Alexis De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America: An Animated Introduction to the Most Insightful Study of American Democracy

We can­not right­ly see our­selves with­out hon­est feed­back. Those who sur­round them­selves with syco­phants and peo­ple just like them only hear what they want to hear, and nev­er get an accu­rate sense of their capa­bil­i­ties and short­com­ings. And so the best feed­back often comes from peo­ple out­side our in-groups. This can be as true of nations as it can be of indi­vid­u­als, pro­vid­ed our crit­ics are char­i­ta­ble, even when unspar­ing­ly hon­est, and that they take a gen­uine inter­est in our well-being.

These qual­i­ties well describe one of the sharpest crit­ics of the Unit­ed States in the past two cen­turies. Alex­is de Toc­queville, aris­to­crat­ic French lawyer, his­to­ri­an, and polit­i­cal philoso­pher, who trav­eled to the fledg­ling coun­try in 1831 to observe a nation then in the grip of a pop­ulist fever under Andrew Jack­son, a pres­i­dent who became noto­ri­ous for his expro­pri­a­tion of indige­nous land, ruth­less relo­ca­tion poli­cies, and embrace of South­ern slav­ery. But the groups who flour­ished under Jackson’s rule did so with a tremen­dous enthu­si­asm that the French thinker admired but also viewed with a very skep­ti­cal eye.

De Toc­queville pub­lished his obser­va­tions and analy­ses of the Unit­ed States in a now-famous book, Democ­ra­cy in Amer­i­ca. Though we’ve come to take the idea of democ­ra­cy for grant­ed, for the young French­man, a child of Napoleon­ic Europe, it was “a high­ly exot­ic and new polit­i­cal option,” as Alain de Bot­ton tells us in his ani­mat­ed video intro­duc­tion above. De Toc­queville “pre­scient­ly believed that democ­ra­cy was going to be the future all over the world, and so he want­ed to know, ‘what would that be like?’”

With a grant from the French gov­ern­ment, De Toc­queville trav­eled the coun­try (then less than half its cur­rent size) for nine months, get­ting to know its peo­ple and cus­toms as best he could, and mak­ing a series of gen­er­al obser­va­tions that would form the vignettes and argu­ments in his book. He was “par­tic­u­lar­ly alive to the prob­lem­at­ic and dark­er sides of democ­ra­cy.” De Bot­ton dis­cuss­es five crit­i­cal insights from Democ­ra­cy in Amer­i­ca. See three of them below, with quotes from De Toc­queville him­self.

1. Democ­ra­cy Breeds Mate­ri­al­ism.

For De Toc­queville one kind of materialism—the exces­sive pur­suit of wealth—disposed the coun­try to anoth­er, “a dan­ger­ous sick­ness of the human mind”—the denial of a spir­i­tu­al or intel­lec­tu­al life. “While man takes plea­sure in this hon­est and legit­i­mate pur­suit of well-being,” he wrote, “it is to be feared that in the end he may lose the use of his most sub­lime fac­ul­ties, and that by want­i­ng to improve every­thing around him, he may in the end degrade him­self.”

De Toc­queville, says De Bot­ton, observed that “mon­ey seemed to be quite sim­ply the only achieve­ment that Amer­i­cans respect­ed” and that “the only test of good­ness for any item was how much mon­ey it hap­pens to make.”

2. Democ­ra­cy Breeds Envy & Shame

“When all the pre­rog­a­tives of birth and for­tune have been abol­ished,” wrote De Toc­queville, “when every pro­fes­sion is open to every­one, an ambi­tious man may think it is easy to launch him­self on a great career and feel that he has been called to no com­mon des­tiny. But this is a delu­sion which expe­ri­ence quick­ly cor­rects.” Unable to rise above his cir­cum­stances, and yet believ­ing that he should be equal to his neigh­bors in achieve­ments, such a per­son may blame him­self and feel ashamed, or suc­cumb to envy and ill will.

De Toc­queville was far too opti­mistic about the abol­ish­ment of “pre­rog­a­tives of birth and for­tune,” but many Amer­i­cans might rec­og­nize them­selves still in his gen­er­al pic­ture, in which “the sense of unlim­it­ed oppor­tu­ni­ty could ini­tial­ly encour­age a sur­face cheer­ful­ness.” And yet, De Bot­ton notes, “as time passed and the major­i­ty failed to raise them­selves, Toc­queville not­ed that their mood dark­ened, that bit­ter­ness took hold and choked their spir­its, and that their hatred of them­selves and their mas­ters grew fierce.”

