The Origins of Totalitarianism: Imperialism, Racism and Human Rights
The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt - Book Overview and Thoughts
We have reached the second part of the book The Origins of Totalitarianism, which discusses the evolution of imperialism. The way this section of the book is written connects a lot of what we have learned in the previous section and takes us on a journey to understand how totalitarianism emerged.
According to Hannah Arendt, one of the most important aspects of imperialism is that it is the first stage of capitalism rather than the final one.
Nowadays, we would use the term "imperialism" to describe what a government does abroad. However, for the purposes of this section, we need to think a bit further:
Imperialism is the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie, which refers to the transformation of a specific group's private economic interests into political interests.
This means that imperialism has an indirect impact on the government and how it operates, because the bourgeoisie's private interest is to expand without regard for politics.
In other words, imperialism is synonymous with expansion, and the reason it is the first stage rather than the final stage of capitalism is that the private economic interests of this specific group, the bourgeoisie, have always been the pursuit of more power through the accumulation of wealth, resulting in limitless expansion.
Throughout this section we will discover the development of imperialism starting with how the bourgeoisie promoted their private interests.
Highlights:
Transformation of Bourgeoisie into Political Players: The political emancipation of the bourgeoisie marked an important turning point in history, as it became the first class to achieve economic dominance without directly pursuing political power. This transition required the integration of economic interests and political control, laying the groundwork for imperialism's need to expand beyond national borders.
Evolution from Nation-States to Imperialism: The limitations of the nation-state system became apparent as economic growth required expansion beyond national borders. This led to the collapse of the nation-state system and the rise of imperialism, which sought unlimited power and dominance through wealth accumulation and expansion, necessitating government support and a shift in political ideologies.
Race and Bureaucracy as Political Tools: Hannah claims that both race and bureaucracy served as instrumental tools for political organization, with race transcending national boundaries and bureaucracy replacing traditional governance structures. Together, they facilitated the rise of imperialism and laid the groundwork for totalitarian regimes.
Impact of Race in Imperialism: Race was an important factor in early imperialism, especially in Africa, where it was used to justify brutal violence and dehumanization of indigenous populations. The colonizers' sense of superiority resulted in the exploitation of tribal cultures and the rise of racism as a means of domination.
Bureaucracy's Role in Foreign Domination: Bureaucracy emerged as a powerful tool for foreign domination, facilitating control over conquered territories through administrative mechanisms. This bureaucratic rule, rooted in military tradition, enabled far-reaching investment policies and viewed conquered areas as stepping stones for further expansion.
Intersection of Race and Bureaucracy: Hannah argues that race and bureaucracy developed independently but became intertwined over time, shaping political ideologies and fostering imperialism. Bureaucracy, characterized by rule by experts and a preference for secrecy and control, served as a means to justify and perpetuate racial domination.
Decline of the Nation-State: Hannah discusses the decline of the nation-state, where the primacy of national identity overshadowed the principles of equal treatment under the law. This led to disparities among citizens, with national populations receiving preferential treatment over minorities, resulting in homelessness, statelessness, and the emergence of refugees.
The Minority Treaties: The Minority Treaties, developed by international organizations like the League of Nations, aimed to protect minority populations within newly established states. However, these treaties failed to address the complexities of cultural diversity and demographic shifts, leading to the marginalization and vulnerability of minority groups who refused assimilation.
Paradoxes of Human Rights: Hannah questions the conventional understanding of human rights, arguing that they require meaningful participation in a political community. She claims that the essence of humanity is not only survival or liberty, but also the ability to engage in discourse and action. Stateless people are denied not only freedom, but also the right to belong and participate in society.
The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie
“I would annex the planets if I could” - Cecil Rhodes
Hannah begins this chapter by quoting Cecil Rhodes, a British imperialist who colonized much of Southern Africa. With this quote, she illustrates how imperialism paved the way for totalitarianism through its desire for domination, bureaucratic rule, and expansion, and how, if possible, it would annex the planets in order to expand even further.
