UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Amor mundi: Hannah Arendt's political phenomenology of world Borren, M. Publication date 2010 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Borren, M. (2010). Amor mundi: Hannah Arendt's political phenomenology of world. [Thesis, fully internal, Universiteit van Amsterdam]. F & N Eigen Beheer. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:29 Dec 2022 Chapter 1 Arendt’s hermeneutic phenomenology: understanding and deconstruction The attempt to describe Arendt’s method meets with two difficulties. First, although she does have a distinct and consistent method, she hardly ever explicates or reflects upon it in a systematic way, as many theorists have noticed with regret.1 She once conceded in the preface to her biography of Rahel Varnhagen that she felt a ‘certain awkwardness in (...) speaking of [her] book’2, let alone, she added in The life of the mind I, draw attention to her ‘method’, ‘criteria’ or ‘values’: ‘all of which in such an enterprise are mercifully hidden from its author though they may be or, rather, seem to be quite manifest to reader and listener’3. Still, it seems she sometimes felt this reluctance to describe and defend her method an inadequacy herself as well. In a reply to Eric Voegelin’s criticism of The origins of totalitarianism, she wrote: ‘I failed to explain the particular method which I came to use, and to account for a rather unusual approach (...) to the whole field of political and historical sciences as such. One of the difficulties of the book is that it does not belong to any school and hardly uses any of the officially recognized or officially controversial instruments.’4 Indeed, and this is the second complexity I want to address, Arendt’s method of investigating, as she called it, the ‘human affairs’ differs considerably from the mainstream within the humanities and the social sciences and only matches an undercurrent of interpretative tendencies within both scholarly domains.5 Most significantly, it aims at understanding political phenomena through the way they appear to those living through 1 Vollrath, 1977, 162; Benhabib, 1990, 171; Disch, 1994, 108; idem, 1993, 666; Herzog, 2000, 2-3, etc. 2 Arendt, 1997, Rahel Varnhagen, preface, 81. 3 Arendt, LOM I, 211. 4 Arendt, ‘A reply’, EU, 402. 5 Think of most methods used in historiography, respectively ethnographic and interpretative paradigms in cultural anthropology and sociology, for instance. What I call the ‘humanities’ in this chapter include philosophy, historiography, theology, social and political theory, literary and cultural studies. Arendt’s hermeneutic phenomenology them, including scholars6, that is, through the way they experience and interpret them.7 Because of this orientation to understanding and interpretation, Arendt’s method differs from conventional methods and paradigms within both the humanities and the social sciences. These usually aim at explanation, i.e. finding causes, including motives, i.e. psychological causes of human action, and regularities, such as historical laws, patterns, processes, social forces, historical trends, and the like. In the case of the social sciences, examples include empirical quantitative social-scientific methodological tools to measure and process data, such as statistical analysis and, more recently, computer modeling. In the case of the (non-empirical) humanities, regularities are rather constructed through logic and argumentation: generalization, abstraction, drawing analogies and deduction. Arendt’s method is not external to the topics she investigates, unlike more conventional research paradigms, which put the scholar in the position of an observer over and against the topic under investigation. The latter is reflected in a particular, i.e. empiricist, methodic ideal of scientific objectivity, which prescribes a disengaged stance, preserving a distance between the researcher and his or her topic. According to this norm, the distance or gap between the scholarly researcher and the researched is only bridged in the application of a prescribed method, consisting in a set of tools (instruments, techniques, rules). The Arendtian scholar, on the other hand, is an engaged spectator, someone who lets herself be addressed by what she investigates. Only after this initial address we distance ourselves from the topic we investigate in order to reflect critically. In other words, she takes a second instead of third person stance with respect to the world. Arendt’s interpretative method not simply deviates from the mainstream of social- scientific, logical, argumentative, historic and philosophical methodology, but she is outright critical of them. The aim of this chapter is to reconstruct the hermeneutic- phenomenological method she poses as an alternative.8 In chapter 2, I will focus on the consequences of this method for her anthropology. In the course of Part I, I will, first, situate Arendt’s account of the political in the phenomenological tradition.9 Second, I will clarify its critical position vis-à-vis a number of scientific and theoretical discourses, respectively the metaphysical tradition (Plato, Descartes, Hegel and Marx), empiricism (the 6 In the following, I will include both social scientists, and individuals conducting research within the humanities under the general heading of ‘scholar’. 