3. Tyran­ny of the Major­i­ty

De Toc­queville, De Bot­ton says, thought that “demo­c­ra­t­ic cul­ture… often ends up demo­niz­ing any asser­tion of dif­fer­ence, and espe­cial­ly cul­tur­al supe­ri­or­i­ty, even though such atti­tudes might be con­nect­ed with real mer­it.” In such a state, “soci­ety has an aggres­sive lev­el­ing instinct.”

It wasn’t only attacks on high cul­ture that De Toc­queville feared, but what he called the “Omnipo­tence of the Major­i­ty,” a phrase he used to denote the pow­er of pub­lic opin­ion as an almost total­i­tar­i­an means of social con­trol. In vol­ume two of his study, pub­lished in 1840, De Toc­queville devot­ed par­tic­u­lar atten­tion to “the pow­er which that major­i­ty nat­u­ral­ly exer­cis­es over the mind…. By what­ev­er polit­i­cal laws men are gov­erned in the ages of equal­i­ty, it may be fore­seen that faith in pub­lic opin­ion will become for them a species of reli­gion, and the major­i­ty its min­is­ter­ing prophet.”

From this pre­dic­tion, De Toc­queville fore­saw “two ten­den­cies; one lead­ing the mind of every man to untried thoughts, the oth­er pro­hibit­ing him from think­ing at all.”

De Bot­ton goes on to dis­cuss two close­ly relat­ed cri­tiques: democracy’s sus­pi­cion of all author­i­ty and its under­min­ing of free thought. Rather than encoun­ter­ing the kind of mar­ket­place of ideas the coun­try prides itself on fos­ter­ing, he found in few places “less inde­pen­dence of mind, and true free­dom of dis­cus­sion, than in Amer­i­ca.” The crit­i­cism is harsh, and De Toc­queville did not flat­ter his hosts often, and yet for all of its “inher­ent draw­backs,” De Bot­ton writes at the School of Life, the French­man “isn’t anti-demo­c­ra­t­ic.”

His aim is “to get us to be real­is­tic” about demo­c­ra­t­ic soci­ety and its ten­den­cies to inhib­it rather than enlarge many free­doms. As Arthur Gold­ham­mer observes at The Nation, De Toc­queville believed that “True free­dom lay not in the pur­suit of indi­vid­u­al­is­tic aims, but “in ‘slow and tran­quil’ action in con­cert with oth­ers shar­ing some col­lec­tive pur­pose.”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Why Socrates Hat­ed Democ­ra­cies: An Ani­mat­ed Case for Why Self-Gov­ern­ment Requires Wis­dom & Edu­ca­tion

20 Lessons from the 20th Cen­tu­ry About How to Defend Democ­ra­cy from Author­i­tar­i­an­ism, Accord­ing to Yale His­to­ri­an Tim­o­thy Sny­der

Bertrand Russell’s Ten Com­mand­ments for Liv­ing in a Healthy Democ­ra­cy

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Take a Break from Your Frantic Day & Let Alan Watts Introduce You to the Calming Ways of Zen

By the end of the 1960s, Alan Watts had become one of the gurus of the coun­ter­cul­ture. Though he was not real­ly a Zen Bud­dhist, he was many a person’s gate­way into the reli­gion due to The Way of Zen pub­lished in 1958. His was a philo­soph­i­cal and pop­ulist approach to East­ern reli­gion, an antecedent to the Eck­hart Tolles of our time.

This short film, Now and Zen, was direct­ed by Elda and Irv­ing Hart­ley, shot in the gar­dens at their res­i­dence, and fea­tures Watts encour­ag­ing the view­er to go beyond the mate­r­i­al world, espe­cial­ly as we under­stand it through lan­guage and our cul­tur­al view­point. Instead, he says, “This world is a mul­ti­di­men­sion­al net­work of all kinds of vibra­tions” which infants under­stand bet­ter than us adults. The film then tran­si­tions into a guid­ed sit­ting med­i­ta­tion of sorts, and ends with the sounds of nature. (Plus, there’s ducks.)

“Hence the impor­tance of med­i­ta­tion in zen,” he con­tin­ues, “which is, from time to time, to stop think­ing alto­geth­er, and sim­ply be aware of what is. This may be done very, very sim­ply. By becom­ing aware of the play of light and col­or upon your eyes. Don’t name any­thing you see. Just let the light and the shad­ow, the shape and the col­or, play with your eyes, and allow the sound to play with your ears.”

Elda Hart­ley, work­ing with her hus­band Irv­ing, used this film to launch the Hart­ley Film Foun­da­tion, its mis­sion to pro­duce doc­u­men­taries on world reli­gions and spir­i­tu­al­i­ty. (It still exists as a non-prof­it). Zen as a sub­ject came first, because Elda had been on a trip to Japan with Alan Watts, and when she pro­posed the film, he agreed to nar­rate. She would lat­er make films with Mar­garet Mead, Joseph Camp­bell, Ram Dass, Hus­ton Smith and oth­ers.

