阿伦特平庸的恶

Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil Mab HIlang* 1 . The Trial of Eichmann in J erusalem 11 . The Reactions of Jewish Communities III. Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil IV. Banality of Evil in South Africa and Taiwan V. A Rejection of Radical Evil VI. Arendt as a Pariah This paper is prirnarily concerned with the controversy over the concept of “banality of evil" provoked by Hannah Arendt's report from Jer1usalem on Eichrnann's trial. It will briefly describe Eichrnann the rnan, the background to his trial and Arendt's first impression of him. Then it will take up the criticisms of Arendt's position and her explanation why she came to think of Eichmann and judge him as she did and how did she give up her commitrnent to the concept of “radical evil". To support Arendt in her arguments, brief descriptions of torture and murder and their pe中etrators from two different situations are cited. Finally, the paper will end with a brief reference to Arendt as a pariah. Never is this paper intended as a comprehensive study of Adrent's political philosophy, which is obviously a different project. Key words: Hannah Arendt, radical evil, banality of evil, Eichmann's trial, transitional justice ... Professor, Department of Political Science, Soochow University. E-mail: mab@mai l.scu.edu.tw Received: Augst 30, 2005; Accepted: December 15, 2005. SOOCHOW JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE /2006/No.23/pp.I-23. Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil Mab HIlang* 1 . The Trial of Eichmann in J erusalem 11 . The Reactions of Jewish Communities III. Hannah Arendt on Banality of Evil IV. Banality of Evil in South Africa and Taiwan V. A Rejection of Radical Evil VI. Arendt as a Pariah This paper is prirnarily concerned with the controversy over the concept of “banality of evil" provoked by Hannah Arendt's report from Jer1usalem on Eichrnann's trial. It will briefly describe Eichrnann the rnan, the background to his trial and Arendt's first impression of him. Then it will take up the criticisms of Arendt's position and her explanation why she came to think of Eichmann and judge him as she did and how did she give up her commitrnent to the concept of “radical evil". To support Arendt in her arguments, brief descriptions of torture and murder and their pe中etrators from two different situations are cited. Finally, the paper will end with a brief reference to Arendt as a pariah. Never is this paper intended as a comprehensive study of Adrent's political philosophy, which is obviously a different project. Key words: Hannah Arendt, radical evil, banality of evil, Eichmann's trial, transitional justice ... Professor, Department of Political Science, Soochow University. E-mail: mab@mai l.scu.edu.tw Received: Augst 30, 2005; Accepted: December 15, 2005. SOOCHOW JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE /2006/No.23/pp.I-23. 2 東吳政治學報12006/第二十三期 As soon as the first installment of Arendt' s five part series on the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem appeared in the New Yorker in February 1963 , the reactions from the Jewish communities were emotional and vicious; she had few defenders. Arendt was accused of many things, from being soulless to not caring for her own people to exonerating Eichmann. She was anti- Israel , anti-Zoinist, a legal purist, a Kantian moralist, and ultimately, a Jewish-self-hater. The “Eichmann Controversy" focused on three main topics: Arendt's judgement of Eichmann the man; her analysis of the European Jewish councils and their role in the Nazi's Final Solution; and her discussion of the conduct of the trial , the legal questions posed by the trial and the political purposes pursued by the Israeli government. In this paper, only the controversy on the banality of evil will be dealt with. It will briefly describe the Eichmann the man, the background to his trial and Arendt' s first impression of him. Then it will take up the criticisms of Arendt' s position and her explanation why she came to think of Eichmann and judge him as she did. To support Arendt in her argument, brief descriptions of torture and murder from two different situations are cited. Final旬， this paper will end with a reference to Arendt as a pariah. 