The Critical Modernism of Hannah Arendt

26 Pages·2006·0.1 MB·English

Theoretical Inquiries in Law 8.1 (2007)
The Critical Modernism of
Hannah Arendt
Mark Antaki*
Hannah Arendt grasps modernity in terms of crisis and political
modernity in terms of the crisis of authority. Because she ties the
crisis of authority not simply to liberal political thought but to the
entireWesternphilosophicaltradition,Arendtrespondstothecrisisof
authoritywithacriticalmodernism,i.e.,amodernismthatseekstolay
barethegapbetweenpastandfuturethatwascoveredupbytheRoman
trilogyoftradition,religion,andauthority.Thismodernismiscritical
because it intensifies rather than shies away from crisis. With this
critical modernism, judgment emerges as the successor to authority,
opening the door to a possible overcoming of metaphysics and of the
estrangement of doing and thinking. Arendt’s reworking of a parable
ofKafka’sdealingwiththegapbetweenpastandfutureillustratesher
turntojudgmentandherattempttoovercomemetaphysics.
I. CRITIQUEANDCRISIS
I
nhisaccount ofthe"pathogenesisofmodernsociety,"ReinhartKoselleck
argued that the "critical process of enlightenment conjured up the crisis"
of modernity.1 In his account, as in others, the modern position of critique
* Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill University. I would like to thank
Kirsten Anker, Shai Lavi, and Alexandra Popovici for their helpful comments
on various drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank the participants in the
CriticalModernities:PoliticsandLawBeyondtheLiberalImaginationCeglaCenter
conferenceattheUniversityofTelAviv.Inparticular,IwouldliketothankAnnabel
Herzogwhograciouslycommentedonmypresentationofapreviousversionofthis
paper. In her remarks, she rightly emphasized Arendt’s intellectual debt to Walter
Benjamin.IamafraidIdidnoteventrytodojusticetothisrelationinthepresent
text.
1 REINHART KOSELLECK, CRITIQUE AND CRISIS: ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE
PATHOGENESISOFMODERNSOCIETY11(1988).
252 TheoreticalInquiriesinLaw [Vol.8:251
engendersthemodernconditionofcrisis.Modernismleads,orcontributes,to
modernity.2InKoselleck’sstory,themoderncriticsubjectspoliticalauthority
to relentless criticism but is unable to erect anything in its place except for
a utopian philosophy of history that is alienated from the standpoint and
constraintsofpractical,politicalaction.Thethemeofthedemiseofpolitical
authority in the face of critique, the theme of the displacement of politics
by an abstract and moralizing worldview, echoes not only the work of Carl
Schmitt(anditspolemicsagainstliberalism)butalsothatofHannahArendt.
Abstractthoughtdisplacesaproperunderstandingofconcreteaction.Inthe
work of these authors, the modern condition appears not merely as one in
whichpoliticalauthorityhasbeenlostormisapprehendedbutalsoasonein
whichthe political itself — and for Hannah Arendt, political freedom — is
threatenedwithloss andmisapprehension.3
Because she was a reader of Nietzsche, however, Arendt’s diagnosis
of the critical condition of modernity leads to the observation that, to
paraphrase Bruno Latour,4 "we have not been modern enough." Though
Arendt’s modernism has been described — and with some reason — as
"reluctant,"5 Arendt’s modernism (her position) in the face of modernity
(our condition) is also "critical," one that calls for more, not less, critical
thinking.Arendt’sturntothenegativepowerofcritiqueisnecessarytomake
roomforjudgment.Indeed,ourwordsforcritiqueandcrisiscomefromthe
Greekkrinein, which signifies discrimination or judgment.6Rediscovering
the faculty of judgment can rescue us from the crisis of political authority
and,moreimportantly,fromthatofthepolitical.Critiquefreesupthespace
ofpracticalaction,exposesthegap,thenothing,inwhichhumanbeingsmust
dwell. But critique misunderstands its task when it goes further. The space
openedupbycritiqueisnottobefilledwiththe"fruits"ofcriticalthinking—
forcriticalthinkingbearsnotangible"fruits"—butistobeconfrontedwith
thehelpofthefacultyofjudgment,thatmentalfacultywhichismostworldly,
2 On the contrast of modernity and modernism, of condition and position, see Mark
Antaki, Leading Modernity (To) A-Ground, 19 AUSTL. FEMINIST L.J. 115 (2003),
whichengagesPETERFITZPATRICK,MODERNISMANDTHEGROUNDSOFLAW(2001).
