Totalitarianism.

Our lecture on Totalitarianism was split into three parts, and therefore so will this blog post.
Part 1 - How could it happen? (Origins)
The origins of totalitarianism section focused on the 20th Century.
Between the end of Napoleon's reign and the beginning of World War One there were roughly 100 years of relative peace in Europe. It was widely believed that the human race was more sophisticated now, that the horrors of the past would not be repeated, a sense of optimism prevaled.
This coincided with the 'German Century', a period from the mid 1800's to the mid 1900's where the most influential thinkers, writers, artists and scientists all emerged from Germany.

The earliest thought of a Totalitarian regime was Plato's republic. Even the darkest interpretations of human nature and political theories realised that there must be some limit on the power of the state. Even Hobbes, who had essentially no faith in the general populace.

The way was paved for Totalitarianism by the aggressive Imperial policies of the 19th Century, as the expansion of European superpowers spawned a racist outlook in European countries that allowed for the atrocities of Totalitarianism. Actions taken under these Imperial governments also served as inspiration for Nazi Germany, as the Concentration Camps used by General Kitchener during the Boer War became a blueprint for Nazi camps during World War Two.

Hannah Arendt claims that totalitarianism "demonstrates a horrible originality", a political school of thought unlike anything that came before it.

Totalitarianism is all about control, removing individuality and personal liberty from the public, to destroy independence and therefore the state retains total control; in the words of Mussolini "outside the state there can be neither individuals or groups". This centralises all power in a few people, and also strives to prevent any form of rebellion.
"To destroy this individuality two methods are used - State Terror and Ideology" according to Arendt.
Terror is not simply about killing people, it is a weapon used to destroy faith in one's own humanity, to make people afraid even to think. It makes an example of those who dare to think or act differently, and conditions the behaviour of the majority.
Ideology compliments State Terror, it is used to justify the regime and the actions taken. An Ideology is a specialist knowledge, it is only fully understood by a few. It is a reassuring tool, providing a "total explanation of the past, total knowledge of the present and a reliable prediction of the future."
Totalitarianism exposed the fragility of civilization, destabilising the current society to rebuild it in their own way.
The first move of the Nazi's in the holocaust was to deny Jews citizenship, removing from them a sense of belonging, denying them a nation of their own. It also affected German non-Jews, to view Jews as non-Germans, immigrants. This undermined the humanity of German Jews and made them easier to target.

Part 2 - Control Language, Control Thought
This was a short section with a simple idea. As thought occurs in purely linguistic terms, if you can manipulate language then you can manipulate the way people think. If you could remove the word "hate" from the vocabulary of a nation, they could not think in such terms, and could not express hatred. It is a simple, but effective idea, which was exploited by Totalitarian regimes.

Part 3 - What is my personal responsibility?
This was a look at the Eichmann trial in 1960. Eichmann, a Nazi Bureaucrat was captured in Argentina in 1960 and stood trial in Jerusalem for his involvement in the "final solution".
The question that this trial raised was that of responsibility. Eichmann was not known to have personally killed anyone, nor made the decision to kill anyone. He was responsible for ensuring the trains travelling to concentration camps ran smoothly. The transport minister of the Holocaust you could say. What was his burden of responsibility, knowing as he did, where those trains headed and the fate awaiting the passengers.
Hannah Arendt suggested the trial served three purposes:
-To try Eichmann
-To educate the rest of the world on the horror of the holocaust
-and To legitimise the Jewish State

Arendt was shocked at the ordinary appearance of Eichmann, and concluded it was not necessary to possess great evil to do great evil, coining the phrase "the banality of evil".
Arendt took an existential view on the Eichmann trial, believing that his greatest crime was that of not thinking, not making a choice, simply following orders without question (bad faith for Sartre).
Eichmann, in his defence, claimed he was following Kant's categorical imperative and acting out of duty, however Arendt described this excuse as outrageous, as Kant's moral philosophy explicitly rules out blind obedience. Arendt concluded that sometimes disobedience is exactly our responsibility. An interesting thought.

You have a choice to read this entry... Therefore choose.

Seminar Paper – Existentialism, The Stranger etc

The existentialist approach is an attempt to find value and meaning in the face of an absurd world. Our existence is defined by our choices; we have the power to shape our own lives.

