ARVELO​ | 1

Gelky Arvelo
Final Paper: History and Methods of Ethics
Faculty: Dr. Kate Ott & Dr. Traci West
May 1, 2019

Hannah Arendt’s Political Theory: ‘Banality of Evil’

​ Hannah Arendt established her reputation as a first rate political theorist in the 20​th

century with her ground breaking work, ​Totalitarianism. ​Based on her Western European

context, in this work she laid the foundation by which she sought to explain the concepts of

political control and human domination. My focus throughout this reflection will be her political

concept of ‘the banality of evil’ which, briefly described, refers to the ordinariness of evil

embedded in the actions of regular and normal individuals who are not thinking for themselves.

The foundation of her theory was laid when she reported for the ​New Yorker ​on Adolf

Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem in 1961. Her observation of Eichmann and the testimony at his

trial gave life to her article: ​A Report on the Banality of Evil​. So who was Adolf Eichmann?

Deidre Lauren Mahony, in her work ​Hannah Arendt Ethics​, informs us that he was part of the

“German National Socialist Party and the SS (Schutzstaffel), the elite paramilitary party
1
formation.” What were the charges made against him? Mahony provides a concise picture of the

accusations: “Eichmann presided first over the forced emigration of Jews in Germany and

Austria and ultimately, after the summer of 1941, the deportation of millions to the extermination

camps in the East. At the end of the war he went into hiding near Hamburg. Five years later he

1
​Deirdre Lauren Mahony. ​Hannah Arendt’s Ethics​. (London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018), 19.

 
 ARVELO​ | 2

2
managed to escape to Argentina where his wife and children eventually joined him.” According

to Arendt, it would be a mistake to take these accusations and simply profile Eichmann as a

cold-blooded murderer of Jews and not to look at the way he was influenced and motivated to do

his work within his socio-political context in which he lived and breathed and sought to excel.

For Arendt, there is a clear difference between one’s evil acts and how these acts are motivated
3
by external forces.

The question fundamental to my analysis of her political theory is: ​Can evil acts

become ordinary and if they can, what is influencing and motivating an individual for this

to be able to happen? ​Arendt’s concept of ‘the banality of evil’ is not intended to undermine the

popular understanding of evil, but to give birth to a broader framework which asserts that the

ordinariness of evil is due to a person’s inability to think for themselves. Mahony points out:

“The Holocaust could not have happened without the collusion and involvement of many

ordinary citizens, and yet the idea that these thousands of normal people were all invariably
4
sadist and fanatics remains implausible.” Arendt’s thought revolutionized the way we think

about evil. She saw that to be an evil person does not necessarily mean to carefully plan and

commit horrific, violent and lethal acts against humanity. To be an evil person could mean that in

the routine of normal work within a system you play a key role in a human atrocity, as is clear in

the Holocaust. She considers personal motives central to the human banality of evil, the primary

motive being the desire for human acceptance from the community. Arendt describes

2
​Deirdre Lauren Mahony. ​Hannah Arendt’s Ethics​. (London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018),
19-20.
3
​Deirdre Lauren Mahony. ​Hannah Arendt’s Ethics​. (London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018), 48.
4
​Deirdre Lauren Mahony. ​Hannah Arendt’s Ethics​. (London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018), 49.

 
 ARVELO​ | 3

Eichmann’s intentions and motivations as: “banal, petty, and self-serving ones such as advancing
5
his career and improving his social status.” The influence of the system or the political regime

was the normal state of affairs, so that, Arendt maintains, it was simpler to act than to think.

Arendt’s Political Method:

​Arendt’s method was based on a profound understanding and analysis of the Western

European historical and socio-political context in which the Holocaust occurred. Her research

was also based on her personal transcripts of Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, and her

understanding of how Nazism operated within the context of Western society. She brings to life

her concept of ‘the banality of evil’ by showing just how easy it is for individuals and groups to

participate in evil in an organized society. Based on her study of the Holocaust, Arendt’s

political theory invites us to re-think how we seek social justice, taking into account the social

structure through which evil is perpetuated and the way ordinary participation of a lawful citizen

occurs.

Section B The Ordinariness of Evil: Personalized

In this section I hope to arrive at a clear understanding of Arendt’s concept of the

banality of evil. The processes of socialization have an enormous impact on the establishment of

morals in a society, and consequently with the social behavior of the people. Whatever is right

and whatever is wrong is replaced with what the system considers to be right and moral. This

now unleashes a sociopolitical conundrum in every individual and social group that is in conflict

with “the system.” The struggle occurs when our human conscience is in conflict with the living

5
​Deirdre Lauren Mahony. ​Hannah Arendt’s Ethics​. (London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018), 57.

 
 ARVELO​ | 4

and powerful reality of a new environment, such as Nazism. The simple fact of adopting this

ideology and the subsequent socialization as a regular and normal part of life, gives substance to

the concept of ‘the banality of evil’. The brief picture of Eichmann’s indictment, and the

socio-political influences that caused and approved of his actions, make them appear normal

while in fact, they were evil. But they also put an individual’s face, with flesh and blood, on the

evil deeds of a whole political regime.

