Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (Penguin Classics)

The wonderful new movie, Hannah Arendt (2012), directed by Margarethe von Trotta and starring Barbara Sukowa, shows that Arendt’s series of articles on Adolf Eichmann’s trial, covered by The New Yorker in 1961 and subsequently published under the title of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (Penguin Books, New York, 1963), was a double-edged sword in her career. On the one hand, it gave Arendt a broader mainstream visibility, in part because of the international controversy it generated. On the other hand, this very controversy cost her several valuable friendships and even jeopardized her reputation in the academia. The controversy hinges upon the manner in which Arendt describes the nature of evil that characterizes the worst genocide in human history: the Holocaust. Her explanation, captured by the phrase “the banality of evil,” posits that evil deeds are, for the most part, not perpetrated by monsters or sadists. Most often, they are perpetrated by seemingly ordinary people like Adolf Eichmann, who value conformity and narrow self-interest over the welfare of others. The concept of the banality of evil seems intuitive enough. Nontheless, it generated a huge controversy, primarily because ccritics interpreted it as exonerating Adolf Eichmann and indicting the victims of the Holocaust: particularly the Jewish leaders who were compelled by the Nazis to organize the Jewish people for mass deportations and eventual extermination. Was Arendt putting the criminals and the victims in the same boat? Or, even worse, does her notion of the banality of evil end up blaming the victims? I don’t think so. In what follows, I’d like to explain why by outlining Arendt’s two explanations of the banality of evil: the first one being people who naturally lack empathy and conscience in any circumstances (like Eichmann) and who thrive in totalitarian regimes; the second understood as evil actions (or callous indifference) that even people who do have a conscience are capable of under extreme circumstances. Adolf Eichmann and the banality of psychopathy Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962) was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Nazi regime and one of the key figures in the Holocaust. With initiative and enthusiasm, he organized the mass deportations of the Jews first to ghettos and then to extermination camps throughout Nazi-occupied Europe. Once Germany lost the war, he fled to Argentina. Years later, he was captured by the Mossad and extradited to Israel. In a public trial, he was charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was found guilty and executed by hanging. In her accounts of the trial, Arendt is struck by the contrast between Eichmann’s monstrous deeds and his average appearance and banal, technocratic language. Unlike other Nazi leaders notorious for crimes against humanity, such as Amon Goeth or Josef Mengele, Eichmann didn’t seem to be a disordered sadist. More remarkably given his actions against the Jewish people, unlike Hitler, Eichmann wasn’t even particularly anti-Semitic. Although six psychiatrists testified during the trial to Eichmann’s apparent “normality,” in her articles Arendt emphasizes the fact that his normalcy is only a mask. In fact, she highlights the aspects of his behavior under questioning that were anything but normal: his self-contradictions, lies, evasiveness, denial of blame about the crimes he did commit and inappropriate boasting about his power and role in the Holocaust for crimes there’s no evidence he committed. Arendt is particularly struck by this man’s absolute lack of empathy and remorse for having sent hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. To each count he was charged with, Eichmann pleaded “Not guilty in the sense of the indictment.” (p. 21) This leads Arendt to ask: “In what sense then did he think he was guilty?” (p. 21) His defense attorney claimed that “Eichmann feels guilty before God, not before the law,” but Arendt points out that Eichmann himself never acknowledges any such moral culpability. If he denies any moral responsibility it’s because, as Arendt is astonished to observe, he doesn’t feel any. Although, astonishingly, none of the forensic psychologists see Eichmann as a psychopath, Arendt describes Eichmann in similar terms Hervey Cleckley uses to describe psychopathic behavior in his 1941 groundbreaking book, The Mask of Sanity. First and foremost, Eichmann is a man with abnormally shallow emotions. Because of this, he also lacks a conscience. Even though he understands the concept of law, he has no visceral sense of right and wrong and can’t identify with the pain of others. His extraordinary emotional shallowness impoverishes not only his sense of ethics, but also his vocabulary. Arendt gives as one of many examples Eichmann’s desire to “find peace with his former enemies” (p. 53). Arendt states that “Eichmann’s mind was filled to the brim with such sentences” (p.53). These stock phrases are a manifestation of Eichmann’s empty emotional landscape; his behavior towards the Jews even more so. Yet, Arendt emphasizes, even ordinary people capable of empathy and remorse can still cause extraordinary harm in unusual circumstances. In such cases, they're motivated by a conformity which she describes as the banality of evil. Claudia Moscovici, Literature Salon