There are sev­er­al oth­er films on archive.org’s Hart­ley Pro­duc­tions page, and anoth­er Watts-nar­rat­ed one: The Flow of Zen. (Warn­ing: this is the oppo­site of med­i­ta­tive, and its harsh aton­al elec­tron­ic sounds very far removed from any medi­a­tion CD you might have kick­ing around.)

Bet­ter still: Open Cul­ture also has plen­ty of Alan Watts in the archive.

Final­ly, as some­one who spent many an under­grad night lis­ten­ing to his late-night lec­tures on KPFK and at the time not under­stand­ing a whit, it was edi­fy­ing to hear Watts say in the above film:

As you lis­ten to my voice, don’t try to make any sense of what I am say­ing. Just be aware of the tones and your brain will auto­mat­i­cal­ly take care of the sense.

I can vouch that he was right about that…eventually. But only after read­ing many, many books on Bud­dhism.

Now and Zen and The Flow of Zen will be added to our col­lec­tion, 4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Alan Watts Intro­duces Amer­i­ca to Med­i­ta­tion & East­ern Phi­los­o­phy: Watch the 1960 TV Show, East­ern Wis­dom and Mod­ern Life

The Wis­dom of Alan Watts in Four Thought-Pro­vok­ing Ani­ma­tions

What If Mon­ey Was No Object?: Thoughts on the Art of Liv­ing from East­ern Philoso­pher Alan Watts

Ted Mills is a free­lance writer on the arts who cur­rent­ly hosts the FunkZone Pod­cast. You can also fol­low him on Twit­ter at @tedmills, read his oth­er arts writ­ing at tedmills.com and/or watch his films here.

How Machiavelli Really Thought We Should Use Power: Two Animated Videos Provide an Introduction

Nice guys, so they say, fin­ish last. Many of us might instinc­tive­ly label such a world­view “Machi­avel­lian,” par­tial­ly for good rea­son and par­tial­ly not. It stands as a tes­ta­ment to the insights of the Renais­sance-era Flo­ren­tine polit­i­cal philoso­pher Nic­colò Machi­avel­li, expressed with great clar­i­ty and suc­cinct­ness in his books The Prince and the Dis­cours­es on Livy, not just that his name became an adjec­tive, but that it became one that remains in wide use near­ly 500 years after his death. But like oth­er such terms — “Kafkaesque” and “Orwellian” come to mind — its mod­ern usage tends to come detached from its name­sake writer’s orig­i­nal ideas.

So what did Machi­avel­li actu­al­ly have to say to human­i­ty? “Machi­avel­li’s Advice for Nice Guys,” a new ani­mat­ed video from Alain de Bot­ton’s School of Life, high­lights the core insight of his work: “that the wicked tend to win. And they do so because they have a huge advan­tage over the good: they are will­ing to act with the dark­est inge­nu­ity and cun­ning to fur­ther their cause. They are not held back by those rigid oppo­nents of change: prin­ci­ples.

They will be pre­pared to out­right lie, twist facts, threat­en or get vio­lent. They will also – when the sit­u­a­tion demands it – know how to seduc­tive­ly deceive, use charm and hon­eyed words, bedaz­zle and dis­tract. And in this way, they con­quer the world.”

This line of think­ing, put in such stark terms, can make Machi­avel­li seem like an off­putting­ly harsh (if quite intel­li­gent) char­ac­ter. But his writ­ing is more nuanced: he advo­cates not using flat-out lies and vio­lence to achieve one’s ends, but indeed to be nice — just “nev­er to be over­ly devot­ed to act­ing nice­ly,” an atti­tude he thought the West­’s pop­u­lar read­ings of the sto­ry of Jesus of Nazareth too often advo­cat­ed —  while always know­ing “how to bor­row – when need be – every sin­gle trick employed by the most cyn­i­cal, das­tard­ly, unscrupu­lous and nas­ti­est peo­ple who have ever lived.” Nice guys, in short, have no choice but to learn from their ene­mies.