Hannah Arendt has revolutionized the way we think about the Holocaust. Now we must

also consider the changes in human behavior that are related to the rise of Nazism, and the brutal

crimes related to the execution of six million Jews. How did this happen within a society of

morals and laws? How did anti-Semitism becomes normal? Arendt’s analysis is a challenge to

the almost universal idea that evil is extraordinary. It also challenges the idea that the results of

my actions are evil because I am evil. This logic does not take into account the process of

socialization that we all undergo, nor the system of laws put in place by a political regime,

especially when they are based on the hatred of a whole group of people, such as the Jews.

Within the context of the formation of a political/social force with imperial ambitions,

(in this case Nazism) the processes of shaping a culture and society necessarily involve the

alteration of language. The very word “Jew” and “Jewish” were defined with negative

connotations and anyone “Jewish” to be excluded from the normal functions of the life of the

society. So for example in Czechoslovakia, the first thing the Germans did when they took over

in 1938 was to make it illegal to shop at a store owned by Jews. Many Jewish business which

depended upon non Jewish customers, went out of business. Practically, the alteration of the

meaning of the word, gave permission to act immorally, (not to shop at a Jewish owned

 
 ARVELO​ | 5

business), and then, to celebrate you for it, establishing a new norm. This sociological

phenomenon changes the narrative of what is right and wrong to whatever is for or against the

imperialistic system in place. The act of resisting the regime is now considered immoral and evil.

This alters the way ethics functions for the benefit of the political system with the purpose of

social domination. As a result, one can actively participate within the Nazi culture of hate and

racism, even exposing Jewish people to deportation and death by calling the authorities on them,

and it does not make me an evil person, but quite the opposite. It makes me a lawful citizen and

grants me a measure of importance, favoritism, and acceptance within the community and with

the authorities. According to the system in place, I did the right thing, even though the right thing

will lead whole families to the concentration camps and ultimately to the gas chamber.

​Is it possible to affirm our own conscience, even when it contradicts our social and

political environment?​ Mahony, in her work ​Hannah Arendt’s Ethics,​ presents nonparticipants

who rejected Nazism, and she contends: “Arendt’s idea of nonparticipation is the political

expression of moral incapacity. Nonparticipants were both political and moral actors: they

experienced a moral incapacity when confronted with the notion of engaging in a way of life

defined by Nazi evil, and expressed this politically as the refusal to participate in the public life
6
of Nazi society.” Nonparticipation reveals the moral incapacitation of the way of life solely

defined by Nazi evil. What makes evil ordinary and available to every individual within the

community is the mere fact that belonging and participating makes one complicit in a murderous

6
​Deirdre Lauren Mahony. ​Hannah Arendt’s Ethics​. (London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018), 11.

 
 ARVELO​ | 6

system, just by being a citizen. And let’s not forget that to oppose the system is to become

enemies of the state and demonized by your own social group.

Nazism represented an extraordinary force of evil that dictated the social actions and

behavior of the people, intentionally striping away the communal roots of true social morals

which had preserved the rights of all people. Does this justify individuals and group’s evil

actions that within the Nazi system were permitted? In a sense, yes, these actions were justified

because within the system the punishment for not complying was unthinkable. The only way out

for the ordinary citizen would be to replace the system that empowered them to commit the evil

acts in the first place. The absence of any accountability plays a fundamental role in determining

behavior because it does not restrain me from committing evil acts that are valid and even

commanded within the system in place. This essence of this lesson is that Nazi Germany was not

that different from other nations where people are commanded to obey the state without

questioning it. A law is a law and the criteria for enforcement of a good law or an evil law is the

same, namely failure to obey. In the case of the Nazi system, however, the goal was to target,

demonize, deport, expel, incarcerate in death camps and ultimately accomplish the execution of

the Jews. It is important to note that once the evil system is in place, controlled by the power

structure, and the stage of social change and adaptation is past, not only do evil actions become

ordinary, but a system that is fundamentally evil becomes formally and rationally ordinary for all

the participants.

Eichmann is a vivid example and the main resource for Arendt’s concept of the banality

of evil. “Eichmann can be regarded as a representative perpetrator—representative of the many

Germans without whose complicity the Holocaust could never have happened and yet to whom

 
 ARVELO​ | 7

the attribution of a virulent anti- Semitism or a malicious delight in cruelty is simply

people or intrinsic pathological evilness that was determined to orchestrate the genocide of the

Holocaust. He was a regular citizen and a family man. Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem did not take

into account the normality and ordinariness of his citizenship at the time. To call him to account

and accept moral responsibility for his actions within a system that not only supported and

required his evil deeds, but also applauded them, misses the point of who he was and why he did

what he did. It is far from my intention to defend his actions and the untold suffering that he

caused the Jewish people and humanity as a whole. Yet there is a loophole in the process of

indictment, which is that he acted legally in every action within the system. Even though his

actions are portrayed as immoral within an alien system that was judging him under the authority
8
of: “The Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (punishment) Law of 1950,” which called for his

execution, all of his evil acts were done as a lawful citizen. He was judged by different rules, in a

different language, different era, different country, with different politics, and at the end he was

executed. He is an excellent example of Arendt’s thesis of the banality of evil because he was an

ordinary man unable or unwilling to think for himself.