I was watching an episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent where some guy killed someone else and when asked why he did it, the guy just said something like he wanted to know what it was like to kill someone. When the Captain was told of this, he just replied "the banality of evil," shaking his head or something like that. Then the episode was over. It had occurred to me that the phrase "the banality of evil" must have had some deeper meaning or background behind it, which was the style of L&O writing and themes, so I decided it was worth a search. At first, it was difficult to read. Not because of the subject matter but of the author's writing style and the sheer density of the material. And the subject matter. It always struck me as odd that it seemed that nobody ever talks about the holocaust. This is a book that everyone must read in my opinion. It should be taught in schools. I have zero knowledge of the controversy surrounding this book, and that is partially on purpose. I was almost heartbroken when I read the addendum that came out afterward, which is now at the end of this version, which read more like an apology than anything else. There is a reason why we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. We're just too stupid not to. Arendt should have apologized for nothing. Once I was able to keep up with Arendt, it became clear to me that I was in the presence of a mind much greater than my own. She should have gotten a nobel peace prize or something, you know, back when a NPP still meant something. I haven't gotten around to reviewing this book since I read it because I just haven't known how to review it. There is nothing I can say without doing this book an injustice. I know this review is terrible. One day I will fix it. But I just have to get something out there that says read this book right now. If you read nothing else in your life, read this book. As a side note, as loathsome as Hitler was, it amazes me just how much the powers of post WW2 history have taken pages out of Hitler's playbook day after day, year after year to control, manipulate, and subjugate the populations of people around the world. Again, this review is terrible, but I just want to finish by saying that often in life, we have questions about why certain things are the way they are and how certain people can do the things they do. Sometimes the thought plagues us for long periods of time, and sometimes we just shake our heads. Arendt states in her addendum something like this book is not meant to be a treatise on the nature of evil. Either she was being clever with the literal meaning of "treatise," or the lynch mob of idiots really made her question her work. Either way, if not a treatise, this book at the very least will put you face to face with the nature of evil as clearly as if you were staring into a mirror. It will give you and has to offer much more than that, make no mistake, but that's what drew me to the book in the first place.

History, philosophy, moral, and laws converging but still unable to explain and properly judge. This is a masterpiece forever. Strongly reccomended in difficult times!

This is a very interesting read; she really looks from a very objective point of view at this subject. The Story of Eichmann is extremely interesting and important. Also incredibly sad, which makes it such an important story to tell, and read. Eichmann was the guy who organized the transportation of Jews in the third Reich during the Nazis attempts to eliminate and eradicate the Jews from Germany and Europe. While he probably never personally ordered someone to kill someone or killed anyone himself. His efforts were crucial in the killing of millions of people. Which cost him eventually his life. In my opinion a must read, even though it can be a bit slow sometimes when it comes to all the details of it, but at the same time, this it is also extremely important to understand some of the details. If you are interested in history and you are interested in the question of good and evil, this is a great read.

Il libro è arrivato molto velocemente. Lo sto leggendo poco per volta: è un libro difficile per il contenuto e per le emozioni che inevitabilmente suscita. Tuttavia è molto interessante, vale la pena di essere letto in lingua originale, per non perdere nulla dell'atmosfera, delle sfumature, del linguaggio della Arendt.

Arendt shows how we do, when we shouln't. It was the case of the Germans during the Hollocaust, it was legal. The book is also History, it is a report on the Eichmann jugement.

昨年日本で上映された「ハンナ・アーレント」の映画に出てくる世界的名著の英語版原書です。和訳も販売中なので、英語力が劣っていても大丈夫。とりあえず本書の英文解読に挑戦してみます。もしギブアップせざるを得なければ、和訳本でフォローしたいと思います。