Following this, the central event of the imperialist period was the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie, which was “the first class in history to achieve economic preeminence without aspiring to political rule.” (169)
This is important to understand because it implies that in order to achieve expansion, the bourgeoisie was forced to turn to politics in order to sustain the economic growth required for capitalism's survival. However, the main issue was the limitations of the nation-state. The pursuit of expansion was hindered by these limitations and economic growth needed to extend beyond their national borders, requiring new politics.
Now, we've been talking about nation-states for a while, and many of you may be wondering what this means. To clarify this, a nation-state is essentially a political body governed by specific laws, and individuals within this body are treated equally under the same regulations.
Moreover, this means that the inherent need for expansion is what led to the collapse of the nation-state system as well as the emphasis on unlimited power for political reasons.
Another factor that contributed to the end of the nation-state system is the alliance of capital and the mob. In essence, these were movements that gave meaning to their members by embracing nationalism, or race-thinking. We'll get into this later, but it boils down to the idea of world dominance through the adoption of a specific race or identity.
To put it another way, imperialism is inherently predisposed to rule over others due to its need for limitless expansion.
Furthermore, it is important to note that when Hannah mentions the need for unlimited power, she is referring to world dominance through wealth accumulation via expansion. This means that in order to expand, we must go beyond our borders and dominate other countries by investing in their markets. This is the main reason why imperialism requires government support to thrive. The concepts of business and expansion are applied to politics.
One important thing to note here is that Hannah highlights a key difference between ancient and modern imperialism. Using the Roman Empire as an example, she notes that the Romans, upon conquering other groups, integrated them into the empire but permitted them to retain their own laws. Over time, however, these conquered people gradually adopted a shared set of Roman laws alongside their existing laws and regulations. This means their system permitted plurality. Modern imperialism, on the other hand, is based on nation-state systems in which people must assimilate and leave their differences behind, which can lead to domination and tyranny.
This idea of domination, power, and tyranny, as argued by Hannah, traces its roots back to Thomas Hobbes's theory articulated in his book Leviathan. He claims that "power… is the accumulated control that permits the individual to fix prices and regulate supply and demand in such a way that they contribute to his own advantage… Therefore, if man is actually driven by nothing but his individual interests, desire for power must be the fundamental passion of man" (181).
However, Hannah adds to this perspective, asserting that it is not humanity at large but specifically bourgeois individuals who adopt and embody Hobbes's claims.
Furthermore, Hobbes argues that people are equal, as they all possess the ability to potentially harm one another. The inherent insecurity arising from this potential for violence, he argues, is the rationale behind the existence of the state.
However, Hannah introduces a critical perspective by highlighting the inherent flaw in this line of thinking – the construction of a state grounded in power.
In this context, the state emerges as a protective mechanism against the existential threat each individual poses to one another through the acquisition of more power. Nevertheless, a paradox emerges: the very existence of the state implies limitations on power, necessitating its continuous growth for sustained effectiveness. This perpetual need for expansion makes progress inevitable and becomes a defining characteristic of imperialism, which seeks to expand and overcome every limitation.
This brings us to the final section of the chapter, which discusses the alliance between capital and the mob. Hannah claims that when we exceed the limitations of the nation-state system, the nations disintegrate. This means that a new sense of belonging and purpose emerges. When our economic and political systems reach their limits, a sense of meaninglessness emerges. People were once German, French, and so on. Now they're none of that. Hannah claims that this leads to a sense of dominance over the cultures or nations we have conquered in order to expand. This gives rise to the mob, the idea that we should consider ourselves as a race rather than as members of a state. When we go beyond our borders and abroad, we naturally seek meaning by belonging to specific groups, and in the imperialist sense, a purpose and a meaning of control over others.
