Introduction
Hanna Arendt is a one of the philosophers whose viewpoints have been given greater accords and consideration. In fact, her contributions to the field of political philosophy are immense, and she made outstanding manifestation in delivering critical lessons and concepts about the worldviews about politics, power, and its associated influence. Therefore, it is essential to have sure understanding on the Arendt’s philosophical thoughts and perspectives before delving into the book, “Crisis of a Republic”. Arendt philosophy is anchored on the emphasis on maintaining a meaningful distinction among various concepts of “strength,” “power,” “authority”, and “violence,” besides the need to employ the world revolution very sparingly. Therefore, an apparent failure to adequately distinguish these concepts and words does not only lead to linguistic deafness of these terms but also make them lose their traction to the reality they correspond in real life paradigm.
Arendt Philosophies
Arendt stipulates that there is a definite distinction between the world “force”, and “power”, and such they should never be infused as one thing. According to Arendt’s philosophical ramifications, the term “force” certain movements in nature, while, “power” refers to a function of relation that controls humanity. The philosophical ambit to Arendt’s’ view on power and politics relates to the causal effects of social relationships that emanate from the human capability, which acts in concert, and has persuasive roles on others. On the other hand, “force” is the inherent strength in someone to do something, or change a firm position by changing the course of something (McCarthy 22). Moreover, “Authority’ refers to the source of power, or directly where power is vested in making a change. Meanwhile, Arendt considers the term, “Revolution” as a concept that should be reserved and applied in identifying core precepts of human thinking. The author reiterates that just wars cannot be entertained in the modern word due to their predisposing consequences. Besides, active revolutions are hazardous to the society since they lead to the worst consequences to the society.
Arendt Hanna’s “Crises of the Republic” is an exclusive collection of various concepts and topics with regards to the challenges that be wielded the American government between 1960’s and 1970’s. This book entails various topics and chapters that have become synonymous for Arendt’s philosophical perspectives with regards to power, strength, force, authority, and violence. The main collections of this publications include; the lying in politics, the civil disobedience, the on violence, the thoughts on and Politics and Revolution. The thesis of this essay is focused on examining Arendt’s philosophical viewpoints based on the four chapters in the book, “Crisis of the Republic.”
“Lying in Politics”
The first chapter in this book is the “Lying in Politic”, and it is one of the most noteworthy among other chapters in the book, “Crises of the Republic.” This chapter is chapter is entirely about the Pentagon paper, and it has sent mixed signals about its validity and accuracy. According to Arendt, the most popular political ideology is based on deception, and lying is strongly entwined in any political system.
Therefore, the infused lies and deceit in the Pentagon paper has only served to send mixed reactions based on the invoked outcomes from different readers. As part of her political beliefs and philosophy, political power and any governance are entrenched on lies, which might not have any real causal attachments (McCarthy 24). Principally, certain groups of readers have generated mixed reactions regarding the Vietnam wars, where a group stipulates their understanding to this war as a logical outcome of the cold war or what is commonly termed as anticommunist ideology. On the other hand, another group of readers relates this war as a great opportunity learning various government decision-making processes. However, it has now downed to the understanding of many people that the Pentagon paper was based on deceit as a political tool to exercise governance and authority.
Lying is a justifiable course of reason in any political dealing, and not a time in the history of political success has truthfulness been manifested in totality. Therefore, Arendt believes that secrecy of what is called discretion in diplomatic terms earths the mystery of the government and its perils (Arendt 4). In fact, deceit is a tool that is adopted by the government to achieve viable political ends. And the author is very firm on this concept, that sustainable power and authority is existent upon deceit. Besides, lies act as legitimate means to ensuring social continuity and political progression.
The philosophical and political thoughts have significant impacts in entrenching the authority and exerting power. Besides, Arendt holds that power is maintained through stronger words of conviction, as well as by exercising certain discretions such as lies. It is diplomatically sound to make people believe in certain ideals, which might not necessarily be true (Arendt 5). Consequently, deception or what is termed as credibility gap is employed in the story to engulf any reader who might have the intention to probe the Pentagon material regarding the United States foreign and domestic policy, especially with regards to the Vietnam wars.