You can learn more about the some­times har­row­ing expe­ri­ences that taught Machi­avel­li all this in the School of Life’s intro­duc­tion to his polit­i­cal the­o­ry just above. He reck­oned, more mem­o­rably than any oth­er, “the price of deal­ing with the world as it is, and not as we feel it should be. The world has con­tin­ued to love and hate Machi­avel­li in equal mea­sure for insist­ing on this uncom­fort­able truth.” Machi­avel­li, as Salman Rushdie put it in a clip we fea­tured a few years ago, lived in a time when Italy’s rul­ing fam­i­lies behaved “in the most ruth­less way, and he wrote this lit­tle trea­tise about not what he would like things to be like, but how pow­er actu­al­ly works, which he observed.” Rushdie calls the neg­a­tive asso­ci­a­tions with the philoso­pher’s name “a clas­sic case of shoot­ing the mes­sen­ger” — some­thing, alas, even the most good-inten­tioned ruler may find him­self forced to do once in a while.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Salman Rushdie: Machiavelli’s Bad Rap

Intro­duc­tion to Polit­i­cal Phi­los­o­phy: A Free Yale Course

Allan Bloom’s Lec­tures on Machi­avel­li (Boston Col­lege, 1983)

6 Polit­i­cal The­o­rists Intro­duced in Ani­mat­ed “School of Life” Videos: Marx, Smith, Rawls & More

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Did Plato’s Republic Predict the Rise of Donald Trump?: A Chilling Animated Video Narrated by Andrew Sullivan

We stand, per­haps, at the thresh­old of the sin­gu­lar­i­ty, that great event when machine intel­li­gence over­takes our own. The writhing of late cap­i­tal­ism may in fact be the death throes of West­ern moder­ni­ty and, for both good and ill, much of its Enlight­en­ment lega­cy. Insti­tu­tions like the press and the polling indus­try have stum­bled bad­ly. No amount of denial­ism will stop the cli­mate cri­sis. Some­thing entire­ly new seems poised for its emer­gence into the world, though what it might be no one seems ful­ly equipped to say. Why, then, should we look back to Pla­to to explain our epoch, a philoso­pher who had no famil­iar­i­ty with mod­ern weapon­ry, arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, or infor­ma­tion sys­tems?

Per­haps a bet­ter ques­tion is: do we and should we still val­ue the con­tri­bu­tions of Euro­pean phi­los­o­phy in con­tem­po­rary life? If so, then we must allow that Pla­to may be per­pet­u­al­ly rel­e­vant to learned dis­course. Alfred North White­head famous­ly char­ac­ter­ized “the Euro­pean philo­soph­i­cal tra­di­tion” as “a series of foot­notes to Pla­to.” Sug­gest­ing his agree­ment with the sen­ti­ment, Mas­si­mo Pigli­uc­ci titled his reg­u­lar col­umn at The Philosopher’s Mag­a­zine, “Foot­notes to Pla­to.” Though he did not invent his mode of inquiry, and often got it very wrong, Pla­to, he writes, “is a tow­er­ing fig­ure for an entire way of think­ing about fun­da­men­tal ques­tions.”

There may be few ques­tions more fun­da­men­tal than those we now ask in the U.S. about tyran­ny, its ori­gins and remedy—about how we arrived at where we are and what eth­i­cal and prac­ti­cal mat­ters lie in the hands of the cit­i­zen­ry. These ques­tions were cen­tral to the thought of Socrates, Plato’s men­tor and pri­ma­ry char­ac­ter in his dia­logues, who had some sur­pris­ing­ly con­trar­i­an ideas on the mat­ter in The Repub­lic. Here, as Andrew Sul­li­van tells us in the BBC News­night video above, Socrates the­o­rizes that “Tyran­ny is prob­a­bly estab­lished out of no oth­er regime than democ­ra­cy.”

The state­ment shocks us, but it also ran counter to the Athen­ian sen­ti­ments of Plato’s day. The pic­ture Socrates paints of democracy’s ills finds its echo in the con­tem­po­rary conservative’s world­view, but we should point out that Sul­li­van mis­rep­re­sents the text he reads as one con­tin­u­ous pas­sage, when it is actu­al­ly a series of excerpt­ed quo­ta­tions. And as always, we should be care­ful not to try and see our own par­ti­san divides in ancient thought. Socrates also had many oth­er things to say the mod­ern right finds tru­ly objec­tion­able.

The prob­lem with democ­ra­cy, Socrates thought, was too much free­dom. Its “free­doms mul­ti­ply,” he says,

until it becomes a many-col­ored clock dec­o­rat­ed in all hues. Men are inter­change­able with women, and all their nat­ur­al dif­fer­ences for­got­ten. Ani­mals have rights. For­eign­ers can come and work just like cit­i­zens. Chil­dren boss their par­ents around. Teach­ers are afraid of their stu­dents. The rich try to look just like the poor.