Nietzsche’s proclamation that ‘God is dead’ gives us complete freedom. The lack of a higher power means a lack of instruction or certainty, leaving us to become our own God, dictating the course of our own lives. As Nietzsche did not believe in a universal human nature this allows for each man to find his own morality, and make his own choices. Choice is a crucial concept in Existentialism.

In Being and Time, Heidegger introduced the concept of ‘Dasein’. Dasein is the root of each of us, and refers to our engagement with the world. This is Heidegger’s response to the approach of Cartesian Dualism, which he found absurd, believing we cannot come to understand ourselves if we draw a divide between the mind and body. Dasein must exist in the world, and so the Cartesian approach cannot be taken, as it separates the mind from the physical world. Our Dasein is our root selves as it is our engagement with the world, and it is that which defines us.

Heidegger did not believe that we are defined by characteristics that we are born with, rather that our personalities can constantly develop and change. In this way, it can be suggested that our Dasein, our engagement with the world, can alter over time.

Despite this, Heidegger does claim that there are elements of our being which we cannot choose, that cannot change. He calls this our ‘Facticity’. For example, we cannot choose where or when we were born, we are thrown into the world, and it is from this position that we must then move forward.

Heidegger claimed that when we talk of ourselves, we rarely discuss our ‘authentic’ selves, we present an ‘inauthentic’ self, one which is affected by outside influences. Heidegger calls this ‘das man self’, a social construct of ourselves, not consistent with our true selves. In order to live a truly authentic life, we must overcome our facticity.  

From an existential viewpoint, the most important choice you will ever make is the next one. It is the future that is crucial, not your past, as it cannot be changed. Hakuna Matata, you might say.

Sartre’s central concept was that ‘existence precedes essence’. We create our own purpose. Again, this links to the idea of choice, we shape our own purpose through our choices. Sartre claimed that the need to choose is inescapable; it is the only certainty is that we must make choices. Sartre saw the world as absurd and without purpose, and it is for this reason that our choices create our purpose. Through these choices we are able to recreate ourselves; however, some will find themselves in fear of this freedom and try to avoid it. This, Sartre calls ‘bad faith’. For Sartre, bad faith is a metaphysical mistake, allowing our role or status to confine us, denying that we are ‘radically free’ and instead believing that our past defines our future.

Sartre’s approach to humanity comprises of three aspects:

Abandonment – God is dead. Therefore we are alone, without rules outside of ourselves.

Anguish – We are “condemned to be free”. We cannot alter our facticity, but we alone are responsible for our choices, and they will define us.

Despair – Whilst we make our own choices, we cannot control how the world will react to our choices, and we may be prevented from getting what we want.

Sartre also famously claimed “hell is other people”, an observation from his play ‘No Exit’, in which three people are condemned to spend eternity in one room with each other. This statement brings into focus one of the central difficulties of existentialism. We are defined by our choices, and responsible for our own purpose, however we are forced to compromise by the expectations of others, and the realities of engaging with a world which has its own expectations of us, ‘Despair’ in his model. This conundrum is the theme of ‘The Outsider’ by Albert Camus.

Throughout the novel, Meursault appears devoid of emotion or sentimentality, making his own choices with little consideration for the opinions of others. The death of his mother provokes little in the way of emotional response from him.

“I felt like having a smoke. But I hesitated, because I didn’t know if I could do it with maman right there. I thought about it; it didn’t matter.”

Even in the few moments where Meursault shows a consideration of others, he still does not allow it to affect his decision. Choices such as this eventually contribute to his sentencing, however he shows no regret.

“She asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so.”

Meursault’s constant belief that things ‘don’t matter’ or ‘don’t mean anything’ reflect an existential perspective. He appears to view existence as pointless, and his reaction to this knowledge is to make his own choices, and largely ignore the desires or opinions of others.

Eventually he is condemned to death for showing no despair at his mothers passing, and he refuses to act as though he was saddened at her death, even though this would be the only way for his name to be cleared. Meursault refuses to be influenced by others and instead continues to make his own choices. If existence is pointless, why should he lie simply in order to prolong his own existence?