Finally, Hannah argues that, while Thomas Hobbes was not a racist, he did outline political theories that gave rise to the concept of progress, the endless accumulation of capital and power, and the foundation for all current race doctrines. This sense of belonging that was unique to nationalism was inherited by imperialism and transformed itself into tribal nationalism and ideological racism paving the way for what came next.
Race-Thinking Before Racism
We are now delving into Hannah Arendt's exploration into the history of racism, which she traces back to the eighteenth century, noting its simultaneous rise across Western countries in the nineteenth century.
Following this historical context, one of the most significant points she emphasizes in this chapter is the distinction between race-thinking and racism. While race-thinking may be a personal opinion, she claims that racism transforms into an imperialist ideology that serves as a political weapon. This ideological shift marks a crucial evolution, turning racism from an individual belief into a pervasive and influential force.
Furthermore, Hannah argues that racism, as an ideology, claims to hold the key to history. It goes beyond individual opinions, asserting a universal truth about the world. This perspective is consistent with the concepts discussed in Louis Althusser's book "On Ideology," which can be found on our blog or YouTube channel, where ideologies are defined as claiming to present the absolute truth.
As Hannah delves into the historical context, she emphasizes racism's ideological nature and its role as a political weapon. When race-thinking evolves into racism, and thus into an ideology, it gains the power to shape political landscapes, influence global perspectives, and, as Hannah claims, even contribute to internal national conflicts.
In other words, racism is an exaggerated form of nationalism that transcends national borders and undermines national political existence.
Following this, Hannah adds that ideologies appeal to large numbers of people and have strong persuasive power because they claim to be the absolute truth. For example, she argues that Darwinism is one of the sciences underlying racism. Darwinism has many ideas, one of them is that there is a natural and necessary competition among individuals for survival, with only the strongest succeeding.
Moreover, Darwinism has undergone multiple interpretations and applications in the social and political spheres. Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory has been used to justify social hierarchies and inequalities. Those who succeeded in the struggle for survival were seen as the strongest, giving rise to the belief that certain individuals or races were inherently superior.
Another concept rooted in Darwinism is the idea of evolution, which believes that humanity evolved. This led to the concept of progress, which ultimately gave rise to the compulsive desire for growth and the idea that humanity can breed a better race. However, the important thing to remember here is that when a scientific theory turns into an ideology, it loses its scientific validity. It becomes a political weapon, with the scientific aspect taking a back seat.
To put it another way, an ideology has arguments that cannot be refuted because it claims to have the truth. Science generates hypotheses that can be tested, debated, and changed; ideologies, on the other hand, deny any fact that contradicts their narrative.
Finally, to conclude this chapter, Hannah provides some examples of race-thinking that eventually led to racism. We won’t go over all of them, but one of them is the rise of German race-doctrine, rooted in the organic concept of history and romantic personality worship, which became a significant factor during and after the war of 1814. The idea of common tribal origin as essential to nationhood, formulated by German nationalists, contributed to the shaping of a racially driven mentality.
This racial ideology, according to Hannah, not only served as a substitute for political realities but also played a role in shaping discriminatory attitudes. The concept of innate personality, which is closely associated with social emancipation in Germany, became a basis for distinguishing social classes and, unfortunately, promoting discriminatory views.
In this way, the evolution of race-thinking to racism in Germany became intertwined with social and political struggles, helping to shape an ideology that transcended national borders. As these ideas gained traction, they cultivated a distorted sense of national identity, resulting in a mentality susceptible to manipulation by political forces.
Another event that emerged from race-thinking is Gobineau's influential essay on racial inequality. For many, he was the first racist. However, his work was merely an opinion on the decline of civilization. He claimed that the decline was caused by a loss of racial purity, which led to the deterioration of humanity, introducing the idea that the lower race dominates in racial mixtures.
Furthermore, he proposed the creation of an "elite" to replace the declining aristocracy. He claimed that this "elite" would be made up of superior people, i.e., members of a higher race.
Now we can see why he was considered a racist. However, Hannah claims that he offered a pseudoscientific theory of decline based on race, and that racism was invented almost by accident. She argues that he tried to solve one problem and ended up creating another. He was more of a romantic who wanted to elevate one race over others without considering the consequences, since he never proposed any killing or oppression.
This leads us to the conclusion that people can have racial opinions. But what opinions transform into political weapons? How do they become weapons?
It's simple to see how an opinion can become so persuasive that it gains a large following. We want to distinguish between ideological racism and race-thinking opinions, both of which stem from a desire to understand our differences. She claims, however, that imperialism would have needed to invent racism to explain or justify its actions. Without race-thinking, racism would have had to be invented before imperialism and the pursuit of accumulated power could emerge.
Race and Bureaucracy
The previous chapter helped us understand that there are racial opinions, as well as how the development of opinions, or in the case of Darwinism, scientific theories, can lead to ideas that eventually become ideologies. For example, the belief that humanity is competing in races leads to racism and terror. One thing is to dislike Jews; another is to believe that they are of a lower race; and, worst of all, to believe that their differences justify violence, slavery, or murder.
In this chapter, Hannah claims that race and bureaucracy are two tools for political organization. Race replaces the nation, making it transnational and borderless, and bureaucracy becomes the principle of foreign power, replacing government and seeking expansion. Both contribute to the rise of imperialism and, ultimately, totalitarianism.
In addition to this, race played an important role in the early decades of imperialism, particularly in Africa. Race was created as an explanation for incomprehensible African cultures, resulting in dehumanization and brutal violence.
Simultaneously, bureaucracy emerged as a powerful tool for foreign domination. Administrators, who originated in a military discipline tradition, ruled through reports and decrees in a world dominated by the old trinity of war, trade, and piracy. The discovery of bureaucracy transformed foreign policy into a complex game of far-reaching investment policies, with each area viewed as a stepping stone to greater involvement and each person as a tool for conquest.
Furthermore, race and bureaucracy emerged and developed independently. The connection between the two principles became clear over time, as their relationship proved influential in shaping the political climate.
Following this, throughout this chapter, Hannah delves deeper into the historical context of race and bureaucracy. She mentions the concept of the superfluous white men who were drawn to South Africa. These individuals who were rejected by society and were, in a sense, the refugees of capitalism, found themselves in a colonial adventure that went beyond individual madness.
The encounter of these superfluous men with African native life provided a backdrop for their escape from civilization. These men encountered humans who were, in a sense, savages, lacking political institutions, and it was easy for them to regard them as less humane.
Furthermore, this superiority perspective served as the foundation for racism and a race-based society. The fact that these tribes behaved more like natural beings than humans, she claims, was later exploited as a major political idea for domination. Hannah claims that it was not the color of their skin that mattered, but rather the fact that these humans did not live in a typical human world and treated nature as their master.
This brings us to one of the most significant aspects of race organizations. Hannah claims that rootlessness turns people into hordes. Race transforms both racists and victims of racism into people who want to rebuild the world while demolishing institutions in the process.
In this context, rootlessness is associated with contempt for labor, hostility toward territorial boundaries, and an active belief in a race's chosenness. This causes races to believe they are the chosen people, with the authority to dominate other races or groups.
This concept of rootlessness, or a lack of belonging or meaning, can be seen in current political movements, with the left seeking to destroy anyone who seeks profit and power, and the right seeking to dominate others through actions that are supported by racial or Judeo-Christian arguments.
Furthermore, in the last subchapter of Race and Bureaucracy, Hannah claims that while race originated in South Africa, bureaucracy emerged in Egypt, Algeria and India.
That said, the most important point in this chapter is Hannah's claim that race was used to avoid responsibility, with certain tribes viewed as inferior. Race is used to justify irresponsibility in the face of worldly matters and the desire for a home.
In other words, it is portrayed as an escape into rootlessness.