The philosophical undertone of deceit is entrenched in the mainstream political power and the need to discern disconnect and any formidable rebellion by the citizens. Therefore, constant revolution can be aborted by deceit pursuit about the US government. Considering the Pentagon Paper, Arendt belief on power and governance is that untruthfulness is a justified reason to posterity and exercise of control on the people (Arendt 6). This is the most fundamental philosophical postulate that Arendt makes with regards to deceit by the American government with regards to their involvement in the Vietnamese war.
“Civil Disobedience”
Civil disobedience is a yet another chapter that Arendt philosophical viewpoints with regards to power, authority, and revolution are mainstreamed. According to Arendt, civil obedience is an integral part of the USA political system, and the success of any government is anchored on this path. The most synonymous civil disobedience was carried out by the OWS movements to harness and re-imbues the public with the political energy in the USA. However, Arendt expresses two main types of disobedience and labels than as civil disobedience and conscientious objection, the first one collective enterprise, while the latter term refers to individual resistance (Arendt 86).
The philosophical attribute by Arendt regarding civil disobedience is that it is an indispensable element of the USA political system, and it differently refers the latest form of voluntary associations. This form of disobedience is quite in tune, and indeed, civil disobedience is viewed as an invigorating into the U.S political arena. Therefore, civil disobedience is a recipe for restructuring social institutions and the unreliability of men at the helm of power. Therefore, civil disobedience is termed as “American Remedy”, since it clamors for social changes in the society.
Principally, Arendt holds a belief that civil disobedience is one way in which the democratic process can be maintained and restored in the U.S political system. Restoration of peace and sanity in the governance of a country happens by interrupting the authority and the sovereignty of the state. Therefore, Arendt philosophy on civil disobedience is positive and firmly anchored on true remedies to the social fabrics by disrupting the authority of the state. Arendt was informed by a perspective that undivided authority and sovereignty is the biggest threat to democracy. This statement implies that lack of democracy in the country is as a result of satisfaction of the public, who might be obviously unaware of the sufferance they undergo in the country.
Therefore, the existence of undivided sovereignty leads to an effective disintegration of plurality as well as multiplicities with the space of appearance, which is essential for an authenticity to a positive political life. In fact, political disobedience is not any crisis neither is it any conflict, but a stasis and homogeneity that deadens, and ultimately kills the body politics. Thus, civil disobedience is an impetus to political posterity and sustainability of a country, which heavily relies on political democracy. Besides, the fissures and political disobedience according to Arendt is fortitude to the mainstream political strength and democratization.
Indeed, the paradox with regards to the OWS revolution leads us closer to the Arendt’s generalization that politics is an avenue that keeps and connotes to the process of restoration and change in the government. The OWS civil disobedience serves to signify a process of revolution based on the treatment of essential dynamics of the society. Besides, the path to a political renewal is well anchored on the concepts of ‘invent’ and ‘inherit’ and the concepts are dependent upon each other, despite being mutually exclusive. Thus, the political disobedience in this book draws a point of civil disobedience as well as establishing historical precedence; and uttermost the truth of events in the political arena (Arendt 89). Besides, the philosophical position held by Arendt is deemed as the law of both politics and life that envisages existence and political posterity.
“On Violence”
On the chapter of violence, Arendt made astonishing remarks, at a time when people hardly believed her research. However, these landmark submissions came out to be most relevant to the real situation in the meantime. As history would have it, Arendt lived in the 1960’s, a period which was characterized by turbulent and mixed emotions (Arendt 105). Probably that was the time she intensified her research in regards to violence. As for that reason, Arendt became an adamant supporter of the anti-Vietnam civil war, a war that was orchestrated by her American nation, moreover, maybe to gain mileage and prove her point right, she got engaged with the American civil rights movement alongside the non-violent student demonstrations across American universities. But there was something that was surprising about Arendt’s character and the very ways she expressed her opinions even if they were unpopular.