1. The Trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Argentina on May 24, 1960 and brought back to Israel , provoking a diplomatic dispute between the two countries. Upon hearing that he would be put on trial in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt decided that she must be present. She proposed to William Shawn of the New Yorker that she be appointed the trial reporter. In rearranging her 1961 schedule, she wrote to the Rockefeller Foundation with a sense of urgency: “ You will understand 1 think why 1 should cover this trial; 1 missed the Nuremberg 2 東吳政治學報12006/第二十三期 As soon as the first installment of Arendt' s five part series on the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem appeared in the New Yorker in February 1963 , the reactions from the Jewish communities were emotional and vicious; she had few defenders. Arendt was accused of many things, from being soulless to not caring for her own people to exonerating Eichmann. She was anti- Israel , anti-Zoinist, a legal purist, a Kantian moralist, and ultimately, a Jewish-self-hater. The “Eichmann Controversy" focused on three main topics: Arendt's judgement of Eichmann the man; her analysis of the European Jewish councils and their role in the Nazi's Final Solution; and her discussion of the conduct of the trial , the legal questions posed by the trial and the political purposes pursued by the Israeli government. In this paper, only the controversy on the banality of evil will be dealt with. It will briefly describe the Eichmann the man, the background to his trial and Arendt' s first impression of him. Then it will take up the criticisms of Arendt' s position and her explanation why she came to think of Eichmann and judge him as she did. To support Arendt in her argument, brief descriptions of torture and murder from two different situations are cited. Final旬， this paper will end with a reference to Arendt as a pariah. 1. The Trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped by Israeli agents in Argentina on May 24, 1960 and brought back to Israel , provoking a diplomatic dispute between the two countries. Upon hearing that he would be put on trial in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt decided that she must be present. She proposed to William Shawn of the New Yorker that she be appointed the trial reporter. In rearranging her 1961 schedule, she wrote to the Rockefeller Foundation with a sense of urgency: “ You will understand 1 think why 1 should cover this trial; 1 missed the Nuremberg Hannah Arendt on Bana1ity of Evi1 3 Trials, 1 never saw these people in the flesh , and this is probably my only chance." (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 329).1 Again in her letter to Vasser College: “To attend this trial is somehow, 1 feel , an obligation 1 owe my past." (Young-Breuhl , 1982: 329).2 Plainly, reporting on the trial was what Arendt had set her mind on, and indeed it turned out to be a momentous decision in her life. Arendt was startled by her first impression of the man she would be writing about; she described him as “ nicht einmal unhemlich" (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 329)/ “not even sinister," not inhuman or beyond comprehension. From this first impression, a great controversy was soon to engulf the reporter and the Jewish communities in all parts of the world. Eichmann was born on March 19, 1906 to Karl Adolf Eichmann and Maria nee Schefferling in Solingen, a German town in the Rhineland. Coming from a middle class family, Eichmann did poorly in school, was unable to finish high school, or to graduate from the vocational school for engineering. Eichmann's mother died when he was ten; and his father remarried. After working as a salesman for the Austrian Elektrobau Company for two years from 1925-27, he obtained a job with the Vacuum Oil Company of Vienna. As Arendt describes it, “ the five and a half years with the Vacuum Oil Company must have been the happier ones in Eichmann's life. He made a good living during a time of severe unemployment, and he was still living with his parents, except when he was out on the road." (Arendt, 1977: 31). Yet this good life was brought to a close abruptly in 1932 when he was transferred from Linz to Salzburg, much against his inclinations. He was deeply depressed. “1 lost all joy in my work, 1 no longer liked to sell, to make calls." (Arendt, 1977: 31). 1. A 1etter from Arendt to Thompson, Rockefe l1er Foundation, Oecember 20, 1960, Library of Congress. 2. A 1etter from Arendt to Vasser Co l1ege, January 2, 1961 , Library of Congress. 3. A 1etter 仕om Arendt to B1ucher, Apri1 15, 1961 , Library of Congress. Hannah Arendt on Bana1ity of Evi1 3 Trials, 1 never saw these people in the flesh , and this is probably my only chance." (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 329).1 Again in her letter to Vasser College: “To attend this trial is somehow, 1 feel , an obligation 1 owe my past." (Young-Breuhl , 1982: 329).2 Plainly, reporting on the trial was what Arendt had set her mind on, and indeed it turned out to be a momentous decision in her life. Arendt was startled by her first impression of the man she would be writing about; she described him as “ nicht einmal unhemlich" (cited in Young-Bruehl, 1982: 329)/ “not even sinister," not inhuman or beyond comprehension. From this first impression, a great controversy was soon to engulf the reporter and the Jewish communities in all parts of the world. Eichmann was born on March 19, 1906 to Karl Adolf