Arendts Banality of Evil - Essay Example

Arendt’s ‘Banality of Evil’ Introduction In Arendt’s ‘banality of evil’, she tries to explore the question as to the reasons on why people commit evil acts and how such perpetrators of evil are different from the rest of the population. She found that people who commit evil acts are not necessarily bad, but may just be bureaucrats operating within the society (Bergen 2000, p.49). Therefore, evil acts can be extraordinary and committed by people who may be considered as remarkable within the society. From her work, she concluded that good has got depth and can be radical as opposed to evil which may only be intense and not radical (Lara 2001, p.86). To her, evil results from thoughtlessness and any attempt to engage thought in it will be futile as it cannot give reasons for the origins and principles of evil. The use of the term banality of evil has been important in the examination of several evil acts that have occurred in the world such as the Holocaust, genocides in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia amongst other evil acts in the world. It is important to note that in a discussion on banality of crime, a, an action may be condemned by authorities but still remain moral or an action embraced by the whole community may also be immoral. This means that what society thinks as immoral or evil is what matters and this helps in the manipulation of how an individual acts. Evil can become banal if ordinary individuals play a part in it and justify them in different ways so that the evil becomes faceless (Russell 2014, p.74). Banality of Evil According to Arendt, the world is just unjust and the mere acceptance of the evil rather than ignorance of it is what blinds the society from seeing the evil itself (Miller 2004, p.209) This means that when sociologists recognize crime, they mostly analyse them using pre-existing sociological perspectives which may not necessarily be their causes. Arendt discusses evil within the moral discourse by trying to comprehend what characters can be applied to it and how people respond to it. In Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), she discusses the banality of evil as seen in the perpetrator and not the evil act in itself, by arguing that Eichmann willingly involved in the genocide against the Jews by the Nazi through failure or lack of sound thinking and poor judgment (Aschheim 2001, p.377). The perpetrator only committed the genocide against the Jews unthinkingly without considering the effect on the Jews and other minority groups who were targeted. This therefore means that evil only occurs when ordinary individuals are put into situations that force them to conform to what is required of them by a corrupt system. The banality of evil usually places evil at a level that can be attained even with the absence of conscious thought and can be achieved in any other manner as long as the commission of that evil act is dictated by circumstance (Arendt 1963, p.39). She argues that evil includes even the most harmless or innocent actions for instance signing a piece of paper as carried out by Einmann who never knew the effect of signing the paper (Arendt 1963, p.287). Therefore, in any society, some attributes may be unacceptable and repudiated by the whole society but may be reflected in ordinary citizens who are forced to carry certain acts as ordered by the bureaucracy. The banality of evil therefore affects how a person thinks and judges, especially in distinguishing right from wrong as compared to the moral implications. It does not mean that the evil itself is petty or common to every person, but may come in when there is lack of thought or impaired judgment. The banality of evil as argued by Arendt has occurred in the world in most cases of genocides with different levels of successes or failures in how the acts were carried out. The Holocaust by far represents the most prominent case of the success of the banality of evil as explained by Arendt. At the trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann admits that he was simply carrying out the directions of the Nazi to exterminate the Jews and it was beyond him to know whether he was doing evil or not. Eichmann as the perpetrator was the banal and not the evil in itself as he was only following the orders of the Nazi who saw it as normal and morally upright to exterminate the Jews. Therefore, he confirms how banality of evil as argued by Arendt can succeed as long as the perpetrator believes he is working as per the demands of the bureaucracy or confines of the law. He only acted according to how societal norms dictated his conscience and not through his own reasoning, thinking or judgment (Bauman 1989, p.178). In situations such as the genocide and massive abuse of human rights in nations such as Rwanda and Bosnia amongst others, the banality of evil has been used in normalizing unthinkable acts. Such acts included murder, rape and maiming which became routine and accepted by the population as the way things should be or as part of the normal bureaucracy. In all these instances, the acts were carried out by a person who may not have understood or judged the acts as immoral and evil but acting on the orders of a corrupt or inept system. These show how the banality of evil forced individuals to conform to orders as Eichmann did in the case of the extermination of the Jews in the Nazi camps in Germany. The Rwandan Genocide against the Tutsis represents a case that shows the failure of banality of evil as a concept. In this case, the perpetrators of the genocide were not acting according to a bureaucratic system to attain conformity as banality would have required. Rather, in this instance, the perpetrators of the genocide against the Tutsis acted in a spontaneous manner with the main purpose of eliminating a particular ethnic group (Vetlesen 2005, p.254). They carried these acts without any form of coercion, complicity or despair induced by a corrupt system that may have required them to exterminate the Tutsis. However, the situation in Bosnia is a clear example of genocide that represents banality of evil as the perpetrators were forced to act in an evil manner unknowingly in order to kill people based on their ethnicity. The genocide in Bosnia on the basis of ethnicity therefore presented a clear example of how normal people acted in an evil manner by acting according to the whims of a particular bureaucracy (Dijoseph 2010, p.49). Banality of evil can also not be used to describe the atrocities committed by the forces loyal to Idi Amin Dada in Uganda. Unlike Eichman who was under orders and had to obey them to exterminate the Jews, Idi Amin was in control of the situation of Uganda by virtue of being the president and could not been under the coercion of the bureaucracy. He was also not a normal man acting unknowingly, but a person in leadership position with a control of his conscience, thinking and judgment as opposed to what banality would have required (Barry 2013, p.14). Amin sanctioned the execution of several Ugandans and cannibalized even some of his victims showing how radically evil he was as opposed to the banality of evil concept. These cannot be described under the banality of evil as they were carried out by a perpetrator who wanted to commit radical evil against the citizens with full agreement of his thoughts. Conclusion Arendt’s banality of evil shows that a person may not rely on his thinking, but rely on stupidity which is unexceptional. This makes the person act in a manner that is stupid unknowingly though the person may be normal or exhibit characters that would otherwise be expected of normal persons. Therefore, from the work, we notice that Eichman had no motive whatsoever to exterminate the Jews and did not realize that his acts were wrong. He was merely acting on orders from the Nazi regime who expected the bureaucracy required in killing the Jews to continue. Therefore, a person can act thoughtlessly knowing that by committing a certain evil; he is doing away with morality for a more fulfilling reason. Banality of evil has been used to describe certain acts such as atrocities, genocides and wars that have occurred in the world either rightfully or wrongfully. What matters is the motivation of the evil act as compared to the participation of the perpetrator. An important facet of knowing whether they qualify under the concept of banality of evil, the thinking as well as the judgment of the perpetrator is important. The Holocaust and the genocide in Bosnia meet the criteria of banality of crime as the perpetrators carried the acts under the orders of the inept or corrupt bureaucracies. However, the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda and the atrocities carried out by the Ugandan troops led by Idi Amin Dada do not qualify under the banality of evil as they were carried out by people who had functioning conscience. These people carried these heinous crimes by using their thinking and judgment to inflict harm on certain members of the community. References Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem; a report on the banality of evil. New York, Viking Press. Aschheim, S. E. (2001). Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem. Berkeley, University of California Press. Barry, P. B. (2013). Evil and moral psychology. New York, Routledge. Bergen, B. J. (2000). The Banality of Evil Hannah Arendt and The Final Solution. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press. Dijoseph, J. (2010). Noble cause corruption, the banality of evil, and the threat to American democracy, 1950-2008. Lanham, MD : University Press of America Miller, A. G. (2004). The social psychology of good and evil. New York, Guilford Press. Lara, M. P. (2001). Rethinking evil: contemporary perspectives. Berkeley, Calif. [u.a.], Univ. of California Press. Russell, L. (2014). Evil A Philosophical Investigation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vetlesen, A. J. (2005). Evil and human agency: understanding collective evildoing. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Read More