Let’s not forget that Nazism was recognized at the time by world religious leaders and

world political leaders as an ordinary political party until they became a lethal threat to that same

world. Hannah Arendt in her work ​Eichmann in Jerusalem,​ writes that: “(Hitler, in his speech to

the Reichstag of January 30, 1939 had “prophesied” that war would bring “the annihilation of the

7
​Deirdre Lauren Mahony. ​Hannah Arendt’s Ethics​. (London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018), 25.
8
​Hannah Arendt. ​Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil​. (New York: Penguin Books, 1977), 21.

 
 ARVELO​ | 8

9
Jewish race in Europe”) and the invasion of Russia.” Nazism was not a mystery or a secretive

plan, their goals and their actions became an ordinary evil accepted by western society and

welcomed and celebrated in many of the global political arenas.

The socio-political method​ that I have used in this section invite us to an

understanding of the socio-political context of Nazism. I made certain theoretical assumptions

about the effects of socialization that not only affect one’s ability to understand moral values or

to tell right from wrong, but also impacts our behavior as a social agents and active participants

of the community. Our analysis was based on the integration of Nazism within an organized

society and the ethical tangibles that occur in this process provide the framework for

understanding moral behavior. It also destabilized of the foundation of communal morals which

otherwise could have challenged the imperialistic ideology. This is the crux of the matter: the

coercive demand for unquestioned obedience accompanied by fear of the consequences of

disobedience, crowded out the moral consciousness that might have objected to complicity with

such an evil system.

This socio-political method is a central insight of Hannah Arendt’s political theory:

“The banality of evil,” which was based on her trial report of ​Eichmann in Jerusalem.​ Her thesis

explains the nature of evil within a system in which the individuals were constrained from

thinking for themselves. It is of importance to acknowledge that the moral conflict that was

potentially presented to every social agent at the moment of truth was so entwined with the

ordinariness of evil and their participation in it as lawful citizens within the new social system

9
​Hannah Arendt. ​Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil​. (New York: Penguin Books, 1977), 78.

 
 ARVELO​ | 9

that they hardly noticed… Being this the case, the society became the source of their moral code,

and shaped their behavior to act according to the politics and the interests of the regime.

Conclusion:

Hannah Arendt’s political theory of the ‘banality of evil’ goes beyond the report of a

trial, it goes beyond any distinction between a lesser and greater evil, it goes beyond the evil that

governments practice around the globe, and it goes beyond the evil that armies do which are

simply obeying orders. The ordinariness of evil is not limited to the rise of Nazism and all the

participants in it, nor is it limited to the imposition of laws upon every citizen which is always a

means of social organization for the good of all, but many times have unintended adverse

consequences. The ordinariness of evil recognizes that our behavior is shaped by our

environment, and when our culture and social milieux allows us to ignore the needs of the poor,

or, for example, the homeless, this concept of the ‘banality of evil’ explains how we are able to

easily consider right and normal that which is evil.

The heart of our ethics must be to think critically about what is right and wrong apart

from the ways our society assumes that “that’s just the way things are.” We must not allow a

charismatic leader to cause us to give up our moral responsibility to satisfy his fantasies of global

power. The debate about “nature vs. nurture” leads me to assume that absolutely no one is born

hating Jews nor with the desire to take part in a murderous system. So if hate is not a product of

human genetics, then the environment in which I am placed will influence and shape my

behavior in such a way that my conscience is in line with the conscience of the community. This

 
 ARVELO​ | 10

may result in my full commitment to serve and defend that for which my community stands. I

may have no clue that my ideas of what is right and wrong has been formed prior to even being

aware of it, which compromises my personal agency. There may be times when I might dare to

challenge the system and entertain doubts about what the greater society has decided is right or

wrong, but I will always be judged by the conventional morality for any failure to do my duty.

Since it is so much easier to just “go along” in order “to get along”, we unknowingly become

part of a way of doing things, (a system), and a society (my people), that accepts and makes evil

ordinary.

 
 ARVELO​ | 11

Bibliography:

Arendt, Hannah. ​Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil​. New York: Penguin
Books, 1977.
Mahony Lauren Deirdre. ​Hannah Arndt’s Ethics.​ London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing
Plc, 2018.
Similar Content:
Ardent Hannah. ​The Origins of Totalitarianism.​ New York & London: A Harvest Book
Harcourt, Inc., 1968.
Arnett C. Ronald. ​Communication Ethics in Dark Times: Hannah Arendt’s Rhetoric of Warning
Hope.​ United States of America: Southern Illinois University Press, 2013.
Berkowitz Roger, Katz Jeffrey & Keenan Thomas. ​Thinking in Dark Times: Hannah Arendt on
Ethics and Politics.​ New York: Fordham University Press, 2010.