3 See alsoSHELDONS.WOLIN, POLITICSANDVISION: CONTINUITYANDINNOVATION
INWESTERNPOLITICALTHOUGHT (2004) (especially chapter nine of the first part,
"LiberalismandtheDeclineofPoliticalPhilosophy").
4 BRUNOLATOUR,WEHAVENEVERBEENMODERN(CatherinePortertrans.,Harvard
Univ.Press1993)(1991).
5 SELYABENHABIB,THERELUCTANTMODERNISMOFHANNAHARENDT(1996).
6 See H.G. LIDDELL& ROBERTSCOTT, ANINTERMEDIATEGREEK-ENGLISHLEXICON
450-51(Oxford,ClarendonPress7thed.1889).
2006] TheCriticalModernismofHannahArendt 253
mosttiedtothedemandsandthestandpointofaction—indeedmostfreeing
ofaction,mostpolitical.
In order to properly come to terms with the loss of authority and make
room for the possibility of judgment,7 Arendt suggests that we must free
ourselvesfromaliberalimaginationthatconfusesauthoritywithviolencein
itsthoroughgoingfunctionalism(i.e.,itsreductionofauthorityto"whatever
makespeopleobey"8).Wemustfreeourselvesfromaliberalimaginationthat
confusestotalitarianismwithauthoritarianismbecauseitmisapprehendsthe
demiseofauthorityforthetriumphoffreedomandfailstoseethatauthority
andfreedompossiblybelongtogether.9Todistinguishauthorityfromviolence,
Arendtargues,itisalsonecessarytoovercomealiberalmodeloftheruleand
role of law in which judgment is reduced to the application of pre-existing
rules. It turns out that the misapprehension of authority is bound up with a
misapprehension of judgment — and that both misapprehensions threaten
human,politicalfreedom.
Attempting to overcome the confusion of authority with violence leads
Arendt to argue that the failure to properly apprehend authority lies deeper
than liberalism as a political theory: this failure has its origins in the
Western tradition of thought and, ultimately, in metaphysics, i.e., the belief
in a better, truer world in which this world finds its ground. According
to Arendt, the crisis of modernity is not simply — as is often suggested
in this epoch of "post-foundational" thinking10—thelossofmetaphysical
ground.Thecrisisofmodernityisthe(threatened)lossofworld.Thus,Arendt
writes,thelossofauthorityis"tantamounttothelossofthegroundworkofthe
world."11 Whereas authority endowed the world with stability and whereas
judgment presupposes and affirms a world peopled by a plurality of fellow
humanbeings,metaphysics,initseffort togroundthisworld,deprivesitof
its worldly and political character. Metaphysics turns the problem of world
intooneofground.Itcoversupthesharingofaworldbyapluralityofhuman
7 Some of the secondary literature on Arendt also pairs the theme of the demise of
authority with that of the need for judgment. See, for example, ROBERTC. PIRRO,
HANNAHARENDTTHEPOLITICSOFTRAGEDY (2001), in which Chapter 3, "Tragic
Foundations:PromotingPoliticalFreedominaPost-AuthorityWorld,"isfollowed
byChapter4,"TragicIntuitions:JudgmentasanInstanceofPoliticalFreedom."
8 HANNAH ARENDT, What is Authority?, in BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE: EIGHT
EXERCISESINPOLITICALTHOUGHT91,103(1968).
