Antisemitismus, Nation und Ordnung

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.


Hannah Arendts Denken kreist in unterschiedlicher Weise immer wieder um den Antisemitismus, den sie sowohl theoretisch als auch historisch und empirisch untersucht: Während ihre Ausführungen in The Origins of Totalitarianism im Rahmen einer historisch-kontextualisierenden Analyse auf eine theoretische Skizze hinauslaufen, die die Genese des Antisemitismus politisch und in ihrem prozessualen Wandel interpretiert, setzt sie sich in Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963; dt. 1964 u.d.T. Eichmann in Jerusalem. Ein Bericht von der Banalität des Bösen) anhand des Prozesses gegen Adolf Eichmann mit der empirischen Dimension antisemitischen Handelns auseinander.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Hannah Arendts Verständnis vom modernen Staat ist Max Weber entlehnt. Weber ist mit einschlägigen Schriften in der Bibliografie der Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft präsent und hat Arendt an etlichen Stellen ihres Werkes beeinflusst: von der Partei- und Parlamentskritik, über seine Überlegungen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte bis hin zu seiner Rechtssoziologie.
Full-text available
The objective of this article is to contribute to an understanding of Hannah Arendt’s special place in present-day political theory by means of a contrast between her Origins of Totalitarianism and four important political science studies of National Socialism and totalitarianism, three written by authors who shared the status of involuntary emigrant with Arendt, that are offered as constituting the original context of her work. A critical appreciation of the seminal works by Ernst Fraenkel, Franz L. Neumann, Sigmund Neumann, and Carl Joachim Friedrich and Zbigniew Brezinski, with special emphasis on questions of method, opens the way to a reconsideration of the distinctly philosophical character of Arendt’s work, and its shocking challenges to the scientific orientations of political science.
Franz L. Neumann verknüpft in seiner Staatstheorie Erkenntnisse der Politik- und Rechtswissenschaft mit den Ansätzen der klassischen Kritischen Theorie. Im Mittelpunkt seiner Staatstheorie steht das Verhältnis von Souveränität und Freiheit, von Recht und Macht, von Gesetz und Gewalt. Neumann begreift den modernen Staat stets als eine Einheit dieser Elemente, die zugleich widersprüchlich wie unauflösbar ist. Neumanns Analyse der nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft in seinem Werk Behemoth. Struktur und Praxis des Nationalsozialismus gehört bis heute zu den wegweisenden politik- und staatswissenschaftlichen Analysen des Nationalsozialismus. Mit seinen staatstheoretischen Schriften hat Neumann in der Nachkriegszeit überdies den neopluralismustheoretischen Ansatz der Demokratieforschung mitbegründet und wesentliche Grundlagen für eine an der Analyse der Ambivalenz von moderner Staatlichkeit orientierten Staatstheorie gelegt.
In der sozialwissenschaftlichen Antisemitismusforschung wird national wie international das Fehlen einer Studie beklagt, die theoretische und empirische Erkenntnisse miteinander verbindet. Die theoretischen Arbeiten nutzen empirische Studien oft allenfalls selektiv zur Stützung ihrer Hypothesen. Empirische Studien wiederum verzichten meist völlig auf theoretische Erkenntnisse. Samuel Salzborn liefert nun eine empirisch grundierte Theorie über die individuellen wie kollektiven Entstehungsursachen des Antisemitismus, seine argumentativen Strukturen sowie die sozialen Kontext- und Entwicklungsbedingungen. Dazu untersucht er politikwissenschaftliche, soziologische und psychologische Arbeiten über Antisemitismus und überprüft diese anhand empirischer Analysen. Er schließt damit eine wesentliche Lücke der sozialwissenschaftlichen Antisemitismusforschung.
HANNAH ARENDT: FOR LOVE OF THE WORLD. By Elisabeth Young‐Bruehl. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982; pp. xxv + 563. $25.00.THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM. By Hannah Arendt. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973; pp. xl + 527. $4.95.THE HUMAN CONDITION. By Hannah Arendt. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958; pp. 333. $3.95.RAHEL VARNHAGEN: THE LIFE OF A JEWISH WOMAN. By Hannah Arendt. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974; pp. xx + 236. $3.95.BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE. By Hannah Arendt. New York: Viking Press, 1968; pp. 306. $2.45.EICHMANN IN JERUSALEM: A REPORT ON THE BANALITY OF EVIL. By Hannah Arendt. New York: Viking Press, 1965; pp. 312. $2.75.ON REVOLUTION. By Hannah Arendt. New York: Viking Press, 1965; pp. 344. $1.65.MEN IN DARK TIMES. By Hannah Arendt. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 1968; pp. x + 272. $2.45.ILLUMINATIONS. Edited and with an introduction by Hannah Arendt. New York: Schocken, 1969; pp. 278. $5.50.CRISES OF THE REPUBLIC. By Hannah Arendt. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972; pp. 240. $2.95.THE LIFE OF THE MIND, 2 volumes. By Hannah Arendt (Mary McCarthy, ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978; pp. 535. $25.00.THE JEW AS PARIAH. By Hannah Arendt. R. H. Feldman, ed. New York: Grove Press, 1978; pp. 288. $6.95.THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF HANNAH ARENDT. By Margaret Canovan. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974; pp. 136. $6.50.HANNAH ARENDT: THE RECOVERY OF THE PUBLIC WORLD. Edited by M. A. Hill. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979; pp. xiii + 363. $14.95.HANNAH ARENDT: LECTURES ON KANT'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. Edited and with an interpretive essay by Ronald Beiner. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982; pp. 174.
