You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by aehc
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
This is a classic for a reason. Arendt's unflinching account of the Eichmann trial cuts to the heart of the question that looms large over retrospective looks at the Holocaust: how did seemingly normal people participate in, aid, and abet one of the most horrifying events in human history? Arendt's answer, embodied in her portrayal of Eichmann, is that ethical standards and normal behavior are set by a society and that when a society's ethics break down, most people are perfectly willing to go along with it. Of course, this did not happen overnight, and it would not have happened if violent anti-semitism was not already common and socially accepted in Europe. However, I think that Arendt's argument is now more relevant than ever, both for individual contemplation about how we commit to our own moral and ethical standards and, more broadly, how the international community should respond to actions committed by individuals working within the apparatus of a "criminal state" that are not themselves violent but make profound violence possible.
Arendt has been criticized for her characterization of Eichmann as non-ideologically motivated, when some evidence suggests that he was in fact a virulent anti-semite. I ultimately do not think that these facts undercut Arendt's argument; whether Eichmann was truly a banal paper-pusher or a true believer, he was portraying himself as a non-ideologue and on some level believed that that would make his actions less reprehensible. The fundamentals of Arendt's argument - that people who were not ideologically committed to Nazism were instrumental to its success, and that their internal motivations are at best irrelevant and in some ways worse than those of an ideologue - remain unchanged.
This book is dry - especially at the beginning - but to me that serves only to magnify the dissonance between Eichmann's logistical duties and his concern with his status, and the atrocities he was crafting at his desk. Arendt’s use of some of the dehumanizing Nazi language is very rhetorically effective and, as I’m sure she intended, profoundly disturbing. This is one of the most disturbing books I've read in a very, very long while. I will not stop thinking about it for some time.
Arendt has been criticized for her characterization of Eichmann as non-ideologically motivated, when some evidence suggests that he was in fact a virulent anti-semite. I ultimately do not think that these facts undercut Arendt's argument; whether Eichmann was truly a banal paper-pusher or a true believer, he was portraying himself as a non-ideologue and on some level believed that that would make his actions less reprehensible. The fundamentals of Arendt's argument - that people who were not ideologically committed to Nazism were instrumental to its success, and that their internal motivations are at best irrelevant and in some ways worse than those of an ideologue - remain unchanged.
This book is dry - especially at the beginning - but to me that serves only to magnify the dissonance between Eichmann's logistical duties and his concern with his status, and the atrocities he was crafting at his desk. Arendt’s use of some of the dehumanizing Nazi language is very rhetorically effective and, as I’m sure she intended, profoundly disturbing. This is one of the most disturbing books I've read in a very, very long while. I will not stop thinking about it for some time.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Genocide, Xenophobia, Antisemitism