On the other hand, bureaucracy emerged from the attempt to govern foreign peoples, who were regarded as inferior yet in need of protection.
To put it another way, bureaucracy is the opposite: it involves taking on the responsibility of governing others who are deemed inferior, with the understanding that no individual can bear the burden of ruling over others without a system in place.
However, above all, the most important thing to understand is that bureaucracy is the rule by experts. For Hannah, bureaucracy is seen as a way of taking responsibility over others who are inferior.
With this in mind, Hannah discusses different models of bureaucrats. The first one is the significance of legends. For instance, adventurers and secret agents in the British Secret Service can rightfully claim a foundation legend, such as the Great Game described by Rudyard Kipling in his novel "Kim."
This legend became a symbol that promotes genuine brotherhood among individuals while also dividing the 'higher and lower breeds'. In this case, the legend represents a powerful force that brings people together to achieve a common goal or purpose.
In other words, the central idea in this case is that foreigners come to rule to benefit the inferiors.
On the other hand, Hannah discusses some aspects of bureaucracy. The first is that bureaucracy is distinguished by a sense of sacrifice for the inferior population and loyalty to a country. The second is that bureaucrats exercise personal influence and discretion. The main idea is that because the bureaucrats make rules, they have the personal authority to decide which rules to follow and how.
Furthermore, the third characteristic is that bureaucrats have the authority to change rules when necessary or desired. The fourth aspect is that bureaucracy needs highly qualified professionals to sacrifice ambition for the sake of the system. The fifth is secrecy, which means that bureaucracy prefers to operate in the background. This is because they are not required to be elected or run campaigns to persuade people. And finally, bureaucracy seeks and gains power by excluding inferiors and ensuring that it is led by "experts."
This brings us to Hannah's claim that bureaucracy is the result of European attempts to rule foreign populations, and that it is an imperialist tool that operates outside of legal and moral boundaries.
To put it another way, bureaucracy operates outside of the law and in secret. In a sense, the bureaucrat becomes a member of history's secret forces because he works in secret and therefore subordinates himself to the rise of any movement, whether it is socialism, Nazism, or something else. This happens because he believes he is always moving in the right direction and feels that he possesses the necessary expertise for this to happen.
For example, Hannah presents the concept of an endless process of expansion in which individual duty is subordinated to a goal. Cromer, a bureaucratic figure who believed in personal power and secrecy, is mentioned, and Hannah claims that people like him work as anonymous agents for specific forces, in this case expansion.
The success of these figures makes them feel like gods. The bureaucratic system they establish replaces laws with temporary ones to maintain flexibility in serving their goal, which in this case, once again, is eternal expansion.
In conclusion, we can now understand that race justifies bureaucratic rule of experts over inferiors, and bureaucracy works in the background to push, "the right way." This illustrates the relationship between imperialism, racism, and bureaucracy, emphasizing the concepts of race and bureaucracy as central to what comes next: the movements.
Continental Imperialism: The Pan-Movements
We are about to look at what Hannah believes to be the root cause of totalitarianism, specifically the rise of Nazism and Bolshevism. She claims that these totalitarian movements owe more to Pan-European movements, such as Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism, than to any other ideology.
Following this, what distinguishes pan-movements is that they are defined by ethnic or religious ideas that exist both within and outside of the nation-state, meaning that they are boundless, similar to imperialism.
However, unlike imperialism, pan-movements strived to achieve their goals primarily through racist ideologies rather than economic advancement. As a result, they frequently attracted intellectuals such as students, professors, and academics; capitalists and business owners were not as engaged in these movements.
This racial concept of unity leads Hannah to refer to pan-movements as tribal nationalism, because, as previously discussed, the concept of race replaced the concept of nation, resulting in links of purpose between people regardless of their country of origin. These ideologies were driven by an ideological belief in the superiority of their respective peoples and strived to establish dominance over other groups. They relied heavily on emotional appeals and mystical notions of identity, rather than tangible economic arguments. It was no longer about Germans being born in Germany, but about the ethnic group of Germans, in the case of Pan-Germanism.