Soon every kind of inequal­i­ty is despised. The wealthy are par­tic­u­lar­ly loathed. And elites in gen­er­al are treat­ed as sus­pect, per­pet­u­at­ing inequal­i­ty and rep­re­sent­ing injus­tice.

Under such pre­sum­ably deca­dent con­di­tions, “a would-be tyrant would seize his moment”:

He is usu­al­ly of the elite but is in tune with the time. Giv­en over to ran­dom plea­sures and whims. Feast­ing on food, and espe­cial­ly sex.

He makes his move by tak­ing over a par­tic­u­lar­ly obe­di­ent mob, and attack­ing his wealthy peers as cor­rupt. He is a trai­tor to his class, and soon his elite ene­mies find a way to appease him or are forced to flee.

Even­tu­al­ly he stands alone, offer­ing the addled, dis­tract­ed, self-indul­gent cit­i­zens a kind of relief from democ­ra­cy’s end­less choic­es and inse­cu­ri­ties.

He rides a back­lash to suc­cess. Too much free­dom seems to change into noth­ing but too much slav­ery. He offers him­self as the per­son­i­fied answer to all prob­lems. To replace the elites, and rule alone on behalf of the mass­es. And as the peo­ple thrill to him as a kind of solu­tion, a democ­ra­cy will­ing­ly, impetu­ous­ly, repeals itself.

The grim, dra­mat­ic ani­mat­ed video that accom­pa­nies Sullivan’s nar­ra­tion of this chill­ing­ly pre­scient ancient text is not sub­tle about the mod­ern par­al­lels. We can hearti­ly debate the diag­no­sis of “too much free­dom” as the cause of democracy’s yield­ing to tyran­ny. But what­ev­er democ­ra­cy’s fail­ings, the effects Pla­to describes above are as evi­dent today as they were almost 2300 years ago, though we may flat­ter our­selves in think­ing that the mechan­ics of our polit­i­cal sys­tems have evolved since then. In any case, our tech­no­log­i­cal evo­lu­tion means that unlike in Pla­to’s day, the rise of a tyrant like Don­ald Trump, as Sul­li­van wrote last year, may be “an extinc­tion-lev­el event.”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Why Socrates Hat­ed Democ­ra­cies: An Ani­mat­ed Case for Why Self-Gov­ern­ment Requires Wis­dom & Edu­ca­tion

Intro­duc­tion to Polit­i­cal Phi­los­o­phy: A Free Yale Course 

Phi­los­o­phy Bites: Pod­cast­ing Ideas From Pla­to to Sin­gu­lar­i­ty Since 2007

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Introduction to Political Philosophy: A Free Yale Course

Taught by pro­fes­sor Steven B. Smith, this course from Yale Uni­ver­si­ty offers an Intro­duc­tion to Polit­i­cal Phi­los­o­phy, and cov­ers the fol­low­ing ground:

This course is intend­ed as an intro­duc­tion to polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy as seen through an exam­i­na­tion of some of the major texts and thinkers of the West­ern polit­i­cal tra­di­tion. Three broad themes that are cen­tral to under­stand­ing polit­i­cal life are focused upon: the polis expe­ri­ence (Pla­to, Aris­to­tle), the sov­er­eign state (Machi­avel­li, Hobbes), con­sti­tu­tion­al gov­ern­ment (Locke), and democ­ra­cy (Rousseau, Toc­queville). The way in which dif­fer­ent polit­i­cal philoso­phies have giv­en expres­sion to var­i­ous forms of polit­i­cal insti­tu­tions and our ways of life are exam­ined through­out the course.

You can watch the 24 lec­tures from the course above, or find them on YouTube. To get more infor­ma­tion on the course, includ­ing the syl­labus, vis­it this Yale web­site.

The main texts used in this course include the fol­low­ing. You can find them in our col­lec­tion of Free eBooks.

Intro­duc­tion to Polit­i­cal Phi­los­o­phy will be added to our col­lec­tion, 1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties. There you can find a spe­cial­ized list of Free Online Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 3 ) |

An Introduction to the Life & Thought of Hannah Arendt: Presented by the BBC Radio’s In Our Time

Unset­tling his­tor­i­cal par­al­lels between the new­ly-devel­op­ing world order and the ter­rors that scourged Europe in the 1930s and 40s now seem unde­ni­able to most informed observers of con­tem­po­rary geopol­i­tics. Euro­peans have their own polit­i­cal crises to weath­er, but all eyes cur­rent­ly seem trained on the mil­i­tary behe­moth that is my own coun­try. “These are not nor­mal times,” admits Jane Chong at Law­fare. Though she cri­tiques Nazi com­par­isons as need­less­ly alarmist, she “sees no rea­son for opti­mism.” While ref­er­ences to his­to­ry’s great­est vil­lain abound, we’ve also seen Aus­tralian sci­en­tist Alan Finkel com­pare the U.S. leader to Joseph Stal­in for the sup­pres­sion and cen­sor­ship of envi­ron­men­tal data.