7 ‘‘Verstehen’ [spielt] sowohl in sachlicher wie in systematischer Hinsicht eine bedeutende Rolle innerhalb der Gesamtstruktur [Arendts] Philosophie. Ja, man kann sogar sagen, daß das ‘Verstehen’ das eigentlich zentrale Geistesvermögen in Arendts theoretisch-philosophischen Überlegungen aus Vom Leben des Geistes ist.’ (Opstaele, 2001, 102). 8 Which is a hermeneutical enterprise in itself! Reconstruction always requires interpretation. Cf. Opstaele, 2001, 103. 9 Cf. §1 and §2 below. 16 Chapter 1 empiricist social-scientific method) and postmodernism.10 Third, I will try to settle already in the beginning of this study a number of common misunderstandings about Arendt’s scholarly approach, especially as regards the appeal to experience and facts and the role that distinctions play in her work.11 In the present methodological chapter, I will elaborate the critical, respectively experimental exercises, which are part of Arendt’s hermeneutic phenomenology (dismantling and storytelling) (§3) and the Arendtian normative criterion of validity (§4). In §5 and §6, I will juxtapose Arendt’s hermeneutical phenomenology of the political to two dominant traditions of scholarship, i.e. scientism and metaphysics, and to empiricist, respectively postmodernist conceptions of experience and facticity. Additionally, I will defend Arendt’s phenomenological dedication to making sharp distinctions (§6). First, though, I will sketch a brief overview of the phenomenological tradition and method in general (§1) and subsequently situate Arendt’s thought within this tradition (§2). 1. The phenomenological tradition Arendt is quite frequently categorized as a phenomenologist12 and she herself indeed once situated herself as ‘a sort of phenomenologist, but (...) not in Hegel’s way, or Husserl’s’13. Arendt, indeed, has never been a phenomenologist in the strict Husserlian sense, though through her philosophical training she was thoroughly familiar with the work of Karl Jaspers and Martin Heidegger. She knew both intimately, the first as a student and subsequently lifelong friend, the second as a student and lover. Arendt’s phenomenological trait is not infrequently demonstrated through her intellectual debt to Heidegger.14 This is 10 For the conclusion regarding the second aim see the Conclusion of chapter 2. 11 For the conclusion regarding the third aim see the present chapter, §6. 12 On Arendt as a phenomenologist, see, among others, the special issue of Journal Phaenomenologie on Hannah Arendt 1999, No.11. Andreas Grossmann, 2000, Moran, 2000; Schnell, 1995; Vollrath, 1977 and 1979; Burke, 1997; Hinchman, L. P. and S. K. Hinchman, 1984 and 1991; Ricoeur, 1983; Pulkkinen, 2001; Hull, 1999 and 2002; Taminiaux, 1999 and 1996; Blättler, 1993; Allen, 1982; Vasterling, 2002, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Krueger, 2007; Hart, 2002. On Arendt as a hermeneutical phenomenologist, see: Opstaele, 2001; Ricoeur, 1983, 1989a and 1989b. 13 Young-Bruehl reports Arendt to have once remarked this (1982, 405). 14 On this influence, a complete library has been published, ranging from plain gossip to erudite studies. The two best monographies on the intellectual relationship between Heidegger and Arendt to date are Taminiaux, 1997 and Villa, 1996. Other sources include Benhabib, 1996; Keulartz, 1992; Canovan, 1990; Söllner, 2003; Belardinelli, 1990; Burke, 1986; Wolin, 2001; Barash, 1996; Bernstein, 1997; Grunenberg, 2006; Halberstam, 2001; Jaeggi, 1997; Kamarck, 2003; Sozer, 2000; Thomä, 2003; Birmingham, 2002; Hinchman and Hinchman, 1984; Vasterling, 2005. 17 Arendt’s hermeneutic phenomenology justified to a certain extent, though this debt should not cloud the profound originality of Arendt’s phenomenology. As his former student, Arendt had been exposed to Heidegger’s early hermeneutic phenomenology of the 1920s in the formative years of her own philosophical career.15 Phenomenology is an anti-metaphysical philosophical method or school of thought, which Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) founded in the beginning of the twentieth century in an extensive oeuvre (the so-called Husserliana). Husserl’s phenomenology exerted an influence on a whole generation of philosophers, proliferating in many directions, such as Existenzphilosophie (Karl Jaspers), existential phenomenology, hermeneutic phenomenology and philosophical anthropology. Husserl’s former student Martin Heidegger challenged some fundamental assumptions of Husserl’s phenomenology. In his groundbreaking book Sein und Zeit (1927), Heidegger particularly took issue with Husserl’s emphasis on consciousness and what be believed to be residual metaphysical elements in his work. In Sein und Zeit, Heidegger also initiated an interpretative current in phenomenology: hermeneutic phenomenology. Heidegger’s student Hans-Georg Gadamer developed this strand of phenomenology further, culminating in his magnum opus Wahrheit und Methode (1960). Others, such as Paul Ricoeur have further elaborated hermeneutic phenomenology. Twentieth century German philosophical anthropology (Scheler, Gehlen, Plessner) is also heavily influenced by phenomenology. Initially, phenomenology was a German affair, but it soon expanded to France, especially through Heidegger’s work, where it ignited