Home > Positioning > Persons > Arendt

Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)

Arendt argued that plurality — the fact that we are many, each distinct — is the condition of political life, not merely a feature of it. Action among plural beings creates a web of relationships that no single will controls and no single narrative contains. Her work begins from the observation that the worst political form of the twentieth century — totalitarianism — was an attempt to destroy plurality itself, to make human beings superfluous. The constructive side of her thinking is an account of what plurality makes possible: speech, action, and the shared world that arises between people when they act together.

Life

Born 14 October 1906 in Linden, near Hanover, Germany, to a secular Jewish family. Her father, an engineer, died when she was seven. Raised by her mother in Königsberg (now Kaliningrad).

Studied philosophy at the University of Marburg (1924–26) under Martin Heidegger; their relationship was also personal and remained complicated throughout her life. Transferred to Heidelberg, where she completed her doctorate under Karl Jaspers in 1929, with a dissertation on the concept of love in Augustine.

Briefly arrested by the Gestapo in 1933 while gathering documentation of antisemitic measures for the German Zionist Federation. Fled to Paris, where she worked with Jewish refugee organisations, including Youth Aliyah, which arranged the emigration of Jewish children to Palestine. Met Walter Benjamin; married Heinrich Blücher, a former Communist and self-taught philosopher, in 1940.

After the fall of France, interned at the Gurs camp; escaped during the administrative confusion of the French surrender. Fled to New York via Lisbon in 1941. Worked at Schocken Books, the Conference on Jewish Relations, and Jewish Cultural Reconstruction. Published The Origins of Totalitarianism in 1951 — the work that established her reputation.

Professor at the University of Chicago (1963–67), then at the New School for Social Research in New York (1967–75). Covered the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem for The New Yorker in 1961; Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963) provoked intense controversy and cost her several friendships, notably with Hans Jonas. Died 4 December 1975 in New York, at her desk, midway through The Life of the Mind.

The vita activa

The Human Condition (1958) distinguishes three fundamental activities of human life:

Labour — the activity that corresponds to the biological process of the body. Metabolism, consumption, the cycle of necessity. Labour produces nothing durable; it sustains life. The animal laborans labours because the body demands it. Labour’s rhythm is cyclical: production and consumption without remainder.

Work — the activity that corresponds to the fabrication of a durable world. The homo faber builds things — tables, houses, tools, artworks — that outlast the process of their making. Work creates the stable, objective world that stands between people and provides the setting for their interactions. Without work’s products, there is no shared world — only the flux of biological process.

Action — the activity that corresponds to plurality. Action begins something new among others. It is the only activity that requires the presence of other people — not as objects to be acted upon but as distinct beings who see, hear, judge, and respond. Action is distinguished by two features: its consequences are unpredictable (because the others who receive it are themselves actors) and it is irreversible (because it enters a web of existing relationships and cannot be recalled). Action is the political activity in the strict sense: it is what human beings do when they appear before each other as who, not what, they are.

The three activities form a hierarchy of durability and freedom. Labour is bound to necessity; work achieves permanence but remains instrumental; action alone is free — it is done for its own sake, among equals, in public.

Plurality and the public realm

Plurality is not one value among others in Arendt’s framework; it is the condition that makes political life possible. Her formulation: “If men were not equal, they could neither understand each other nor plan for the future and foresee the needs of those who will come after them. If men were not distinct, each human being distinguished from any other who is, was, or will ever be, they would need neither speech nor action to make themselves understood.”

Natality — the capacity to begin. Each human being is a new beginning; birth itself is the paradigmatic form of initiation. Arendt grounds politics not in mortality (as Heidegger grounds Dasein in Being-towards-death) but in natality — the continuous arrival of new actors who are capable of starting something that has never been before.

The web of relationships. Action among plural beings creates a web that no one planned, that no single will controls, and that generates consequences beyond anyone’s intention or foresight. The web has a reality of its own: it is the medium in which action produces its effects and acquires its meaning. Stories — what happened, who did what — are the web’s retrospective form; institutions are its stabilised form; neither is fully in anyone’s hands.

The public realm — the space of appearance in which people act and speak before one another. Distinguished from the private realm (the household, bound to necessity and labour) and the social (which in modernity has blurred the public-private distinction, colonising public life with economic concerns). The public realm is where plurality becomes real — where distinct perspectives meet, and where shared reality is constituted through the clash of differing viewpoints rather than the imposition of a single one.

Totalitarianism and the banality of evil

The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) analyses the Nazi and Stalinist regimes not as extreme cases of tyranny but as a new political form. Tyranny rules through fear and the arbitrary will of the tyrant; totalitarianism operates through terror and ideology, aiming to make human beings as such superfluous. The concentration camps are the institution in which this aim is realised: they destroy juridical personhood (by placing inmates outside the law), moral personhood (by making conscience irrelevant to survival), and individuality itself (by reducing inmates to interchangeable specimens). What totalitarianism attacks is not a particular group but the capacity for plurality — the condition under which human beings can act, speak, and appear as distinct persons.

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963) — Arendt’s report on the trial of Adolf Eichmann — introduced the phrase that became her most famous and most misunderstood. The banality of evil is not a theory of evil’s nature; it is an observation about a particular man. Eichmann was not a fanatic, not a monster, not driven by deep ideological conviction. He was a bureaucrat who did not think about what he was doing — who followed procedures, used stock phrases, and could not adopt another person’s point of view. The controversy was immediate and lasting. Arendt was accused of exonerating Eichmann and of blaming European Jewish leaders for their role in the catastrophe. Neither charge represents what the book says. The deeper argument is about the relationship between thoughtlessness and political evil: that the failure to think — to examine, to judge, to consider the world from the standpoint of others — is itself a political catastrophe.

Where Arendt stops

Arendt died midway through The Life of the Mind, and the unfinished third volume — on judging — is the most consequential absence in her work. The first two volumes treat thinking and willing as activities of the solitary mind. Judging, the faculty she identified with political life, was to have completed the triad by showing how the mind operates among others — not in contemplation but in the world of appearances, where plural perspectives meet. What survives are lecture notes on Kant’s Critique of Judgment, which Arendt read as a theory of political rather than aesthetic judgment: the capacity to think from the standpoint of others, to achieve an “enlarged mentality” that does not collapse other viewpoints into one’s own. Whether this Kantian framework could carry the weight Arendt intended — grounding political judgment in plurality without relapsing into a universal standard — remains an open question. Seyla Benhabib argues it can, if supplemented by discourse; Bonnie Honig argues the attempt to stabilise judgment through Kant betrays the agonistic character of Arendt’s own account of action.

The tripartite scheme of labour, work, and action has also come under sustained pressure. Jürgen Habermas argued that Arendt’s sharp separation of the political from the social — her insistence that economic questions belong to necessity, not freedom — leaves her unable to address the structural injustices that shape who can appear in the public realm at all. If the social colonises the political in modernity, as Arendt herself says, then a theory of politics that brackets the social cannot explain, let alone remedy, its own conditions. The question is whether Arendt’s categories describe permanent features of the human condition or a particular Greek arrangement that she generalised too far.

Action’s two defining features — unpredictability and irreversibility — also generate a tension Arendt acknowledged but did not resolve. Action that cannot be foreseen or recalled is politically dangerous as well as politically free. Arendt’s remedies are forgiveness (which releases the actor from irreversibility) and promise-keeping (which bounds unpredictability) — but these are themselves actions, subject to the same features. The circle is deliberate; whether it is stable is contested.

Key works

See also: Jonas · Connolly · Heidegger