The dev­as­ta­tion Hitler and Stal­in vis­it­ed upon West­ern and East­ern Europe can hard­ly be overstated—and we still find it near­ly impos­si­ble to com­pre­hend. But not soon after the end of World War II, one of the 20th century’s most prob­ing ana­lysts of polit­i­cal thought attempt­ed to do just that.

Han­nah Arendt’s 1951 The Ori­gins of Total­i­tar­i­an­ism remains one of “sev­er­al sem­i­nal works on tyran­ny and oppres­sion that have recent­ly gained pop­u­lar­i­ty among read­ers,” notes Ali­son Gris­wold at Quartz. And Arendt’s 1963 clas­sic Eich­mann in Jerusalem also con­tin­ues to inform the moment, offer­ing a “sober­ing reflec­tion,” writes Maria Popo­va, on what Arendt called “the fear­some, word-and-thought-defy­ing banal­i­ty of evil.”

Arendt’s renewed rel­e­vance recent­ly prompt­ed Melvyn Bragg, host of the excel­lent BBC Radio pro­gram In Our Time, to bring three guest phi­los­o­phy pro­fes­sors—Robert Eagle­stone, Fris­bee Sheffield, and Lyn­d­sey Stone­bridgeon air to dis­cuss her ideas and influ­ence. Bragg begins with a brief out­line of Arendt’s biog­ra­phy, then turns to Sheffield, a lec­tur­er at Gir­ton Col­lege, Cam­bridge, for elab­o­ra­tion. They imme­di­ate­ly address one of the most con­tro­ver­sial aspects of Arendt’s young life, her affair with her men­tor, Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger, who joined the Nazi par­ty and remained a true believ­er in its ide­ol­o­gy.

But the con­ver­sa­tion quick­ly moves on from there to encom­pass Arendt’s mul­ti-dimen­sion­al thought. “There’s a great range to her writ­ings,” says Sheffield. A trained clas­si­cist, Arendt wrote her dis­ser­ta­tion on the idea of love in St. Augus­tine. Her most philo­soph­i­cal work, The Human Con­di­tion, drew on clas­si­cal con­cepts to rank human activ­i­ty into a hier­ar­chy of labor, work, and action. She “wrote on a great range of top­ics,” Sheffield notes, though “there is a con­sis­tent inter­est in pol­i­tics and polit­i­cal themes through­out her work.”

Yet Arendt reject­ed the label of polit­i­cal philoso­pher and is her­self “hard to pin down” polit­i­cal­ly. Her 1963 book On Rev­o­lu­tion, cri­tiqued left­ist and Marx­ist thought and praised the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion for its con­sti­tu­tion­al­ism. She was skep­ti­cal of the notion of uni­ver­sal human rights, and her essay On Vio­lence made the argu­ment that vio­lence appears only in the absence of polit­i­cal pow­er, not its ascen­den­cy. As we learn from lis­ten­ing to Bragg’s assem­bled pan­el of guests, Arendt con­sis­tent­ly empha­sized two clas­si­cal con­cepts: the val­ue of a civic and polit­i­cal order and the impor­tance of the “life of the mind,” also the title of a two-vol­ume work pub­lished posthu­mous­ly in 1978.

In Our Time’s short, live­ly con­ver­sa­tion pro­vides an excel­lent intro­duc­tion to Arendt’s life and work. To dive more deeply into the Arendt cor­pus, vis­it Bard College’s Han­nah Arendt Cen­ter for Pol­i­tics and Human­i­ties, browse the Library of Congress’s Han­nah Arendt Papers, and read Lyn­d­sey Stonebridge’s short online essay “Han­nah Arendt’s Refugee His­to­ry.” You’ll also find an exten­sive read­ing list of pri­ma­ry and sec­ondary sources at the In Our Time BBC page.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Han­nah Arendt Explains How Pro­pa­gan­da Uses Lies to Erode All Truth & Moral­i­ty: Insights from The Ori­gins of Total­i­tar­i­an­ism

Han­nah Arendt on “Per­son­al Respon­si­bil­i­ty Under Dic­ta­tor­ship:” Bet­ter to Suf­fer Than Col­lab­o­rate

Han­nah Arendt Dis­cuss­es Phi­los­o­phy, Pol­i­tics & Eich­mann in Rare 1964 TV Inter­view

Han­nah Arendt’s Orig­i­nal Arti­cles on “the Banal­i­ty of Evil” in the New York­er Archive