As a voice of reason, understanding Arendt was quite difficult from the ordinary context. One needed to do a careful analysis of her submissions to have a clear understanding of her position on contentious issues. Furthermore, people needed to adapt to a worldview perspective to understand her points of view. Her stand stands regarding violence were very rhetoric; at some particular moments, people thought she was making a turnaround contradiction to what she had been saying. Some of her statements can only be related to her experiences while residing in Germany during the 1930’s. Her submissions regarding violence were at all-time rhetoric and very provocative for that matter (Bernstein 2). Contrary to the simplistic view of her opinions, political analysts have given her many accolades for her exemplary contributions towards national issues about violence.
However, it’s her lack of political inclination that earned her the much-coveted reputation (Bernstein 5). Furthermore, it is quite clear that her philosophy in regards to violence was not something that could be understood from a simple point of view. As a matter of fact, her submissions needed an in-depth analysis to understand their relevance to the American society. However devastating or provocative she was, she always meant good for the society in general. A particular case where she was addressing university students, she pointed at the emergence of the black power as the possible cause of violence in Universities and campuses in the American society (Arendt 115).
Her contribution was relatively clear; she only wanted to address the real-time issues, as a matter of fact; violence began from the emergence of black power. As for that reason, the American government should have concentrated on addressing the concerns of the blacks rather than taking the long route of quelling strikes and unrest.
Still, her position regarding violence was once illuminated by her remarks to the government to yield to the needs of the black movement and the Negros even though in her opinion their demands were quite silly and outrageous. From her point of view, if yielding to the needs would bring sanctity to the neighborhood then the government shouldn’t have hesitated. Her philosophy to the violence was quite clear; she gave it a holistic approach. Again, she supported violence as a means of agitating for rights. It’s a fact that was conspicuous from her time, most of the times; she resorted to violent means (Arendt 110).
Thoughts on Politics and Revolution
Once again, Arendt had crucial thoughts on politic and revolution, a fact that positively impacted on the American revolutionary spirit and political science to an extension. Her thoughts in regards to politics and revolution were vividly revealed during her interview with the German writer Adelbert Reif, an event that took place in the summer of 1970. From the interview, her opinions on politics and revolution were clearly revealed. Having been asked about her opinion of violence and the then evident student revolutionary movement, she responded by saying that she supported some of the goals and the contentious issues that the movements advocated for (Arendt 201). However, she stated that she could wholly support the movement in the American society since she was more conversant with their point of view while at the same time discredited the German student movements.
Further, she asserted that she would rather take a neutral position than take a support or discredit stand when she did not know what such movements were about. In her book, Arendt asserted that politics and revolution were complementing items in different outfits; however, she said that the two were inseparable.
Apparently, Arendt constructively argued that revolutions; a crucial part of political uprisings were primarily aimed at obtaining liberty, and more significantly freedom. In her opinion, these were primarily meant to enhance the spirit of revolution; a spirit that brings zest to the masses and gives them the yearning to pursue political liberation from a pluralistic perspective. From Arendt’s perspective, revolution is a function of liberation, moreover, from her view; liberation is a function of numbers or just tyranny of numbers for that case. Furthermore, she argues that revolution is necessary for the attainment of good governance and the only route towards good societal life (Bernstein 23).
Still, revolution cannot be obtained single-handedly from her view, she points out to meetings, for example, town hall meetings where the revolutionary spirits can be obtained via deliberation of the revolutionary spirit. Arendt identified three major pillars on which revolution can depend on, that is, public accountability and equity and a platform on which individual’s private happiness could be obtained from.
Works Cited
Arendt, Hannah. Crises of the Republic. New York u.a: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Print.
Bernstein, Richard J. Hannah Arendt's Reflection on Violence and Power. New York, NY: New School for Social Reasearch Publishers, 2011, Print
McCarthy, Michael H. The Political Humanism of Hannah Arendt. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2012. Print.
