The Origins of Totalitarianism Essay Questions

How has antisemitism changed over time?

To answer this question, one must consider the changing role of the Jewish elite over time. Members of this elite were originally financiers tied to the welfare of the state, and their importance declined with the decline of the nation-state. Antisemitism, however, rose with the decline of the nation-state. In the Dreyfus Affair, antisemitism conceived “Jews” as bad, but was more lenient with the individual “Jew” who was not like a Jew. However, this changed when antisemitism became the fuel for mass ideologies such as the "pan-" movements.

What are the characteristics of imperialism and why is it different from colonialism?

Imperialism was instigated by massive business interests that could no longer manage within the nation-state system and therefore sought never-ending expansion in order to constantly accumulate capital and power. Since the goal of expansion is now more expansion, there is no reason to incorporate conquered peoples into the nation-state at all, whereas in colonialism, colonial holdings eventually led to the demand for political recognition or determination. Furthermore, imperialism is characterized by a bureaucratic governing structure absent in colonialism.

The epigraph to “Part Three: Totalitarianism” is a David Rousset quote: “Normal men do not know that everything is possible.” What is the significance of this quote for Arendt’s analysis of totalitarianism?

According to Arendt, the leaders of a totalitarian movement "know" that everything is possible and therefore believe that everything is permitted. This is used to analyze the concentration camps as experiments that seem irrational to “normal” men. It also accounts for the difficulty of punishing the incomprehensible crimes of the Nazis. A more in-depth analysis would also investigate the relationship of man’s omnipotence in the totalitarian view with his complete transformation into an instrument of Nature and History.

What is “tribal nationalism,” and how is it similar to or different from earlier forms of nationalism?

While nationalism is usually directly in support of the state and tied to the specific land within which the nation is contained, tribal nationalism identifies an in-group through the concept of “blood ties” and is often explicitly internationalist or anti-state. As an example, one might write about how pan-Germanism was especially popular in Austria and supported the German government. Bismarck, a traditional nationalist who was the kaiser of the German Empire at the time, did not incorporate this support into his platform or politics in any way, rather he was concerned with uniting what he thought to be the historic German Empire.

According to Arendt, what is racism and how did it develop?

Racism, according to Arendt, is the movement of the concept of racism itself, which is to say it is the theory of the development of race based on supposed natural and historical laws. Racism developed from race-thinking when the latter ceased being merely an opinion in liberal society and became the ideology behind a mass movement. Discussion of imperialism in South Africa and the Boers would also be relevant to this essay topic.

Explain the concept of “superfluity” or “superfluous men” and its significance in Arendt’s book.

Superfluous men are men without social ties or bonds to society, who do not generally participate in the labor that produces society. An answer might focus on the importance of superfluous men to the creation of imperial settlements and the development of racism in South Africa. Arendt also identifies superfluity of the masses as an important prerequisite to totalitarian rule and terror. If taking this approach, one would likely write about her argument that the concentration camps were completely superfluous since their labor didn’t contribute to society at all and their purpose was rather to experiment in rendering men superfluous things.

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt argues that the history of totalitarianism seems to have proven Edmund Burke right: the Rights of Man are too abstract and cannot be the foundation of society. Evaluate this argument. How does Arendt make it? What conclusions does she draw for the future? Do you agree?

The main evidence that Arendt uses for this argument is the situation of stateless people. They are unable to incorporate themselves into a body politic and therefore remain outside the law, despite the use of the Rights of Man as a founding principal of the modern state. The implications this has for the future are unclear. Arendt does think there needs to be a “new law on earth,” but she also thinks that power should remain rooted and limited in “newly defined territorial entities,” not unlike nation-states (ix).

Arendt argues that imperialism developed out of the necessary crisis of the nation-state in bourgeois society, and that the movements of imperialism and their own crisis in the first World War necessitated the rise of totalitarianism in the face of the exploded status quo. Do you think this was the only possible fate of the nation-state? Does Arendt? What does this mean for the process of history itself? Discuss.

In order to answer this question, one would need to examine the different stages in the crisis of the nation-state described above. For example, Arendt’s opposition of the bourgeois to the citoyen offers insight into her view of historical possibility. Furthermore, she argues that the workers’ movement might have taken on a different political character completely had it taken seriously the task of the French Revolution and the freedom the republic was supposed to provide. Arendt does not think history is deterministic, but rather that it is comprehensible. The irrational outcome of totalitarianism is comprehensible, but also brings to light the opportunity for human spontaneity that exists in the making of history by man.

At the end of The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt suggests that the alternative to the ideologies of the 19th century that produced totalitarianism might lie in the spontaneity of human political action. She writes: “Beginning, before it becomes a historical event, is the supreme capacity of man; politically, it is identical with man’s freedom” (479). Write both a plausible critique and defense of the conclusion she draws from her analysis, and then evaluate her argument using your own judgement.

Critiques come from actual difficulties in the text and not mere thought-errors, so one might begin by critiquing a difficulty with, for example, the way she opposes the freedom of “beginnings” and spontaneous action with the idea of historical movement, then defend against this same critique. A defense would have to explain her concept of “being” as well as the “logicality” she ascribes to historical movements. Finally, the evaluation would use all the historical analysis she has give the reader as well as the intricacies of her argument to evaluate its plausibility on its own terms. This evaluation would have to explain how the argument succeeds or fails to meet its own standards.

Do you think Arendt’s work speaks to the present, and if so, how?

This question has been left intentionally open ended. Arendt writes: “Comprehension does not mean denying the outrageous, deducing the unprecedented from precedents, or explaining phenomena by such analogies and generalities that the impact of reality and the shock of experience are no longer felt. It means, rather, examining and bearing consciously the burden which our century has placed on us—neither denying its existence nor submitting meekly to its weight. Comprehension, in short, means the unpremeditated, attentive facing up to, and resisting of, reality—whatever it may be” (viii). Using what you’ve learned from Arendt’s work, face up to reality—whatever it may be.