This post originally was posted on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2021/04/thoughts-after-watching-2012-movie.html.
***
I have just finished watching the 2012 movie about the period of Hannah Arendt‘s life when she wrote about the concept of “the banality of evil“.
A key aspect of the movie is the anger (some quite physically thuggish) at Arendt’s revelation that apparently normal people can and do commit great evil. In my opinion, writing half a century later, I consider the world has mostly accepted that Arendt’s writing was not a defence of Eichmann or the nazis, but a warning to all of us.
Looking back from now, it is easy (superficially) to assume that there was a problem with the thinking of those who reacted so savagely (although the emotion was understandable), but it could also be argued that Hannah Arendt’s communication could have been better - which the film touches on. I’ve read some of Ms Arendt’s work, and it is typical of philosophers of that era (and some in other eras): it is less accessible for those who are not strongly focused on (read: not obsessed with) developing their ability to think in a particular way.
I also consider Ms Arendt’s failure to understand the likely reaction - at least, as portrayed in the film - is a failure of Hannah Arendt as a human being, although she clearly does have - contrary to her critics assertions - emotions (“feelings”).
But, more crucially, the failure of her critics needs to be examined.
In my opinion, there is an an element of fear in the reactions - likely subconscious, but a wondering “could I also do that?”
The answer is yes, which can be unsettling, scary, or even devastating to any personal worldviews and self-esteem that are built on false / flimsy foundations, but there is another aspect here as well: people WANT to be, and sometimes to do, “good”. Hannah Arendt’s revelation shows that being or doing good is not necessarily easy or clear cut, however. It reveals that what people have used as a basis for deciding what is good and bad, and thus their world view, self-image, and life decisions, might need to be revisited.
In fact, based on my lived experience of discrimination, I consider many people give having a sense of belonging too much importance - it inhibits the responsibility to understand that Ms Arendt advocates (which I agree with), and is something that enables the moral collapse of society in that era which Ms Arendt talks of.
It also allows vigilantism - including things like lynching, the “cold shoulder” shown in a dining room (that is a particular affliction in too many schools, although embargoes can be a valid way of exerting pressure against individuals in nations to promote better observance of human rights), and the evils that go with a compulsion to being part of a pack.
I actually consider the social pressure these days to be part of facebook a manifestation of that evil - one comparable to, although lesser than (although there is a financial cost to not being on facebook, as I’m regretfully aware, and others became aware of recently when facebook attacked Australia over news reports), the compulsion to be a member of the nazi party in 1930s and 1940s Germany, and the compulsion to be a white supremacist in many nations for centuries, if not millennia.
As John F Kennedy said: “We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
But in even that desire to be part of a pack, there is basically the desire to feel good about oneself, which can be a predecessor to wanting to be “good”. And in seeking to understand that, and thus determine better ways to respond to the evils of being part of a pack, we should be listening to those who have left such groups - THEY, not us, are the ones who know what works, and what doesn’t. (To try to get others to understand this, I have sometimes said to people who consider themselves law abiding and advocate for harsher punishment of crime, “but they don’t think the same way as you” - which is true enough, as many criminals are focused on how to survive, how to provide for their family, how to cope with aggressive, endemic and pernicious discrimination, etc, all of which are topics the privileged whites I’m referring to don’t have to think of.)
As a final comment, the warning about banality enabling a moral collapse in all society apply to us today, albeit possibly to a lesser extent, thanks to Rupert, Tony, and Scott.
This film has, and stimulates thinking about, nuances, shades, and layers of meaning. Well worth a watch and a think, in my opinion.
