ‘the nation’ and its ‘destiny’, rejection of science, democracy and  the republican ideal (the sovereign people)

 

Influences on Arendt:

1.    Enlightenment: political equality- the sovereign people, reason

2.    Marxism: The Frankfurt School critique of modernity as a crushing bureaucracy,  homogenising capitalism (passive, standardised consumers), decline of the public sphere –see also influence on Habermas

3.    Romanticism- she maintains some elements of this- plurality, diversity, uniqueness, individuality, spontaneity  (Goethe, Novalis etc.)

 

The origins of totalitarianism are the basic trends which come to make it up,  not historical causes or roots (Bernstein, 2008). Some features of this are:

 

(a) Homogenisation and the decline of individuality, difference,  plurality into robotic ’man’, ‘radical evil’ (see the death camps- Bettelheim and the ‘walking dead’ as extreme cases of this);

 (b) the power of nations over states which means territorial identities over universal ones,

 (c) the growth of superfluous population –peoples without rights, citizenship.

 

   

 

References

 

Arendt, H. (1986),’Communicative Power’, in S. Lukes (ed.) Power, Blackwell, Oxford

Canovan, M. (1992) Hannah Arendt: an interpretation of her political thought,  C.U.P. Cambridge

Feather, H. (2000), Intersubjectivity and Contemporary Social Theory: the everyday as critique, Ashgate, Aldershot (on Schutz)

Habermas, J. (1986), 'Hannah Arendt’s Communication  Concept of Power' in Lukes (ed.) op.cit.