9 ARENDT,supranote8,at95.
10 For a thoughtful reflection on the theme of foundation, see John E. Seery, Castles
intheAir:AnEssayonPoliticalFoundations,27POL.THEORY460(1999).
11 ARENDT,supranote8,at95;seealsoMarkAntaki,TheWorld(lessness)ofHuman
Rights,49MCGILLL.J.203(2004).
254 TheoreticalInquiriesinLaw [Vol.8:251
beings with violence or fixed standards of truth that, each in its own way,
compelsorcoercesagreementanddoesawaywiththedimensionofplurality
of human being-in-the-world.Truth is confounded with, indeed reduced to,
certainty.
Judgment appears, then, not only as a practical response to the crisis of
authority but also as the faculty that bridges the distance between thinking
and doing, the distance that makes metaphysics (and hence nihilism) a
"natural" propensityof thought.12
Judgment appears at once as a political or practical solution to the rule
of law or the rule of rules, and as a philosophical solution to abstract
thinking. Like the political practice of authority, judgment — unlike either
physical violence or the coercion of philosophical truth — is compatible
withhumanfreedom.Accordingly,inherlaterwork,ArendtturnstoKant’s
work on judgment (and away from Kant’s work on reason — whether pure
orpractical)whereimaginationandthepossibilityofsharedjudgmentsthat
arenotcompelledfigureprominently.Arendtturnsfromascienceofpolitics
to an art of politics, from the lone moral actor (practical reason) or lone
observer(theoreticalreason)tothejudgingspectatorwhoisalwaysalready
concerned withthe worldofpublic, politicalaction.
However, the turn to the spectator is not necessarily a turn away from
the actor, and the turn to Kant need not be construed as a turn away from
Aristotle(andphronesis).13Itisimportanttokeepinmindthemultivocalityof
"judgment."Our(andArendt’s)useof"judgment"bridgesthepractice-theory
divide: we speak of judgment with regard to the kind of discernment that
accompanies — or ought to accompany — action, we speak of judgment
with regard to the backward glance of the historian, we speak of judgment
with regard to a legal or moral assessment of specific acts, we speak of
judgment with regard to determinations of the beauty of a work or thing.14
And, as we shall see, Arendt believes that the distinctions between thought
12 HANNAHARENDT,THELIFEOFTHEMIND176(1978).
13 IfollowLisaJaneDischinnotseeing"Arendt’slecturesonjudgmentasadecisive
retreat from the political writings," LISAJANEDISCH, HANNAHARENDTANDTHE
LIMITSOFPHILOSOPHY142(1994),andDanaVillainnotseeing"anirreduciblegap
between Arendt’s early, actor-centered account of judgment and her later, critical
or historical one," DANAVILLA, POLITICS, PHILOSOPHY, TERROR: ESSAYSONTHE
THOUGHTOFHANNAHARENDT99(1999).Ofcourse,notpittingthepoliticalagainst
the critical Arendt does not mean that her account of judgment neatly succeeds in
reconcilingactionandthought.
14 Seyla Benhabib identifies three of these senses of judgment with regard to the
Eichmannaffair.BENHABIB,supranote5,at185-86.
2006] TheCriticalModernismofHannahArendt 255
and action,between thepoliticaljudgmentof theactorand thehistorical or
criticaljudgmentofthespectatorbreakdownintimesofcrisis.Totheextent
thatcrisiscanbeusedasawindowintothehumanconditionmoregenerally,
Arendt’sfocusoncrisismightbethefirststepinleavingbehindorreconciling
thesedistinctions.
