Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:07:05.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Characterology: On the Method of Theorizing in Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2016

HANS-JÖRG SIGWART
HANS-JÖRG SIGWART*
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen–Nürnberg
*
Hans-Jörg Sigwart is Senior Lecturer (Akademischer Oberrat) at Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen–Nürnberg, Kochstraße 4, 91052 Erlangen, Germany ([email protected]) and currently Thyssen Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Central European University, Nador utca 9, 1051 Budapest, Hungary.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Notwithstanding its status as a modern classic, Hannah Arendt's study on The Origins of Totalitarianism is generally considered to be lacking a clearly reflected methodological basis. This article challenges this view and argues that in her study Arendt implicitly applies a characterological method of political theorizing that provides a genuine conceptual framework for systematically connecting structural analysis with ideographic historical investigations and with a political theory of action. On this conceptual basis, the study renders an analysis of anti-Semitism, imperialism, and totalitarianism not merely in terms of abstract structural concepts, but in terms of dynamic character-context constellations. Arendt's account not only shows interesting parallels to a number of similar conceptual reflections, especially in the 20th century's theory debate; it can also serve to inspire the current debate on methodology in political theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 110 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 265 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adorno, Theodor W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, Daniel, and Sanford, Nevitt. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1953. “A Reply.” The Review of Politics 15 (1): 76–84.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1957. Rahel Varnhagen: The Life of a Jewess. London: East and West Library.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1962. “Action and the Pursuit of Happiness.” In Politische Ordnung und Menschliche Existenz. Festgabe für Eric Voegelin zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Dempf, Alois, Arendt, Hannah, and Engel-Janosi, Friedrich. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1–16.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1976. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New Edition with Added Prefaces. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1978. The Life of the Mind. Volume One: Thinking. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1994. Essays in Understanding 1930–1954, ed. Kohn, Jerome. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 2002. Denktagebuch, eds. Ludz, Ursula and Nordmann, Ingeborg. Munich/Zurich: Piper.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 2003. Responsibility and Judgment, ed. Kohn, Jerome. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 2005. The Promise of Politics, ed. Kohn, Jerome. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 2006. Between Past and Future. Eight Exercises in Political Thought, ed. Kohn, Jerome. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 2007. The Jewish Writings, ed. Kohn, Jerome. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Baehr, Peter. 1999. “The Grammar of Prudence. Arendt, Jaspers, and the Appraisal of Max Weber.” In Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem, ed. Aschheim, Steven E.. Berkeley: University of California Press, 306–24.Google Scholar
Baehr, Peter. 2010. Hannah Arendt, Totalitarianism, and the Social Sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Baehr, Peter. 2013. “The Problem of ‘Unmasking’ in ‘Ideology and Utopia.’ Karl Mannheim, Karl Jaspers and Hannah Arendt.” Sociologica: Italian Journal of Sociology 1: 1–32.Google Scholar
Bellah, Robert, Madsen, Richard, Sullivan, William M., Swidler, Ann, and Tipton, Steven M.. 1996. Habits of the Heart. Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Updated Edition with a New Introduction. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1990. “Hannah Arendt and the Redemptive Power of Narrative.” Social Research 57 (1): 167–96.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J. 2002. “The Origins of Totalitarianism: Not History, but Politics.” Social Research 69 (2): 381–401.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Buckler, Steve. 2011. Hannah Arendt and Political Theory. Challenging the Tradition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cane, Lucy. 2015. “Hannah Arendt on the Principles of Political Action.” European Journal of Political Theory 14 (1): 55–75.Google Scholar
Canovan, Margaret. 1992. Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpretation of Her Political Thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, William E. 2008. Capitalism and Christianity, American Style. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Crick, Bernard. 1977. “On Rereading the Origins of Totalitarianism.” Social Research 44 (1): 106–26.Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa J. 1993. “More Truth than Fact. Storytelling as Critical Understanding in the Writings of Hannah Arendt.” Political Theory 21 (4): 665–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 2009. “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, ed. Goodin, Robert E., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1166–86.Google Scholar
Floyd, Jonathan, and Stears, Marc, eds. 2011. Political Philosophy versus History? Contextualism and Real Politics in Contemporary Political Thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazer, Nancy. 2013. “A Triple Movement? Parsing the Politics of Crisis after Polanyi.” New Left Review 81: 119–32.Google Scholar
Fromm, Erich. 1941. Escape from Freedom. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Gesammelte Werke Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Galston, William. 2010. “Realism in Political Theory.” European Journal of Political Theory 9 (4): 385–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gimbel, Edward W. 2014. “The Golden Mean and the Golden Hammer: Phronesis and Method in Contemporary Political Science.” Polity 46 (2): 274–95.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, and Mahoney, James. 2012. A Tale of Two Cultures. Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, Cheryl. 2008. “Hysteresis.” In Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts, ed. Grenfell, Michael. Durham, UK: Acumen, 131–48.Google Scholar
Hennis, Wilhelm. 1987. Max Webers Fragestellung. Studien zur Biographie des Werks. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Jaspers, Karl. 1919. Psychologie der Weltanschauungen. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Jordan, Sara R., and Nederman, Cary J.. 2012. “The Logic of the History of Ideas and the Study of Comparative Political Theory.” Journal of the History of Ideas 73 (4): 627–41.Google Scholar
Judaken, Jonathan. 2012. “Blindness and Insight: The Conceptual Jew in Adorno and Arendt's Post-Holocaust Reflections on the Antisemitic Question.” In Arendt and Adorno: Political and Philosophical Investigations, eds. Rensmann, Lars and Gandesha, Samir. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 173–96.Google Scholar
Klein, Steven. 2014. “‘Fit to Enter the World’: Hannah Arendt on Politics, Economics, and the Welfare State.” American Political Science Review 108 (4): 856–69.Google Scholar
Kohn, Jerome. 2003. “Arendt's Concept and Description of Totalitarianism.” In Totalitäre Herrschaft und republikanische Demokratie. Fünfzig Jahre The Origins of Totalitarianism von Hannah Arendt, ed. Grunenberg, Antonia, assisted by Stefan Ahrens and Bettina Koch. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 95–119.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 2009. “Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism.’” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, ed. Goodin, Robert E.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 159–75.Google Scholar
Meckstroth, Christopher. 2012. “Socratic Method and Political Science.” American Political Science Review 106 (3): 644–60.Google Scholar
Montesquieu, Charles de. [1748]1989. The Spirit of the Laws, eds. Cohler, Anne M., Miller, Basia C., and Stone, Harold S.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parvikko, Tuija. 2004. “A Note on Max Weber's Impact on Hannah Arendt's Thought.” Max Weber Studies 4 (2): 235–52.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2012. On the People's Terms. A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, Mark. 2007. Political Conduct. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time. History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of Peoples with “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2010. “Offensive Political Theory.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 465–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riesman, David, Glazer, Nathan, and Denney, Reuel. 1950. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Satkunandan, Shalini. 2014. “Max Weber and the Ethos of Politics beyond Calculation.” American Political Science Review 108 (1): 169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabert, Tilo. 2010. Boston Politics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian, and Wendt, Alexander. 2005. “The Difference that Realism Makes: Social Science and the Politics of Consent.” In Shapiro, Ian. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 19–50.Google Scholar
Sigwart, Hans-Jörg. 2012. Politische Hermeneutik. Verstehen, Politik und Kritik bei John Dewey und Hannah Arendt. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.Google Scholar
Sigwart, Hans-Jörg 2016. The Wandering Thought of Hannah Arendt. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. [1856]1988. The Ancien Regime, ed. Hampson, Norman. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. [1835/1840] 2000. Democracy in America, eds. Mansfield, Harvey C. and Winthrop, Delba. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tsao, Roy T. 2002. “The Three Phases of Arendt's Theory of Totalitarianism.” Social Research 69 (2): 579–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vollrath, Ernst. 1977. “Hannah Arendt and the Method of Political Thinking.” Social Research 44 (1): 16082.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. [1920]1947. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. [1921]1988a. “Parlament und Regierung im neugeordneten Deutschland.” In Gesammelte Politische Schriften, 5th ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 306–443.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. [1922]1988b. “Die Objektivität sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis.” In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 7th ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 146–214.Google Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1977. “Hannah Arendt and the Ordinance of Time.” Social Research 44 (1): 91–105.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.