The pan-movements' emphasis on divine origin and superiority worsened divisions among ethnic and national identities. Instead of fostering a sense of shared humanity and responsibility, these movements promoted tribalism and racism.
This leads back to antisemitism, which was a key component of these movements. However, unlike traditional antisemitism, which was often motivated by economic competition or political scapegoating, pan-movement antisemitism was based on ideological beliefs about racial superiority. Jews were targeted not only for their supposed economic power, but also because they were perceived as inherently inferior to the dominant ethnic group's identity. Both Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism saw Jews as a threat to their nationalist agendas due to their perceived rootlessness and success. Antisemitism became a powerful tool for these movements, merging with tribal nationalism. These movements sought to destroy the state, and Jews were viewed as its allies, contributing to the attack on the existing imperial structure.
Following this, one important aspect of these movements is that, because they are not limited by a nation, they are anti-nation state movements, which means they are lawless or bureaucratic. They differ from political parties in that they need bureaucratic machines and prefer bureaucracy as a model of organization.
In simpler terms, they preferred making decisions without following usual laws. The bureaucratic control in areas ruled by pan-movements was deeply rooted and focused on keeping control rather than helping a nation.
Moreover, the preference for bureaucratic control within pan-movements reflects a broader trend observed in the transition from traditional bureaucratic rule to totalitarian ideologies.
This departure from legal norms, as well as the increase in bureaucratic control over traditional governance mechanisms, emphasized the radical nature of totalitarian pan-movements. These movements strived to exert control over all aspects of society, from political activities to individual lives, by prioritizing control and authority over conformity to established laws. Thus, by framing themselves as movements rather than parties and capitalizing on the widespread distrust of established political institutions, they paved the way for totalitarian movements.
To put it another way, traditional bureaucratic systems have their own class interests and operate in various ways to further those interests, which are typically economic. However, they continue to operate within the law. This is the classical liberal definition of bureaucracy. The other concept of bureaucracy is more mystical. It operates beyond the law and exercises considerable power. It wishes to pursue its interests by going beyond legal boundaries and breaking any law that is incompatible with their mood or purpose. It embraces traditional bureaucracy to boost the strength of their movements.
This leads Hannah to add a brief discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of these movements. She claims that despite them being based on Hegel's theory of the state in the case of Russian Pan-slavism and Marx's theory of the proletariat as the protagonist of mankind in the case of Bolshevism, the philosophical underpinnings of these movements were distorted and misinterpreted. She argues that these thinkers never considered actual parties or human beings to be ideas in the flesh. They both believed in the history of ideas and thought that these could only be realized through dialectical movement. Despite this, the leaders of these movements adopted and distorted these theories, incorporating them into mass political movements and reinforcing their totalitarian nature.
As a result, another aspect of these movements is that they strive for a specific goal in the form of a mood. Hannah claims that these movements discovered that mood was far more important to mass appeal than actual laid-out outlines or interests. That is why they were hostile to the party system. These movements required just that: to keep moving by appealing to the masses, and in order to do so, they went above and beyond the state, sacrificing everything for an ideology.
This brings us to Hannah's controversial distinction between fascism and totalitarianism. She claims that totalitarianism is a movement, whereas fascism was a nationalist and authoritarian form of government.
This leads her to say that Mussolini was not particularly dangerous. She claims that, while he climbed to power through a movement, once there, he strived to elevate the state and create a national interest.
This means that Mussolini's Italy was not fully totalitarian because it lacked the systematic and complete control over all aspects of life that she saw in Hitler and Stalin's regimes. While Mussolini's regime was authoritarian and oppressive, it did not completely eliminate intermediary institutions such as the family, church, or local communities, leading her to argue that a totalitarian government is opposed to liberal freedom while dictatorships are not.