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Discover the 1126 Books in John Cage’s Personal Library: Foucault, Joyce, Wittgenstein, Virginia Woolf, Buckminster Fuller & More

Image by or Rob Bogaerts/Fotocollectie Ane­fo

To prop­er­ly hon­or your cul­tur­al role mod­els, don’t try to do what they did, or even to think what they thought, but to think how they thought. This goes at least dou­ble for John Cage, the exper­i­men­tal com­pos­er whose inno­v­a­tive works can be, and often are, re-staged (go on, have four min­utes and 33 sec­onds of silence to your­self), but it takes a dif­fer­ent kind of effort alto­geth­er to cul­ti­vate the kind of mind that would come up with them in the first place. As a means of acti­vat­ing your own inner Cage­ness, you could do much worse than read through his per­son­al library, a list of whose books you’ll find at johncage.org.

The vol­umes num­ber 1126 in total, and if you load the library’s main page, it will present you with a list of ten ran­dom­ly select­ed books. (You can get a list of all of them by select­ing the “See Entire Library” option on the left side­bar.)

Hit­ting refresh a few times will give you a sense of the breadth of Cage’s read­ing: Emma Gold­man on anar­chism, Chi­nese poet­ry gath­ered by Ken­neth Rexroth, M. Con­rad Hyers’ Zen and the Com­ic Spir­it (two of Cage’s dri­ving forces if ever I’ve heard them), How to Play Backgam­mon, essays on Ulysses (an inter­est shared with Mar­i­lyn Mon­roe), and even essays on John Cage. Here we’ve assem­bled a list of ten books from Cage’s library of par­tic­u­lar inter­est to the Open Cul­ture read­er:

To those who know any­thing of Cage’s life and inter­ests, his shelves on healthy eating—on which Din­ing Nat­u­ral­ly in Japan: A Restau­rant Guide to Whole­some Food also appears, as, nat­u­ral­ly giv­en the era and Cage’s acquired north­ern-Cal­i­for­ni­an­ness, The Tas­sa­jara Bread Bookand espe­cial­ly the eat­ing of mush­rooms, come as no sur­prise, nor might his incli­na­tion toward phi­los­o­phy. But we should note what looks like a par­tic­u­lar fas­ci­na­tion with the work of Lud­wig Wittgen­stein, evi­denced by 22 of the books in his library: his best-known works like the Trac­ta­tus Logi­co-Philo­soph­i­cus, but also his let­ters, lec­tures, and note­books, as well as biogra­phies, com­men­taries, and Wittgen­stein and Bud­dhism, which Cage must have con­sid­ered an excit­ing find indeed.

In one of his most quotable quotes, Cage describes col­lege as “two hun­dred peo­ple read­ing the same book. An obvi­ous mis­take. Two hun­dred peo­ple can read two hun­dred books.” And indeed, 1126 peo­ple can read 1126 books—or many more peo­ple can each read a dif­fer­ent sub­set of those books. While you could method­i­cal­ly read your way through Cage’s entire library, and would sure­ly learn a great deal in the process, would­n’t mak­ing use of the unthink­ing guid­ance of the ten-ran­dom-books func­tion, sur­ren­der­ing the direc­tion of this infor­mal edu­ca­tion to the kind of chance that places Paul Bowles next to the com­mon fun­gi of North Amer­i­can and Charles Ives next to Ital­ian futur­ism, be a much more Cagean way of going about it?

(h/t @lrlarson)

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Avant-Garde Com­pos­er John Cage’s Sur­pris­ing Mush­room Obses­sion (Which Began with His Pover­ty in the Depres­sion)

The Music of Avant-Garde Com­pos­er John Cage Now Avail­able in a Free Online Archive

John Cage Unbound: A New Dig­i­tal Archive Pre­sent­ed by The New York Pub­lic Library

Jorge Luis Borges Selects 74 Books for Your Per­son­al Library

The 321 Books in David Fos­ter Wallace’s Per­son­al Library: From Blood Merid­i­an to Con­fes­sions of an Unlike­ly Body­builder

A Look Inside Han­nah Arendt’s Per­son­al Library: Down­load Mar­gin­a­lia from 90 Books (Hei­deg­ger, Kant, Marx & More)

The 430 Books in Mar­i­lyn Monroe’s Library: How Many Have You Read?