Part II of this Article, "The Crisis of Authority," turns to Arendt’s
conception of modernity as an epoch of crisis in which the "now," the gap
between past and future, becomes, with the disappearance of authority, a
political problem for man. It also shows how, according to Arendt, the
loss of understanding of the experience of authority is concomitant with
the rise of metaphysics, which covers up the gap between past and future
in a way that divorces thought and deed. Part III, "The Gap Between
Past and Future," explicates Arendt’s dominant metaphor for modernity,
i.e., the gap between past and future, by way of a parable of Kafka’s to
which Arendt turns.Arendt’s treatment of Kafka’s parable points starkly to
metaphysics and the divorce of thought from deed. Part IV, "The Critique
of Judgment," shows how judgment becomes pivotal in overcoming the
divorce of thought from deed characteristic of metaphysics and of Kafka’s
parable. In Arendt’s reworking of Kafka’s parable, "thinking" is quietly
transformed into "judging." The theory that belongs to the observer gives
wayto thetheory (asintheatre15)thatbelongstothespectator.
Though it focuses on Arendt as a political theorist and not as a legal
theorist, this Article was inspired by developments in legal theory. Over
thepastseveraldecades,anincreasingnumberoflegaltheoristshavemade
"imagination" occupy a central place in their thinking about law. At least
some of these theorists have sought to conceive of the binding character of
lawin"aestheticterms"ratherthanintermsofthethreatofphysicalviolence
(as in Austin’s gunman) or the inexorable force of a rule-bound reason.16
TheseaccountsshareArendt’sfocusonworldratherthangroundandechoher
understandingofbothauthorityandjudgmentasbeingirreducibletoviolence
oranarrowly-conceivedrationality.17
It is precisely the manner in which these accounts turn to "imagination"
that makes them so unsettling to a legal liberalism that insists on reasons
that can compelagreement. Indeed, seeking to restrainoreliminatepolitics
15 Pirrowrites:"ItisworthspeculatingwhatArendtwouldhavemadeofthecommon
etymologicalrootsandculturalderivationof"theatre"and"theory"inacompleted
versionofJudging."PIRRO,supranote7,at127.
16 See, e.g., ANTHONY T. KRONMAN, THE LOST LAWYER: FAILING IDEALS OF THE
LEGALPROFESSION(1993);JAMESBOYDWHITE,THELEGALIMAGINATION(1985).
17 See,e.g.,JOSEPHVINING,THEAUTHORITATIVEANDTHEAUTHORITARIAN(1986).
256 TheoreticalInquiriesinLaw [Vol.8:251
bywayoflaw,thislegalliberalismseesthespecteroftotalitarianismbehind
any "aesthetic" account of law and legal and moral judgment.18 Arendt
toosawauthorityandlawaslimiting,butalsotherebyenablingpolitics19but
could not conceive of a law that would replace or do away with politics.20
Thus,inTheOriginsofTotalitarianism,Arendt’sarticulationoftheessence
of human rights as the right to have rights21 serves to make primordial
one’sbelongingnotonlytoalegalorderbuttoapolitical community. And
whereas the "unruliness of judgment"22leadssometofeararbitrarinessand
evil,ArendtattributesEichmann’sevildoingtohisthoughtlessnessandtohis
lackofimagination,i.e.,totheutterconformityofhisthoughttopre-existing
standards and cliche´s — to the "rule-boundedness" of his judgment23 and
not to the inherent unruliness of judgment in general. Thoughtlessness and
worldlessnessappearasconstitutiveof(modern)evil.
Thus,whereasthereisoftenalaudabletendencyincontemporarythought
to turn to rule-bound reason to avoid or prevent times of crisis, Arendt
worries that, precisely in times of crisis, adherence to inherited standards
andrulesmaybeinsufficient toinspireproperaction—andindeedmaybe
mostdetrimentaltoproperaction.Thus,itispreciselybecauseArendttends
toconceiveofthinkingasnegative,asdissolvingtakenforgrantedstandards,
18 See,e.g., R. GeorgeWright, WhosePhronesis? WhichPhronimoi?: AResponse to
DeanKronmanonLawSchoolEducation,26CUMB.L.REV.817(1995-1996).
19 Inheressayonauthority,Arendtreferstothedistinctionbetween(lawless)tyranny
and(lawful)authoritarianism.ARENDT,supranote8,at97.