Finally, to conclude this chapter, tribal nationalism resulted in the loss of human dignity as well as the fact that all people, regardless of race, can become citizens of a state. To be a citizen, you had to belong to a race or have a specific identity. This contradicts the liberal belief that all people, regardless of their differences, have equal human dignity.
This brings us to one of the most difficult and controversial arguments Hannah Arendt makes. She argues that people reject the concept of a shared responsibility to humanity as a whole. She believes people prioritize their own group's interests and well-being, often at the expense of others, and that there is a natural tendency to trust and prioritize one's own "tribe" while remaining skeptical or dismissive of others, since ‘... we know our own people, but mankind we do not know.’ (345)
Consequently, she claims that tribal mentality is deeply ingrained in human nature and admits that overcoming it is difficult, posing a challenge to both individuals and political systems. She argues that developing politics that transcend tribalism is necessary but challenging. Leading us to what comes in our next chapter.
The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man
First of all, congratulations on making it this far. This section of the book is without a doubt the most difficult, and we are about to get into the final chapter on it.
This chapter discusses the rise and fall of human rights. So far, we can conclude from what we have learned that people who lack a national identity can be considered stateless or homeless, which means that they are no longer protected by laws. But what is the story behind these people? We can now say that there are human rights, but this was not always the case.
In this chapter, Hannah claims that the rise and fall of human rights is one of the causes of totalitarianism, and that human rights are not particularly beneficial.
Additionally, she discusses the decline of the nation-state, which we have been discussing, and argues that a state is a territorial entity in which people are treated equally under specific laws, whereas a nation is defined by a tribal consciousness or identity that unifies people.
With this in mind, what happened during the decline of the nation-state was that the nation conquered the state, resulting in a disparity among their people. The territories were transformed into states which included national populations and minority groups. That is, national people had first-class citizenship, while minorities had second-class citizenship. This resulted in homelessness and statelessness, as well as the concept of a refugee, which raised concerns about human rights.
The story begins in the aftermath of World War I, when Europe grappled with the challenges of maintaining stability in the face of shifting power dynamics and the rise of imperialism and pan-movements. The problems of the disintegration of the nation-state were attempted to be addressed with the Peace Treaties by establishing minority treaties. However, this overlooked the region's demographic complexities and cultural diversity.
The Minority Treaties, developed by the League of Nations, which later became the United Nations, were intended to protect minority populations within newly established states by assimilating them, but this proved to be flawed. The reason for this is that minorities did not want to assimilate and preferred to remain as they were.
This resulted in some options: minorities could be expelled, treated as second-class citizens, or liquidated. Hannah claims that the Minority Treaties were flawed because they were created by an international organization such as the League of Nations. They guaranteed the protection of minorities who refused to assimilate. However, because they were protected by the League of Nations, they could not be treated as second-class citizens, expelled, or killed. As a result, many people were left without basic legal protection, requiring help from international organizations such as the League of Nations to represent them and protect them against national peoples.
Given these points, we can recall that this happened because the nation conquered the state. The national interest became more important than the law. The state, defined as a territorial entity in which everyone is treated and ruled equally, was put after the nation. This meant prioritizing national peoples over minorities, going above and beyond legal limits.
Furthermore, this resulted in stateless individuals. People who could not be repatriated because they were undesirable in their home country, but were also unable to become naturalized due to the large number of people involved. There were millions, not just a few thousand, seeking a homeland or asylum. The Minority Treaties protected some rights, but more fundamental rights, such as the right to live and work, remained uncertain.
This brings us to the problem of denaturalization, which was caused by mass migration. This process implies that you only want certain types of people in your nation, effectively eliminating anything that does not align with an ideology or purpose. Again, when the nation takes priority over the state, national peoples are given preference, and minorities are subjected to arbitrary rules or police decrees, effectively dehumanizing them.
Moreover, the effectiveness of police decrees encourages states to rule over everyone with an omnipotent police force, resulting in the rise of what Hannah Arendt refers to as totalitarianism.