Eichmann and Maria nee Schefferling in Solingen, a German town in the Rhineland. Coming from a middle class family, Eichmann did poorly in school, was unable to finish high school, or to graduate from the vocational school for engineering. Eichmann's mother died when he was ten; and his father remarried. After working as a salesman for the Austrian Elektrobau Company for two years from 1925-27, he obtained a job with the Vacuum Oil Company of Vienna. As Arendt describes it, “ the five and a half years with the Vacuum Oil Company must have been the happier ones in Eichmann's life. He made a good living during a time of severe unemployment, and he was still living with his parents, except when he was out on the road." (Arendt, 1977: 31). Yet this good life was brought to a close abruptly in 1932 when he was transferred from Linz to Salzburg, much against his inclinations. He was deeply depressed. “1 lost all joy in my work, 1 no longer liked to sell, to make calls." (Arendt, 1977: 31). 1. A 1etter from Arendt to Thompson, Rockefe l1er Foundation, Oecember 20, 1960, Library of Congress. 2. A 1etter from Arendt to Vasser Co l1ege, January 2, 1961 , Library of Congress. 3. A 1etter 仕om Arendt to B1ucher, Apri1 15, 1961 , Library of Congress. 4 東吳政治學報/2006/第二十三期 Nevertheless, in April of that year, Eichmann joined the National Socialist Party and entered the S.S.; a year later, Eichmann left for Germany, and after fourteen months as a soldier, he applied for a job with the Security Service of the reichsfuhre S.S. Soon, he emerged as an expert on the Jewish Question and worked in planning and coordinating the transportation of the Jews to their death camps. If his testimony can be ‘ taken seriously, when Eichmann was told that Hilter had ordered the “ final solution," the physical extermination of the Jews, Eichmann did not expect it. He said he had never thought of...such a solution through violence.. .1 now lost everything, all joy in my work, all initiative , all interest; 1 was, so to speak, blown out." (Arendt, 1977: 31). Eichmann was promoted to the rank of S.S. Obersturmbannfuhrer, a rank equivalent to lieutenant colonel , by the time Germany surrendered in 1945. Eichmann was indicted in the District Court in Jerusalem on fifteen counts. “Together with others" he was accused of having committed crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity, and war crimes during the whole period of the Nazi regime and especially during the period of the Second World War. To each count Eichmann pleaded “Not guilty in the sense of the indictment." But in what sense was Eichmann guilty? To the astonishment of Arendt,“in the long cross examination of the accused... neither the defense nor the prosecution nor, finally , any of the three judges ever bothered to ask him this obvious question." (Arendt, 1977: 21).If his defense lawyer were to be believed,“Eichmann feels guilty before God, not before the law." Y et this was never confirmed from the accused himself (Arendt, 1977: 21). Arendt's first reaction to the “ man in the glass booth" in Jerusalem，的 referred to above, was that he was nicht einmal unheimlich,“not even sinister." She was startled: “That the man would gladly have himself hanged in public , you have probably read (in the new papers). 1 am flabbergasted (cited in 4 東吳政治學報/2006/第二十三期 Nevertheless, in April of that year, Eichmann joined the National Socialist Party and entered the S.S.; a year later, Eichmann left for Germany, and after fourteen months as a soldier, he applied for a job with the Security Service of the reichsfuhre S.S. Soon, he emerged as an expert on the Jewish Question and worked in planning and coordinating the transportation of the Jews to their death camps. If his testimony can be ‘ taken seriously, when Eichmann was told that Hilter had ordered the “ final solution," the physical extermination of the Jews, Eichmann did not expect it. He said he had never thought of...such a solution through violence.. .1 now lost everything, all joy in my work, all initiative , all interest; 1 was, so to speak, blown out." (Arendt, 1977: 31). Eichmann was promoted to the rank of S.S. Obersturmbannfuhrer, a rank equivalent to lieutenant colonel , by the time Germany surrendered in 1945. Eichmann was indicted in the District Court in Jerusalem on fifteen counts. “Together with others" he was accused of having committed crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity, and war crimes during the whole period of the Nazi regime and especially during the period of the Second World War. To each count Eichmann pleaded “Not guilty in the sense of the indictment." But in what sense was Eichmann guilty? To the astonishment of Arendt,“in the long cross examination of the accused... neither the defense nor the prosecution nor, finally , any of the three judges ever bothered to ask him this obvious question." (Arendt, 1977: 21).If his defense lawyer were to be believed,“Eichmann feels guilty before God, not before the law." Y et this was never confirmed from the accused himself (Arendt, 1977: 21). Arendt's first reaction to the “ man in the glass booth" in Jerusalem，的 referred to above, was that he was nicht einmal unheimlich,“not even sinister." She was startled: “That the man would gladly have himself hanged in public , you have probably read (in the new papers). 