20 See also JILLFRANK, A DEMOCRACYOFDISTINCTION: ARISTOTLEANDTHEWORK
OFPOLITICS(2005)(particularlyChapter4,"TheRuleofLaw").
21 HANNAH ARENDT, THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM 296 (Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich1973)(1951).
22 SeePhilippeNonet,Judgment,48VAND.L.REV.987(1995);seealsoLindaRoss
Meyer,IsPracticalReasonMindless?,86GEO.L.REV.647(1998).
23 Arendt attributes Eichmann’s wrongdoing to his "sheer thoughtlessness," to "his
lackofimagination,""tohisremotenessfromreality."HANNAHARENDT,EICHMANN
IN JERUSALEM: A REPORT ON THE BANALITY OF EVIL 287-88 (1964) [hereinafter
ARENDT, EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM]. Arendt writes that Eichmann "had not the
slightest difficulty in accepting an entirely different set of rules. He knew that
what he had once considered his duty was not called a crime, and he accepted
this new code of judgment as thought it were nothing but another language rule."
HANNAH ARENDT, Thinking and Moral Considerations, in RESPONSIBILITY AND
JUDGMENT 159, 159 (Jerome Kohn ed., 2003) [hereinafter ARENDT, Thinking and
Moral Considerations]. The key here isthe ease with which Eichmann exchanged
one set of rules for another without thinking, without being worldly. Cf. George
Orwell,PoliticsandtheEnglishLanguage,inORWELL’SNINETEENEIGHTY-FOUR:
TEXT,SOURCES,CRITICISM248(IrvingHoweed.,1982).
2006] TheCriticalModernismofHannahArendt 257
andpreciselybecauseshetendstodivorcethinkingfromdoing,thatArendt
canassertthat"[t]hinkingceasestobeamarginalaffairinpoliticalmatters"
in moments of mass conformity.24The problemshe identifiesisnotoneof
certaintyorknowledgebutoneofhistorical—andpractical—discernment:
"The manifestation of the wind of thought is no knowledge; it is the ability
to tell right from wrong, beautiful from ugly. And this indeed may prevent
catastrophes, at least for myself, in the rare moments when the chips are
down."25 (Critical) thought becomes a — if not the — mode of action in
times of crisis.
II. THECRISISOFAUTHORITY
A. The CrisisofModernity
Scholars have located the "beginning" of modernity in the eighteenth
century, with the "final victory" of the moderns over the ancients26 or
even with the coming into its own of history as a discipline. For example,
Reinhart Koselleck writes that modernity (Neuzeit) designates that epoch
in which "the discipline of history (Geschichtwissenschaft)" outgrows
"the mere employment of its methods" and develops "a theory of its
own."27Koselleckemphasizesthat,morethansignifyingadateablehistorical
epoch,modernityisthethematizingandbecomingever-present ofacertain
set of problems, tensions, or experiences relating to man’s historicity: for
example,"theknowledgethatoneislivinginaperiodoftransitioninwhichit
becomesharderandhardertoreconcileestablishedtraditionswithnecessary
innovations,""thefeelingofaccelerationbywhichprocessesofeconomicor
politicalchangeappeartobetakingplace."28
Taking our cue in part from Koselleck, but shifting our emphasis
from the "new" (Neuzeit) to the "now" (modernity29), we can say that
modernity is that condition in which the "now" or, as Arendt calls it, "the
24 ARENDT,ThinkingandMoralConsiderations,supranote23,at188.
25 Id.at189.
26 See,e.g.,TiloSchabert,ANoteonModernity,7POL.THEORY123(1979).
27 REINHARTKOSELLECK, The Eighteenth Century as the Beginning of Modernity, in
THE PRACTICE OF CONCEPTUAL HISTORY 154, 167 (Todd Samuel Presner trans.,
2002).
28 Id.at168.
29 The German Neuzeit points to the "new" whereas the English modernity points to
the"now"fromtheLatinmodo,justnow.