Now, you may be wondering. What about human rights? The emergence of the problem of stateless individuals raised these questions: Are rights contingent upon national affiliation? What are the boundaries of these rights?
Following this, Hannah delves into this discussion, tracing its roots back to France's declaration of the Rights of Man, which proclaims all humans inherent dignity and autonomy over traditional authorities like God or historical customs. These rights were supposed to be "natural," but they were lacking to protect stateless people who were not citizens of a sovereign state.
This led Hannah to have a very contentious perspective on human rights. She highlights paradoxes inherent in their assertion. Firstly, if rights are human constructs, they can also be revoked. Secondly, the notion of popular sovereignty, granting individuals the right to self-determination, presents a paradox: while it allows for national autonomy, it also opens the door to treating certain groups as inferior, relegating them to second-class citizenship.
Furthermore, she argues that human rights must be grounded within a political community or state. They transcend governmental authority, yet in the absence of such structures, individuals revert to their fundamental rights, that is, “human rights,” leading to paradoxes.
Fundamentally, Hannah argues that the deprivation of human rights stems from a lack of meaningful participation in the political sphere. Beyond mere survival or liberty, the essence of humanity lies in the ability to engage in meaningful discourse and action within a community.
This concept is central to her work, "The Human Condition," where she emphasizes the importance of action and meaningful participation in political life. Belonging to a community is crucial for human dignity and meaning, thereby leading her to conclude that it is the loss of community, not the loss of rights, which comes first.
Moreover, Hannah argues that a refugee is not deprived of freedom or the right to live, but rather of the right to act and have an opinion heard by others, that is, the right to belong. Hannah's argument challenges conventional thinking, because who can argue that the most fundamental human right isn't the right to life?
However, Hannah believes that while all humans die no matter what, what matters is the ability to act and be heard in an organized community, which thereby gives life meaning. She argues that refugees and stateless people have made us aware that the most fundamental human right is to live in a context of visibility, a place where one is considered, and a system that gives us meaning and place in the world.
This same thinking can be traced back to her argument for the right to a place to live, which is private property that is used for shelter rather than business. A sense of belonging in the world is very important to her, and it shapes her political thinking. Hannah Arendt values the right to belong, be considered, be heard, and have a place in the public sphere. Human beings are political, which means they have the ability to influence the course of events through discourse and opinion. We will not go into detail about this concept, but we can learn more about it by reviewing our discussion of her book, The Human Condition.
To summarize and comprehend her claim about the fundamental human right, we can state that for Hannah a man can lose his life and freedom while still speaking and acting; however, when someone loses the ability to create meaning through action and discourse, he loses his humanity entirely. The stateless person, stripped of community and rights, paradoxically becomes a universal "human in general," and Hannah warns that when humanity is generalized into an international community of stateless people, it may result in a descent into barbarism.
Subsequently, she emphasizes the concept of human rights, particularly Edmund Burke's skepticism, which held that national rights are more important than abstract, universal human rights. She claims that the restoration or establishment of national rights has been more effective in protecting human rights, particularly in cases of extreme persecution or statelessness. However, as previously said, Hannah Arendt's views on human rights have been widely debated, and I encourage people to reflect on them rather than disagree with them entirely.
This brings us to the end of the chapter, where she claims that while the increase in the number of refugees creates a globally interconnected civilization, it can also result in the creation of "Barbarians" from within, as millions are forced to live in savage conditions despite appearing civilized.
This is a harsh critique of a global system that allows millions of people to live in refugee camps in dehumanizing circumstances. When we subject these people to bureaucratic and police measures normally reserved for "savages," or animals, we are effectively treating humans as subordinates under police control, paving the way for totalitarianism. Which is the next section of this book.
Sources:
Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarianism (2017th ed.). Penguin Classics.
Beyond Thought.
Make sure to subscribe to be added to the mailing list and receive fresh content like this directly in your inbox!