( *1906 Linden; † 1975 New York)
Hannah Arendt – An illustration of contemporary greatness. 60 years of European history come to life through her life’s work.
Anissa: The thoughts of the political theorist are still alive like ever before- so we decided to start a real conversation with the German philosopher. To our great fortune, she agreed. It is with great pleasure that we welcome you today, Hannah.
Hannah: I would like to thank you warmly.
Anissa: Hannah, you were born on October 14, 1906 in Hanover in a well-established Jewish family. By your fourteenth year your interests included philosophical works by Kant or Nietzsche. Today you are one of the most significant philosophers of the century. Which part played your Jewish faith in your differing socialization?
Hannah: First of all, to clarify the description I am not a philosopher. I consider myself not as a philosopher even though I studied it at several universities, including the one in Marburg. In my recent years my faith played no role whatsoever. I received a political education that was not merely Jewish. My father already passed away very early, so he could not teach me the rules of faith. My mother was characterized by a very strong Jewish consciousness, but she educated me very liberally. During my school days in Germany, there were daily subliminal comments and prejudices about Jews. My mother always taught me early on to defend against attacks of any kind. As soon as a teacher made some disparaging remarks of Jews, my mother encouraged me to leave the school, to come home, to document precisely, to tell her and then she would write a letter of complaint. Later then with the rise of the National Socialist movements, I focused on my Jewish identity.
Anissa: Well, were your works kind of processing your own impressions?
Hannah: Hmmm, only partially. My motive behind writing was and is till today the desire to understand. The desire to understand. That’s all. So you could say that the through consideration and confrontation with anti-Semitism, racism, the seeming evil in man or other humans issues is a kind of processing my own impressions. Maybe. But I do not have to work them out on a piece of paper. So writing at itself is definitely not necessary for me.
Anissa: In one of your publications you explain the difference between “power” and “violence”. Could you explain it shortly to me and all our readers today?
Hannah: “Power” represents always its sole purpose and is not necessary to achieve any goals. The big difference between “power” and “violence” is the rise of both. “Power” always needs a group of individuals having the same opinion. This group gives “power” to one or more representative(s). Fact is the group will support its representative only as long as he or she represents the values and opinions of them. As soon as one member of the group does no longer agree with the opinion of the represents, he or she has the freedom to leave the group. Upon his departure he also takes a part of the “common-power” of the group away. If the majority of the group does not further support the perspective or approach of the representative, he or she loses the legitimacy.
By contrast, “violence” does not come an end in itself. “Violence” always pursuit a goal and to reach this goal there a means and tools which it makes use to.
Anissa: Hmmm, to tell the truth, I have no idea. Could you maybe explain it based on an example?
Hannah: Of course. I will explain it to you based on the example of the Constitution of a Republic. Every Constitution is developed by a group of experts. The national and international legitimacy is result of a very simple process: The citizens have to accept the laws. “All power emanates from its citizens.”? – That´s it. One of the basic principles of every democracy.
Anissa: Theoretically it sounds great. But don´t you think this point of view is blind to reality? Look at all the international events, crises areas. Look at all the difficulties in life you went through. Reality and history teach us that “violence” and “power” often come together.
Hannah: You do not have to tell me that. I was forced to flee to Paris 1933, became American in 1951. As soon as “power” needs any form of “violence”, it loses its legitimacy. That is why I still call for human beings in general and Jews in particular to take responsibility for the political world. We all have to face up to reality instead of escaping into private fantasy. I want people to stand up for their freedom. Freedom is the purpose of action. Action always means political activity. We can only experience freedom in the process of political action.
Anissa: Sounds interesting. What does “ responsibility for the political world” mean for you? How could anyone of us take this responsibility?
Hannah: Well. I am always partial. Not partial like others. I always have an opinion and follow the one being the true one in my eyes. There are a lot of people just following a line. For example electing a traditional party for years. That is too easy. We do not have to accept circumstances unconditionally- On the contrary: We have to learn that the circumstances are made by humans. There are no necessary circumstances. The circumstances were made by humans of yesterday, like we as humans of today will decide for tomorrow.
Anissa: Ah okay, so responsibility is the will to understand the reality?
Hannah: Partly, it is the will to understand the reality, to find a way in this reality and lastly if necessary the will to change this reality. You know what? I lost a lot of very good friends, companions through the rise of the National Socialist movement. Old friends being part of the academic circles- friends, I studied with. For me the capacity to extend the hand of friendship is the most valuable of human beings. I lost friends, because they did not have the courage to change the world. So I call up for the courage to try to understand and if necessary to change the reality.
The philosophy of Hannah Arendt is a matter of concern to all of us – as humans and as Europeans. Why? Because the biography of Hannah Arendt is not just the story of one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century, it is the story of a character teaching us not to accept reality as a static state, as a kind of fact. Let us look upon this work and become aware of our responsibility.