258 TheoreticalInquiriesinLaw [Vol.8:251
gap between past and future"30 becomes a problem for man. For Arendt,
the "now" became a problem as the "Roman trinity" of "religion, authority,
andtradition"31brokedown.Withouttheguidanceoftradition,religion,and
authority, man is thrown back upon himself and threatened with the loss of
the past (the breakdown of tradition), the loss of faith (the breakdown of
religion),andthelossoftheworld(thebreakdownofauthority).32According
to Arendt, the breakdown of authority occurred last but is most significant
politically, i.e., most constitutive of political modernity. In a manner akin
to Koselleck’s account of the unsettling power of the "new," Arendt notes
thatauthorityprovidestheworlda"permanenceanddurabilitywhichhuman
beingsneedpreciselybecausetheyaremortals."33Thus,withthebreakdown
ofauthority,manispotentiallythreatenedwiththelossofthe"conditionsof
human existence,"34 such as the "world," i.e., the "in-between" that "relates
andseparatesmenatthesametime."35ThisbreakdownoftheRomantrilogy
pointstothe"generalcrisisthathasovertakenthemodernworldeverywhere
andinalmosteverysphereoflife."36
Thoughwecommonlythinkofcrisesintermsofrisks,losses,anddangers,
Arendt’s account also points to crises as moments in which the burden of
freedom is placed squarely on the shoulders of men, whether they "feel" it
or not, and in which a space for a decision that is sorely needed opens up
whether this space is recognized as such or not. As we shall see, the crisis
of the modern world37presentsitselfasanopportunityformanto"lose"—
butalsoto"win"—hishumanity.
30 See,e.g.,HANNAHARENDT,Preface:TheGapBetweenPastandFuture,inBETWEEN
PASTANDFUTURE:EIGHTEXERCISESINPOLITICALTHOUGHT,supranote8,at3.
31 ARENDT,supranote12,at212.
32 ARENDT,supranote8,at94-95.
33 Id.at95.
34 HANNAHARENDT,THEHUMANCONDITION11(1958).
35 Id.at52.
36 HANNAHARENDT,TheCrisisinEducation,inBETWEENPASTANDFUTURE:EIGHT
EXERCISESINPOLITICALTHOUGHT,supranote8,at173,173[hereinafterARENDT,
TheCrisisinEducation].CrisisisaprominentthemeinArendt’swork.Inadditionto
theabove,notethetitlesof,forexample,HANNAHARENDT,TheCrisisinCulture:Its
SocialandPoliticalSignificance,inBETWEENPASTANDFUTURE:EIGHTEXERCISES
INPOLITICALTHOUGHT, supra note 8, at 197 [hereinafter ARENDT, The Crisis in
Culture];HANNAHARENDT,CRISESOFTHEREPUBLIC(1972).
37 In her introduction to The Human Condition, Arendt writes, "[T]he modern age is
not the same as the modern world. Scientifically, the modern age which began in
the seventeenth century came to an end at the beginning of the twentieth century;
politically,themodernworld,inwhichwelivetoday,wasbornwiththefirstatomic
explosions."ARENDT,supranote34,at6.
2006] TheCriticalModernismofHannahArendt 259
B. MetaphorsofModernity
Arendt turns to several metaphors of modernity, of crisis, to outline the
predicament of modern man.38 For example, Arendt explicitly draws on
Jacob Burckhardt to describe the beginning of the Western philosophical
tradition(withPlatoandAristotle)as"a‘fundamentalchord’whichsoundsits
endlessmodulationsthroughoutthewholehistoryofWesternthought."39The
chordcouldnotstrikeman"moreforcefullyandmorebeautifully"thanatthe
beginningofthetradition,writesArendt,butattheendofthetradition(with
Marx) "never more irritatingly and jarringly."40 The "fundamental chord"
attunes man to the world as long as it resonates beautifully but it turns
destructiveintheend.
