Hannah Arendt Banality Of Evil Analysis

618 Words3 Pages
Who was Johanna “Hannah” Arendt? She was a Jew that escaped Europe during the Holocaust and became a German-born political theorist. Most of what she dealt with involved power and politics. After reading, “The Banality of Evil”, “Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963)”, and watching the documentary, “Civilian at war” we gain a better understanding on Hannah Arendt's theories. Through viewing these pieces of information we can learn what Banality means, why Arendt chooses banality to describe mens actions like Eichmann, and how/why her understanding of this complicate our understanding of the Holocaust and the atrocities of WWII after watching “Civilian at war”. So what exactly does banality mean? This word describes that the actions by not only dictators, such as Hitler, but also ordinary individuals performing their daily job tasks. These people committed these atrocities with the notion that their actions were normal. The most common example of “Banality of Evil” was the Holocaust. The people who committed these…show more content…
Unlike Arendt's analysis she fails to take into account that the individuals who wanted to save their peers had many issues in doing so. These people did not possess the necessary items to help them, such as weapons, an army, or even any military training. They also were interacting with these leaders in hopes of maybe alleviating the effects of this power. Either that or they risked failure. Another aspect is that some of these leaders did not have the freedom of choosing to resist orders. If they showed signs of resistance they were killed. Also what would have happened if the outcome of the war was changed? Would the actions from the allied powers be justifiable by the opposite side? Would these mass annihilation and bombings be found just? Overall, there is some similarities and differences that exist within Arendt's theories and our world
Open Document