In the liberal, western tradition, freedom means the absence of constraints, and liberty is considered to be self-determining. Nowhere is this tradition stronger than in the United States. Indeed, the First Amendment defends individual freedom from the government: "Congress shall make no law… prohibiting… abridging… [rights and freedoms]." In political theory, such a conception is defined as "negative rights," because it presupposes that persons have wrestled their rights from the state (Orend 2002:54; also see Berlin 1969). As the American Civil Liberties Union reminds Americans, we must be vigilant lest those rights are taken away. This liberal conception was advanced by prominent thinkers of the English Enlightenment, notably John Locke and Adam Smith, and by the 18th century, it expansively encompassed political and economic freedoms. We only need to recall the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to understand that freedom provides the rhetorical framework for political life as well as for competitive capitalism. As a social creature, the emblematic American is independent and self-made, free and autonomous. There is abundant sociological documentation describing how freedoms play out in American economic life: the competitive drive to be more successful, richer, better housed and better heeled than others; acquisitive consumption; and materialism. Freedom in the American context also has to do with our ideas about competitive personal gain: to best the others and best the past. This is not the only conception of freedom. In some, if not most of the world, freedom is what lies beyond insecurities – beyond the constraints of hunger, beyond civil unrest, and beyond meager subsistence. At the end of the rainbow, beyond these constraints, there will be choice and freedom. Thus, we have two very different conceptions of freedom. It is useful to pose critical questions about how the American conception has evolved and how it may be reconciled with other conceptions. Michael Polanyi (1951) argues in The Logic of Liberty, that Americans lose sight of the distinction between individual freedoms and public freedoms, believing that the former suffice for the latter. For Polanyi, public freedoms are embodied in democracy and reflect the capacity to coordinate independent, individual actions spontaneously in the service of public tasks and projects. Public freedoms, for him, reshape those narrow self-interests that lurk behind individual freedoms. Although seemingly clumsy at first, I will recast what Polanyi described as public freedoms as public goods. We will see that it gains us some theoretical mileage. As public goods, freedoms benefit everyone because they provide a pool of freedoms that we can all enjoy without using them up, and we cannot exclude any from enjoying them. I will return to freedoms, but here it is useful to explore a bit more how Polanyi's arguments resonate with those of others regarding American exceptionalism, a term that is employed both as critique and as self-congratulation. American historiography is rich with examples. Just to illustrate, famous defender of the American experiment, Tocqueville (1991) praises American foreign policies and approves the exceptional clarity of the vision that early American leaders had for their new nation. He quotes Washington's Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson in this context: "[T]he Americans ought never to solicit any privileges from foreign nations, in order not to be obligated to grant similar privileges themselves" (Tocqueville 1991:233). Yet Jefferson's own letters allow a less benevolent interpretation of his views about foreign allies. His downright contempt for Europeans is clear enough in a letter to George Washington. He churlishly writes, "There is not a single crowned head in Europe whose talents or merit would entitle him to be elected a vestryman by the people of any parish in America" (Jefferson 1788) Whereas Tocqueville understood Jefferson as the confidant spokesman of the fledging democracy, respectful of European powers, Jefferson's own views reflect downright arrogance. America, for Jefferson was superior. This helps us to understand the roots of American exceptionalism. Does the country radiate exceptional virtue or exceptional arrogance? Seymour Martin Lipset would admit both interpretations. In his American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword (1996), he focuses on why Americans have always thought themselves exceptionally great, as individuals and as a nation, yet...
2. Aufl, 6.-10. Tausend Bibliogr. s. 731-748
Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), pensadora política alemana. En esta obra analiza tres fenómenos políticos que prepararon y dieron origen al totalitarismo contemporáneo y sus manifestaciones: el antisemitismo, el imperialismo y el totalitarismo. De cada uno plantea los inicios de su gestación. Así, en el antisemitismo estudia a los judíos en la Europa central y occidental; del imperialismo lo sitúa en el siglo XIX; y del totalitarismo destaca los acontecimientos de los años 1929-1953 de Alemania y Rusia, con Hitler y Stalin, respectivamente.
Ideologie der Sachlichkeit
  • Schulze Wessel
Urteilen in dunklen Zeiten
  • Christian Volk
Zur Faschismusanalyse Hannah Arendts und Theodor W. Adornos
  • Jörn Ahrens
Ein Dokument ethischer Verantwortung: Zu Hannah Arendts Bericht ‚Eichmann in Jerusalem‘
  • Mary Mccarthy
Denkweg zwischen Tradition und Neubeginn – Hannah Arendt
  • Gert Schäfer
Hannah Arendt und der Prozess gegen Adolf Eichmann
  • Hans Mommsen
Radikalisierung oder „Verschwinden“ der Judenfeindschaft? Arendts und Adornos Theorien zum modernen Antisemitismus
  • Schulze Wessel
  • Lars Rensmann
Hannah Arendt Reconsidered: Über das Banale und das Böse in ihrer Holocaust-Erzählung
  • Dan Diner
Der Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion
  • Sigmund Freud
Une interprétation politique de l’antisémitisme: Hannah Arendt. I. Les Juifs dans l’Histoire politique occidentale; II. L’antisémitisme et les ambiguïtés de la démocratie
  • Claude Lefort
Portrait de l’antisémite
  • Jean-Paul Sartre
Hannah Arendt und die Historiker-Kontroverse um die „Rationalität“ der Judenvernichtung
  • Roland W Schindler
Die Ordnung der Freiheit. Recht und Politik im Denken Hannah Arendts
  • Christian Volk