the emergence of existential phenomenology (Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Simone de Beauvoir). There it took a more socially and politically engaged turn. Its many varieties and some more substantial differences notwithstanding, we see many shared motifs and assumptions in the work of the phenomenologists mentioned that are also present in Arendt’s work. Phenomenology concerns the descriptive analysis of phenomena, that is, the way things and events appear to us in lived experience. Hence phenomenologists appeal to ‘saving the appearances’, the things as they appear to us. This is captured in the famous phenomenological motto Zu den Sachen selbst!16 This means that phenomenologists always take a relational point of view with respect to the things they study. According to phenomenologists, the perceiver is not opposed to or separated from the perceived.17 Things and events are not seen in isolation, as entities or realities external to us, but in their relation to us. The perspective we take upon them as perceivers is 15 Heidegger developed his hermeneutic phenomenology in Sein und Zeit (1927) and his 1920’s lectures. 16 Arendt indeed declared to be attracted by Husserl’s work in this respect, for its ‘anti-metaphysical implications’. LOM I, 9. Cf. Hull, 2002, 82-85. 17 I will elaborate the traditional metaphysical dualism between the perceiver or subject, and the perceived, or object, that phenomenologists challenge in the conclusion of chapter 2. 18 Chapter 1 therefore central to the phenomenologist’s attention. Arendt’s approach is, moreover, not just relational but also perspectival, since she emphasizes the plurality of perspectives human beings take upon the world. The phenomenological method often takes its starting point in our everyday, pre- reflexive perspective on the world; a perspective grounded in what hermeneutic phenomenologists call Vorverständnis, preliminary understanding. Subsequently, it involves the application of the so-called epoche, phenomenological reduction, the methodic requirement to bracket both one’s opinions and prejudices inherent in preliminary understanding, and the theoretical constructions of the scientific-philosophical attitude.18 After bracketing, phenomenologists start a careful description of our situated, lived experience of the phenomena, the way things appear to us. In order to avoid confusion, the phenomenological emphasis on lived experience has no relation to the way (strong) empiricists conceive of experience. Strong empiricists hold that knowledge mainly stems from sense experience; as classically opposed to rationalists who assert that reason is the main source of knowledge. As such, empiricism is the epistemological and methodological foundation of modern empirical science as based on experiment and data. Strong empiricism additionally assumes a direct correspondence between perception and that which is perceived, the object. For them, experience points to a collection of sense data that refer to entities existing independent from the perceiver or observer. For phenomenologists ever since Husserl, on the other hand, the term ‘phenomenon’ or ‘appearance’ emphasizes that ‘objects’ are always things, events, etc. that show themselves to a perceiver. Thus, instead of objects and subjects, they speak of phenomena or appearances: that which appears to a perceiver. These terms refer to the way we enact and live through the various aspects of our lives. Phenomena are always immediately but implicitly meaningful, constituted by implicit understanding based on our familiarity with the world and our know-how; rather than by a collection of sense data. However, they require subsequent interpretation to truly understand them. Hermeneutic phenomenologists use the notion of world as the meaningful context within which human existence enfolds. For Arendt, the world refers to the typically human world, as distinguished, for example, from nature, the totality of natural things. The notion of world also informs the phenomenological perspective on human ‘nature’. Human beings, according to phenomenologists, are worldly creatures, that is, situated beings. Additionally, most phenomenologists share an interest in philosophical anthropology, i.e. in human existence. They are critical of the belief in and definition of a 18 In §5, I will discuss two examples of constructions which are pertinent to science and scholarship: scientism and metaphysics. 19 Arendt’s hermeneutic phenomenology universal human nature, an essentialism or naturalism which is customary in the metaphysical and scientific tradition. Instead, they regard humans as situated beings. Arendt, for example, distinguishes between ‘who’ and ‘what’ we are. What we are is the sum of our objectifiable features; the properties an individual shares with many others, including markers of collective identity (class, gender, ethnicity, etc.). She is interested instead in who we are, our situated, non-objectifiable and unique life-stories. Hermeneutic phenomenologists hold that humans are interpreting beings, oriented towards understanding.19 Everyday understanding is mostly entirely implicit, consisting in ‘knowing how’ instead of an explicit ‘knowing that’. The aim of hermeneutic phenomenology is to appropriate implicit understanding through phenomenological analysis and hermeneutic interpretation. If phenomenology is considered in a broad sense, Arendt’s investigation of the political can be seen as phenomenological in an original, consistent20 and exemplary21 way. More particularly, I would describe Arendt’s method as a hermeneutic phenomenology of the political or a phenomenological hermeneutics of the political22. 2. Arendt’s hermeneutic phenomenology The hermeneutic impulse of Arendt’s method consists in its orientation to understanding, i.e. to the meaning of phenomena and events in their very particularity, newness and contingency.23 This interpretive current in Arendt’s work is particularly manifest in relation to the phenomenon of totalitarianism.24 It is accentuated in her well-known and much repeated insistence that the ‘desire to understand’ animates her research: Ich will verstehen25. The accent on understanding phenomena through the way they are experienced is nicely illustrated by her introductory remarks to The human condition: ‘What I propose in the following is a reconsideration of the human condition from the vantage point of our newest experiences and our most recent fears. (…) What I propose, therefore, is very 19 For hermeneutic phenomenologists, ‘meaning’ first refers to ‘meaningfulness’, that is, to meaningful contexts or situations in which human life is always embedded. As such, it is distinct from the logical sense of ‘meaning’, i.e. ‘intelligibility’. The cognitive or epistemological category of intelligibility is, according to hermeneutic phenomenologists, derived from the primary meaningfulness. 20 Vollrath, 1977, 161. 21 Schnell, 1995, 241. 22 Opstaele, 2001, 108: a ‘phänomenologisch orientierte Politikhermeneutik’. 23 Opstaele, 2001,107. 24 Among others in OT; ‘A reply’, EU and UP. 25 ZP, 46. 20 Chapter 1 simple: it is nothing more than to think what we are doing.’26 And in the introduction to The origins of totalitarianism, she writes: This book is an attempt at understanding what at first and even second glance appeared simply outrageous. [Understanding means] examining and bearing consciously the burden that events have placed upon us - neither denying their existence nor submitting meekly to their weight as though everything that in fact happened could not have happened otherwise. Understanding thus means ‘the unpremeditated, attentive facing up to, and resisting of, reality - whatever it may be or might have been.’ 27 Arendt’s method is to approach political events through the shared, i.e. intersubjective and worldly, experience of these phenomena. These experiences constitute ‘the true, the only reliable teachers of political scientists, as they are the most trustworthy source of information for those engaged in politics’.28 Research ‘arises out of’ the experience of incidents and should ‘remain bound to them; as the circle remains bound to its focus’.29 Arendt summons the cultivation of a scholarly attitude or ethos of commitment to incidents, events, facts, and appearances and of radical openness to the factual, that is, contingent and unpredictable nature of events: I have always believed that, no matter how abstract our theories may sound or how consistent our arguments may appear, there are incidents and stories behind them which, at least for ourselves, contain as in a nutshell the full meaning of what we have to say (...); and the only gain one might legitimately expect from the most mysterious of human activities are neither definitions nor theories, but rather the slow, plodding discovery and, perhaps, the mapping survey of the region which some incident had completely illuminated for a fleeting moment.30 Events are central to Arendt’s analyses because they disclose or illuminate the meaningfulness of the world in a certain way.31 What we experience is this illumination. Subsequently, the experiences of disclosed parts of reality require explicit interpretation (‘slow plodding discovery’ and ‘mapping survey’) in order to appropriate their full meaning and significance. Several aspects of this description demand closer inspection by situating them in the hermeneutic-phenomenological tradition. Arendt adopted the emphasis 26 HC, 5. 27 OT, preface, xiv, viii. 28 OT, 1958, 482. 29 Arendt, ‘Action and ‘the pursuit of happiness’’, 1962, 2; BPF, 6, 14, ‘War and revolution’, OR, 19. 30 ‘Action and ‘the pursuit of happiness’’, 2. 31 In some cases, the lives (biographies) of persons may constitute such events. Or in other words, some persons’ lives illuminate the world in an exemplary way. See § 3 below. 21 Arendt’s hermeneutic phenomenology Heidegger typically put on the dimension of disclosure, appearance, showing and unconcealment (Unverborgenheit); respectively disappearance and concealment, in his analysis of what phenomena are.32 For Heidegger, phenomena appear against a background of concealment, carrying some things into the light from darkness. This process he called world-disclosure. Entirely implicit, Arendt also adopted Heidegger’s emphasis on the worldly nature of human existence. This worldliness was Heidegger’s critical response to the Western tradition of metaphysical and scientistic thought. He called human being Dasein in order to avoid the metaphysical notion of the subject and argued that Dasein’s primary existential way of being or of relating to the world, others and itself (expressed in the so-called ‘existentials’), is in-der-Welt-sein, being-in-the-world. Unlike things, human beings do not coincide with themselves, nor are they not enclosed in themselves. On the contrary, they are always already outside of themselves (Ek-sistenz), open unto things and other human beings, in the midst of the world and engaged in the world of which they are part, and in their own being. Arendt’s conception of the structures of human existence as human conditions is certainly informed by this phenomenological analysis of human ways of being and their primordially worldly existence.33 Hermeneutic phenomenologists consider humans as interpreting beings that invariably find meaning in what they experience. Reversely, understanding is not primarily something we do, an explicit intentional activity, such as the scholarly activity of interpretation or exegesis. Instead, understanding is something we are, our mode of being, the way we experience things, events, other people, ourselves, etc. namely as meaningful in some way or another.34 In Arendt’s words, ‘[understanding] is the specifically human way of being alive’, for through understanding, we ‘come to terms with and reconcile ourselves to reality, that is, try to be at home in the world.’35 The scholarly activity of interpretation is dependent upon this existential human condition. Because of our intimate familiarity with and know how of the world, we always perceive something as something. This is called the ‘as-structure’ of understanding.36 To use one of Heidegger’s examples: it is simply impossible for us to encounter ‘mere noise’ (reines Geräusch). Instead, we hear loud music, industrial noise etc. We experience an event as either a natural event (for example rain or storm), or a social event (such as a party) or a political event (for example a debate in 32 Sich zeigen, offenbaren, erscheinen, etc. Schnell, 1995, 226-31. 33 Vasterling, 2007c. 34 Ramberg, 2005, §4. 35 UP, 308. 36 Schnell, 1995, 274: ‘Eine Deutung legt fest, als was bestimmte Sachverhalte betrachtet werden, wie sie gedeutet werden sollen, dürfen und nicht werden dürfen.’ 22 Chapter 1 parliament or a revolution), etc. ‘Aus der menschlichen Welt ist die Deutung dieser Welt nicht wegzudenken. Es gibt keinen Vorgang der Welt, der nicht einer Deutung unterliegt. (...) Prozesse laufen nicht wie Regenschauer ab, sie werden stets in bestimmten Weisen interpretiert.’37 Experience is embedded in our practical dealings with the world and with other people. To experience something means that something emerges or stands out as this or that in our practical dealings. ‘Our understanding of the world presupposes a kind of pragmatic know-how that is revealed through the way in which we, without theoretical considerations, orient ourselves in the world.’38 Hermeneutic phenomenologists such as Heidegger and Gadamer call this implicit, pre-reflexive understanding that we all possess Vorverständnis. We do not need to have objective theoretical knowledge of the construction of, say, a hammer, in order to be able to use it. Heidegger calls the practical modes of relating to things in the world, on the one hand, and to other people, on the other hand, respectively besorgen and Fürsorge. Through these, the world is ‘familiar to us in a basic, intuitive way’ and ‘tacitly intelligible to us.’39 In other words, we always have an immediate, intuitive, implicit and non-reflective, understanding of the things, events and other people in the world. Explicit, reflective understanding, including philosophical and scientific understanding, is rooted in this prior implicit understanding, i.e. in presuppositions, or, in hermeneutic terms, the ‘fore-structure’ of understanding. What explicit understanding does is to ‘articulate and confirm what preliminary understanding (...) sensed to begin with’, Arendt writes.40 For this reason, hermeneutic phenomenologists emphasize the circular structure of understanding and judging.41 The so-called hermeneutic circle only starts when a phenomenon engages us. It is only when something unexpected happens, when things break down or when for other reasons our attention is awakened, that the automatic pilot of everyday implicit understanding makes place for the circle of explicit understanding or interpretation. Arendt emphasizes the essential role taste plays in eliciting our engagement and thus in triggering the hermeneutic process in the first place. Taste is our faculty for immediately discriminating between what appeals to us and what does not. Indeed, many phenomena or events simply do not touch and engage us and leave us indifferent. In those cases, the catalyst for the process of acquiring explicit understanding is simply absent. 37 Schnell, 1995, 274. 38 Ramberg, 2005, §4. 39 Ramberg, 2005, §4. 40 UP, 322. 41 In UP, Arendt describes understanding in terms very similar to the ones she uses in other writings to describe judgment: ‘... understanding [is] (...) closely related to and inter-related to judging’ (313). In both common sense and imagination play important roles. I guess understanding could best be regarded is the prerequisite of judgment: without the prior process of understanding, no judgment can arise. In this dissertation, therefore, I use understanding and judging interchangeably. 23