Arendtalsoturnstothemetaphorofthe"thread"oftradition.Thisthread,
she writes, "safely guided us through the vast realms of the past."41 The
wearing thinand breaking of the thread invite forgettingand thus endanger
thepast,the"dimensionofdepthinhumanexistence."42Withoutatradition
"whichselectsandnames,whichhandsdownandpreserves"43thetreasuresof
humanbeing-in-the-world,thedimensionsofpastandfuturethatconstitute
man’s humanity are threatened. The loss of past and future threatens the
present as well: there arises the risk of the reduction of man to a biological
beingleftwith"onlysempiternalchangeoftheworldandthebiologicalcycle
of livingcreaturesinit."44As Arendt writesinthe concluding pages to The
Human Condition, man "is on the point of developing into that animal
speciesfrom which,since Darwin,heimagines he hascome."45
Perhaps the most important metaphor of modernity, of crisis, to which
Arendt turns is that of the "gap between past and future." Arendt writes of
the "gap between past and future" being "bridged over by what, since the
Romans,wehavecalledtradition."46Thebreakdownofthebridgeoftradition,
38 Though the language of "past" and "tradition" figures prominently in Arendt’s use
of the metaphors discussed below, these metaphors apply to the breakdown of
the Roman trilogy of tradition, religion, and authority. Often, Arendt mixes her
categories,writing,forinstance,oftheauthorityofthepast.
39 HANNAHARENDT,TraditionandtheModernAge,inBETWEENPASTANDFUTURE:
EIGHTEXERCISESINPOLITICALTHOUGHT,supranote8,at17,18.
40 Id.
41 ARENDT,supranote8,at94.
42 Id.
43 ARENDT,supranote30,at4.
44 Id.at5.
45 ARENDT,supranote34,at322.
46 ARENDT,supranote30,at13-14.
260 TheoreticalInquiriesinLaw [Vol.8:251
then,wouldappeartohurlmanintothegap,intothenothing,intotheabyss.
However,Arendtwritesthatwhereasthebreakdownofthebridgecovering
thegapisconstitutiveofourmodernity,thegapisconstitutiveofourhumanity.
Arendtexplains:"Thegap,Isuspect,isnotamodernphenomenon,itisperhaps
notevenahistoricaldatumbutiscoevalwiththeexistenceofmanonearth."47
Inotherwords,beinghumanisbeing-in-thegap,being-towards-the-nothing.
Arendt’s inquiry into authority is thus not only an inquiry into a part
of the Roman trilogy that helped cover up the gap, and thus an inquiry
into the crisis of modern times, but also a contribution to the uncovering
of the gap, and thus a critique. In her essay on authority, Arendt inquires
intotheformofauthoritythatheldswayinWesternhistory.Hercritiqueof
authorityaimsatexposingthe"original"experienceofauthority,anoriginal
experience that has been layered over, and therefore lost, by successive
misappropriationsandmisinterpretations.Hercritiquealsoaimsatoutlining
the challenge we moderns face in being responsible for the world without
thehelp ofauthority.
C. Authority
Arendt’saccountofauthorityisguidedbytheconvictionthatitisimportant
todiscriminate,tomakedistinctions,i.e.,tojudge.Arendtexplainsthatsheis
writingagainsttwostrongcontemporarytrendsthatleadtotheconfounding
ofauthoritywithviolence.Ontheonehand,sheexplains,liberalwriterssee
theprogressofhumanityasamarchtowardsgreaterfreedom,lookingupon
each deviation from this course as a reactionary process leading in
the opposite direction. This makes them overlook the differences in
principle between the restriction of freedom in authoritarian regimes,
the abolition of political freedom in tyrannies and dictatorships, and
the total elimination of spontaneity itself, that is, of the most general
and most elementary manifestation of human freedom, at which
only totalitarian regimes aim by means of their various methods of
conditioning.48
Contrary to liberal writers, Arendt claims that the loss of authority paved
the way for totalitarianism. On the other hand, Arendt ties liberalism
to "the almost universal functionalization of all concepts and ideas,"49
47 Id.at13.
48 ARENDT,supranote8,at96.
49 Id.at101.