The Banality of Evil and an Ethic of Nonconformity

from "The Penguin Reader’s Guide" to Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963)

"Arendt portrays Eichmann as a 'joiner,' a conformist, describing him as 'a leaf in the whirlwind of time' (p. 32). It is this aspect of his character, according to her, rather than any deeply held convictions shared with the Nazi Party or a rabid hatred of Jews, that accounts for his actions during the war. Apart from determining Eichmann's motivation is the question that, as Arendt observes, must be asked of any criminal defendant: was he aware that his actions were in fact criminal? The prosecution had to assume that he was, as all ‘normal persons' would be (p. 26). But Arendt asserts that, 'under the conditions of the Third Reich only "exceptions" could be expected to react "normally"' (pp. 26–27). With considerable insight and detail, Arendt explains how Germany's leaders went about creating these conditions, to the point that 'conscience as such had apparently got lost in Germany.' There were individuals who resisted, she notes, but 'their voices were never heard' (p. 103).

"In Arendt's view, the real circumstances of Eichmann's actions never came fully to light during the trial. This is why, in part, the trial obscures what for Arendt is 'the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us—the lesson of the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil' (p. 252). Eichmann claimed that as his job shifted from forcing Jews from their homes to arranging for them to be killed, he was troubled by the new policy but felt duty-bound to obey his superiors. In fact, he said that not following orders was the only thing that would have given him a bad conscience."

* * *

“The Unknown Citizen”(1939) by W.H. Auden

(To JS/07/M/378 This Marble Monument Is Erected by the State)

He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
One against whom there was no official complaint,
And all the reports on his conduct agree
That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint,
For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
Except for the War till the day he retired
He worked in a factory and never got fired,
But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
Yet he wasn't a scab or odd in his views,
For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
(Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
And our Social Psychology workers found
That he was popular with his mates and liked a drink.
The Press are convinced that he bought a paper every day
And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured,
And his Health-card shows he was once in hospital but left it cured.
Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Installment Plan
And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace, he was for peace; when there was war, he went.
He was married and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation.
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.
Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

Commentary: Hannah Arendt and W.H. Auden look at modern man/woman, c. mid 20th century, as conformist, who do not think for his/her self and therefore have no conscience, or at the very least whose conscience is mere loyalty to the state or an echo of public opinion. Arendt and Auden insinuate an ethic centered in reason or rational thought with a commensurate responsive conscience: an ethic of non-conformity and personal responsibility. In the contemporary world one must be a non-conformist to be truly free and then possibly happy.

Search yourself: Do you imagine your life in society "as a leaf in the whirlwind of time?" Dare you ask yourself, "Am I free, am I happy?" Are you complicit in the banality of evil?