Eichmann in Jerusalem - a Report of the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt - Article Example

Rhetorical analysis of Eichmann in Jerusalem In this paper, I scrutinize the ways in which thinking can evade the occurrence of immoral deeds. This takes into account the discussion by Hannah Arendt concerning the banality which is associated with evil and then the thoughts are connected with the trial that Eichmann faces. This article was developed when Hannah left to Jerusalem to account to New Yorker on the hearing of Eichmann’s case. This man faced many allegations concerning the Jews, and this pertained to humanity. In addition, the war crimes were also part of the accusation that he faced (Hannah 89). Arendt offers the initial response to Eichmann by saying that the man in the cubicle was never evil. She further declares that the actions remained predestined at disaster, but the achiever stood an ordinary person, with no intention of committing any crime. Therefore she adds that the doer was not monstrous. Arendt perceives that Eichmann was a corporate fellow was portrayed by the clear shallowness and the weakness which made her worried about measurement of the evils that he had done (Hannah 90). Arendt had sensed some elements of stupidity in this man. In his words also, a lot of stupid ideologies were detected. He had organized that many people who belonged to the Jewish community be deported to the camps where they became concentrated. Eichmann became the main actor in the action of weird things, and indeed, he lacked a sense of critical thoughts. Arendt adds that when this man is faced with circumstances which need routine procedures, he became helpless. His language which is full of cliché presented mere comedy that seemed to solve nothing (Hannah 93). Eichmann always followed the doctrines of the laws and ordinances. This made the virtues and vices of the cloud and then the audience was confused. The other people who were part of that community were just a group of sadist monsters, who were not normal. One of those people were before the group which constituted of only normal men. It is so surprising that the acts of this person were more of a monster. Arendt further addresses the bureaucratic group which was composed of people with great atrocities which have not been experienced in the world. This led to the illustration of the concept pertaining to the banality of wrongdoing. This helps to explain the instances of attitudes which are not accepted in the society occurring. In this scenario, Nazi German attitudes are referred to. This is interpreted as the central point for the illustration of mistakes that are committed by the common citizens of a nation. According to Richard Bernstein, this is a normal ordinary conduct that is effected when the people don’t take time to think about the rules and regulations in the manner that they do not adhere to right mode of behavior when dealing with different circumstances (Hannah 89). Eichmann brings up the mentality that radical danger arose from reality and thoughtfulness. The portrait of Arendt about the banality of Eichmann is a lesson that needs to be discussed. She maintains this against those people who implied theories about the concept of evil. The banality of wrongdoing has led to the notion of the link with the faculty of thought. This is the capability to differentiate the relationship between what is right and what is wrong (Hannah 97). The core of the connection between the mind of Eichmann and reality is that there is a logical process involved. This is essential to wrest his speech and thinking styles so that there is a connection between the death of Eichmann. He was unable to articulate anything that was needed in his life and therefore, his lofty words could be the reality that can be linked to his death. For the first time, Arendt uses the term of the banality of wrongdoing. It was as if he was using his last moments to describe the long course of study that human errors and weaknesses can lead a person too. These are the lessons that fearful nature of human beings, choice of words and the thoughts to deny the banality of evil. Arendt further states that the usual standard of evil is not framed. The potentiality of this course regards the words and thoughts and therefore the doer of a wrong action is not convicted of the evil (Hannah 89). At this level, she affirms in the thinking process and ethical considerations. She also emphasizes on a case where the wrongdoer commits gigantic actions which are evil. These, however, cannot be attributed to any form of human wickedness or but the only personal consideration is that the doer just takes part in unique shallowness in the explanation of his or statements (Hannah 67). In correspondence with Grafton, Arendt offers a clear distinction between ordinary and usual with respect to the justification of crime. Commonplace is concerned with the frequent occurrences while something banal cannot be always evil (Hannah 87). She claims that there is a very big difference which exists between the two concepts. Evil turns out to be a banal case when it is no longer trivial to every other person. Banal never assume or passes a preformed judgment that evil takes a commonplace idea in every person. There was not critical thinking among the Eichmanns. This deficiency could result into doing of evil deeds by a person without recognition. According to her, there is a typical Eichmann in every person. Arendt selects Socrates as the model for her claims. This belief keep an eye on an aporetic program whereby the proposition is never intended to attain the definition of the subject as expected. She further claims that if there is perplexity with the power to prevent a person from engaging in evil. According to Socratic arguments, there is the only argument that is explained in the development of the thesis. This entails the agreement with oneself (Hannah 84). Moreover, Arendt gives an aspect which is related to the predictability of wrongdoing. This is basically the nonappearance of origins. The absence of roots has got implications. These are as follows. First, when there is manifestation presented in the evil. She affirms this from the argument presented in the Eichmann in Jerusalem, in which there is a statement that “no roots”. The manifestation of shallowness in the doer makes it not possible to trace and find out the evil deeds which cannot be contested (Hannah 89). In conclusion, two vital implications of thinking have been pointed out. These are the faculty of thinking in political and faculty of judging others depending on what they utter. These two are connected in an intrinsic manner. She also actualizes the difference within our identity. Works Cited  Richard Bernstein, "Evil, Thinking, and Judging," in Hannah Arendt and the Jewish Question. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1996, p. 170. Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report of the Banality of evil, revised and enlarged edition. New York: Penguin Books, 1977. Read More