1 am flabbergasted (cited in Hannah Arendt on Bana1ity of Evi1 5 Young-Bruehl, 1982: 330).4 Yet after initial discouragement with the trial, her interest revived, and Arendt began to understand the man she was reporting. As she describes it (Arendt, 1977: 33): A leaf in the whirlwind of time, he was blown from Schlaraffia, the Never-Never Land of tables set by magic...into the marching column of the Thousand year Reich...At any rate, he did not enter the Party out of conviction, nor was he ever convinced by it.. .as he pointed out in court,“it was like being swallowed up by the Party against all expectations and without previous decision. lt happened so quickly and suddenly." He had no time and less desire to be properly informed, he did not even know the Party program, he never read Mein Kampf. Kaltenbrunner had said to him: Why not join the S.S.? And he had replied, Why not? That was how it had happened, and that was about all there was to it. The fact that Eichmann was swept into the Party and the S.S. without making a decision, however, did mean he was now part of History, of “ a Movement that always kept moving and in which somebody like him-already a failure in the eyes of his social class , of his family, and hence in his own eyes as well-could start from the scratch and still make a career.. .And if he did not like what he had to do...He might still have preferred-if anyone had asked him-to be hanged as Obersturmbannfuhrer a. D. (in retirement) rather than living out his life quietly and normally as a traveling salesman for the Vacuum Oil Company." (Arendt, 1977: 33-34). The defeat of Germany in 1945 , it should not be difficult to understand, was significant for Eichmann “mainly because it then dawned upon him that thenceforward he would have to live without being a member of something or other. ‘1 sensed 1 would have to 1ive a leaderless and difficult individual life, 1 would receive no directives from anybody, no orders and commands would any 4. A 1etter from Arendt to B1ucher, Apri1 20, 1961 , Library of Congress. Hannah Arendt on Bana1ity of Evi1 5 Young-Bruehl, 1982: 330).4 Yet after initial discouragement with the trial, her interest revived, and Arendt began to understand the man she was reporting. As she describes it (Arendt, 1977: 33): A leaf in the whirlwind of time, he was blown from Schlaraffia, the Never-Never Land of tables set by magic...into the marching column of the Thousand year Reich...At any rate, he did not enter the Party out of conviction, nor was he ever convinced by it.. .as he pointed out in court,“it was like being swallowed up by the Party against all expectations and without previous decision. lt happened so quickly and suddenly." He had no time and less desire to be properly informed, he did not even know the Party program, he never read Mein Kampf. Kaltenbrunner had said to him: Why not join the S.S.? And he had replied, Why not? That was how it had happened, and that was about all there was to it. The fact that Eichmann was swept into the Party and the S.S. without making a decision, however, did mean he was now part of History, of “ a Movement that always kept moving and in which somebody like him-already a failure in the eyes of his social class , of his family, and hence in his own eyes as well-could start from the scratch and still make a career.. .And if he did not like what he had to do...He might still have preferred-if anyone had asked him-to be hanged as Obersturmbannfuhrer a. D. (in retirement) rather than living out his life quietly and normally as a traveling salesman for the Vacuum Oil Company." (Arendt, 1977: 33-34). The defeat of Germany in 1945 , it should not be difficult to understand, was significant for Eichmann “mainly because it then dawned upon him that thenceforward he would have to live without being a member of something or other. ‘1 sensed 1 would have to 1ive a leaderless and difficult individual life, 1 would receive no directives from anybody, no orders and commands would any 4. A 1etter from Arendt to B1ucher, Apri1 20, 1961 , Library of Congress. 6 東吳政治學報12006/第二十三期 longer be issued to me, no pertinent ordinances would be there to consult-in brief, a life never known before lay before me.''' (Arendt, 1977: 32). Arendt's judgment of Eichmann was by now clear. As she wrote to Jaspers in 1963: “ He was eigentlich dumm,"“but also somehow no t." (cited in Young-Bruehl , 1982: 330).5 He was simply unable to think: “ He was not stupid. It was sheer th