Darwin’s Per­son­al Library Goes Dig­i­tal: 330 Books Online

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Animated Video Tells the Story of Jean-Paul Sartre & Albert Camus’ Famous Falling Out (1952)

Yes­ter­day we wrote about Albert Camus’ role as the edi­tor of Com­bat, a news­pa­per that emerged from a French Resis­tance cell and played a cen­tral role in the ide­o­log­i­cal con­flicts of post-war France. Camus wrote essay after essay about the prob­lems of vio­lent extrem­ism and the com­pli­ca­tions inher­ent in form­ing a new demo­c­ra­t­ic civ­il order. Although he briefly fought along­side Com­mu­nists in the resis­tance, and stood in sol­i­dar­i­ty with their cause, Camus would split with his Marx­ist allies after the war and come to define his own anar­chist polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy, one he described as “mod­est… free of all mes­sian­ic ele­ments and devoid of any nos­tal­gia for an earth­ly par­adise.”

Camus gave the fullest expo­si­tion of his posi­tion in The Rebel, a cri­tique of rev­o­lu­tion­ary vio­lence on both the left and right. Pub­lished in 1951, this com­pelling, impres­sion­is­tic work is an ethics as much as a politics–indeed, the two were insep­a­ra­ble for Camus. To pro­ceed oth­er­wise was a form of nihilism that would only end in pro­found unfree­dom. “Nihilist thought,” he wrote in the chap­ter on “Mod­er­a­tion and Excess,” ignores the lim­its of human nature; “noth­ing any longer checks it in its course and it reach­es the point of jus­ti­fy­ing total destruc­tion or unlim­it­ed con­quest.”

Fas­cism and Nazism were not far from Camus’ mind when he wrote these words. But he also referred to the increas­ing­ly doc­tri­naire Stal­in­ism of his close friend and fel­low exis­ten­tial­ist Jean-Paul Sartre, who, writes Sam Dress­er at Aeon, read The Rebel with “dis­gust.” Sartre pub­lished a scathing review in his jour­nal, Les Temps Mod­ernes. Camus sent a long reply, and Sartre coun­tered with what Volk­er Hage in Der Spiegel calls a “mer­ci­less” response. “The split between the two friends,” writes Dress­er, “was a media sen­sa­tion,” the kind of pop­u­lar feud between pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als that may only hap­pen in France.

Ani­mat­ed by Andrew Khos­ra­vani, the Aeon video above gives us a brief nar­ra­tive of the famous falling-out. There may be “no bet­ter bust-up in the annals of phi­los­o­phy than the row between” these “two titans of Exis­ten­tial­ism.” The two fought not only over ideas, but over women, includ­ing Sartre’s famous part­ner Simone de Beau­voir. (Camus offend­ed Sartre by turn­ing down her advances.) Both Sartre and Camus “wor­ried about how to make mean­ing in an essen­tial­ly absurd, god­less world.” But Sartre, Camus thought, abro­gat­ed the rad­i­cal free­dom he had writ­ten of in works like Being and Noth­ing­ness with his accep­tance of dialec­ti­cal mate­ri­al­ism and his admi­ra­tion for an author­i­tar­i­an regime that impris­oned and mur­dered its own peo­ple.

Camus found the con­tra­dic­tions in Sartre’s thought intol­er­a­ble, and he begins The Rebel with a philo­soph­i­cal inquiry into the ethics of killing. Can mur­der be jus­ti­fied in the name of a utopi­an ide­al? Camus was not a pacifist—he had no prob­lem fight­ing the Nazi occu­pa­tion. But he cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly reject­ed rev­o­lu­tion­ary vio­lence and all forms of extrem­ism in the name of some “earth­ly par­adise.” Sartre and Camus could not agree to dis­agree and went their sep­a­rate ways, and Camus died in a car acci­dent in 1960. In a heart­felt appre­ci­a­tion that Sartre penned short­ly before his own death 20 years lat­er, he called Camus, “prob­a­bly my only good friend.”

Read more about Sartre-Camus rift at Aeon.

NOTE: The cre­ator of this video is now look­ing to raise funds to pro­duce new ani­ma­tions about philo­soph­i­cal feuds. Please con­sid­er con­tribut­ing to their Kick­starter cam­paign.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Albert Camus, Edi­tor of the French Resis­tance News­pa­per Com­bat, Writes Mov­ing­ly About Life, Pol­i­tics & War (1944–47)      

Sartre Writes a Trib­ute to Camus After His Friend-Turned-Rival Dies in a Trag­ic Car Crash: “There Is an Unbear­able Absur­di­ty in His Death”

Albert Camus Writes a Friend­ly Let­ter to Jean-Paul Sartre Before Their Per­son­al and Philo­soph­i­cal Rift

The Exis­ten­tial­ism Files: How the FBI Tar­get­ed Camus, and Then Sartre After the JFK Assas­si­na­tion

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast