On to 'On Revolution' - Hannah Arendt

My brain hurts. I must admit that this was an amazing and excellent piece but it really is just so much to take in. My focus question has led me to come across more than just history but philosophy of human society based on history. And boy does this book refer back to history. I often got quite confused reading it as it would jump from the writings of Aristotle, to the American revolution, then to the fall of the republic in Rome and then the writings of Rousseau etc etc. It wasn't that messy in terms of the jumping but I think its purpose simply was an overall review of revolutions, and so of course it was necessary to move back and forth between them.

Hannah Arendt - from a 1988 German Stamp

But anyway. It was interesting also to look at who Miss Arendt was herself too. From the looks of things she too was a philosopher (or a political theorist as she claimed was a more appropriate title) who often studied political systems in society and their reliability to the people. On Revolution is one of her many successful novels that she's written on this particular field. It is evident here that she investigates two major revolutions, the French revolution and the American revolution, however comes across as extremely critical of the French one as she claims it was a rather large failure due to the abandonment of some of their goals halfway through. The American revolution on the other hand was a success because they focused on their goals right to the very end. Both of course were interesting and valid claims. Once again I find it so interesting how these philosophical works refer so often to history and have aided me so much in my investigation. It has reminded me that history is not the study of dates as some, what I would consider, fools, to put it, but rather a study of humanity. I digress, but lets move on.

Whilst I certainly love the philosophical debate, i'd like to further look at a number of quotes which I found extremely relevant and very much gave me a summation of my revolution investigation.

"The social question began to play a revolutionary role only when, in the modern age and not before, men began to doubt that poverty is inherent in the human condition, to doubt that the distinction between the few, who through circumstances or strength or fraud had succeeded in liberating themselves from the shackles of poverty, and the labouring poverty-stricken multitude was inevitable and eternal. This doubt, or rather the conviction that life on earth might be blessed with abundance instead of being cursed by scarcity, was prerevolutionary and American in origin; it grew directly out of the American colonial experience... John Adams, more than a decade before the actual outbreak of the American Revolution, could state: 'I always consider the settlement of America as the opening of a grand scheme and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.'"

I think from this quote it can be understood how much Arendt supported the American revolution. I think it is a big claim to state that the idea grew out of the colonial experience in America, as a lot of other sources would suggest (like the work of Rousseau) that these ideas were brewing in Europe before they did in the American colonies. Whilst it is true that the Americans were first to act upon these ideas, they were certainly not the first to feel and think of them. In terms of what this quote states in terms of thinking patterns I believe is very true and relevant. The realisation obviously that men were not born with social distinctions, but of course this was imposed on them. Having these ideas within society made people discontent and very much angry, and hence why the American revolution (and pretty much all the other major revolutions in history) occurred.

"As to the plot, it was unmistakably the emergence of freedom : in 1793, four years after the outbreak of the French Revolution, at a time when Robespierre could define his rule as the 'despotism of liberty' without fear of being accused of speaking in paradoxes, Condorcet summed up what everybody knew: 'The word "revolutionary" can be applied only to revolutions whose aim is freedom.'"

A second thing i've noticed is that a major theme within Arendt's book is that of freedom and revolutions being specifically a quest for freedom. I feel it's rather risky here challenging a philosopher, but I feel that the concept of freedom needs to be at the core of something a little more tangible. Like democracy or equality. Freedom in itself is much to broad, in fact, freedom in all its essence is simply unachievable. However, having the idea of freedom behind a revolution can certainly mean achieving something, and likely some form of freedom. I think this is important as it highlights that the aim of a revolution is always based off ideas, and hence we find that they have a fundamental and essential role to play within a revolution.

"The old absolute that derived from a God-given authority, thus superseding an earthly order whose ultimate sanction had been the commands of an omnipotent God and whose final source of legitimacy had been the notion of an incarnation of God on earth... the latter part of the task of revolution, to find a new absolute to replace the absolute of divine power, is insoluble because power under the condition of human plurality can never amount to omnipotence, and laws residing on human power can never be absolute."

I think i'm finding that this work tends to be (or attempts to be) particularly persuasive in its message. In this segment Arendt is looking the 'old order' or what it tended to be before the period of revolutions. I suppose you could say that due to the enlightenment religion was questioned, and hence was this divine right of ruling questioned, and hence the people kind of went 'why the **** are you allowed to be above me?'. She then pretty much states that once the revolution is over someone else needed to take this power, but through dividing it the world would unlikely end up with the same issue of some crazy dude declaring supremacy over everyone else. But as we do know, that happens i.e. Stalin, Hitler etc. Why? Well thats a question for another day.

"The very idea of equality as we understand it, namely that every person is born as an equal by the very fact of being born, that equality is a birthright, was utterly unknown prior to the modern age. "

This particular quote is rather self explanatory. It simply stresses that prior to the enlightenment inequality and social segregation and class distinction was simply accepted among society. Which once again explains why once religion was abandoned so was the acceptance of these ideals, and the quest for 'freedom' (as Arendt claims) began.

Overall, this novel was rather interesting. One thing I must make mention of is that along with being an American (or at least partly) herself, Arendt was also stressing the need for a 'council system' in the united states to regain some of the lost revolutionary fervour in the United States. She criticises the French Revolution for being more remembered than the American, as she states "The sad truth of the matter is that the French Revolution, which ended in disaster, has made world history, while the American Revolution, so triumphantly successful, has remained an event of little more than local importance." It may not be true, but suspicions are there that Arendt had a somewhat biased perspective and an alternate purpose to simply stating the truest historical recount and analysis possible. As a philosopher, not a historian it is evident how her motives came through so clearly in the text.

Anyway. Originally this was going to be my last 'information' post but then I remembered how much Cowie had analysed the enlightenment in the beginning of his book on modern revolutions, so I shall be moving onto that momentarily.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION