Reflections on the Banality of Evil :
A Journey Through 'Jerusalem's Eichmann
Introduction
Summary
Memorable Passage
Impressions
Conclusion
Introduction
"Eichmann in Jerusalem" is a monumental testament to how great a disaster can arise from the unreason of one human being. It chronicles the trial of Nazi war criminal Eichmann, observed by author Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem. Despite the expectation of being an extraordinary 'villain,' Eichmann, who committed the horrific atrocity of the Holocaust, did not reflect on his wrongdoing until his death. Instead, he claimed innocence, citing that he merely followed his duties and the law.
Reporting on Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem, Arendt mentions the 'banality of evil,' not as an intended theory or ideology, but as a factual representation of the phenomenon of tremendous-scale perpetration of evil. This evil, originating from the perpetrator's specific weaknesses, pathological aspects, or ideological convictions, cannot be traced back to any particular characteristic or pathology, except perhaps an extraordinary degree of shallowness. No matter how monstrous their actions, the perpetrators were neither monstrous nor demonic.
Summary
Adolf Eichmann, the mastermind behind the Holocaust during World War II, fled to Argentina after Germany's defeat but was captured by Israeli intelligence and brought to trial in Jerusalem on 15 charges. The book chronicles this trial, witnessed by journalist Hannah Arendt, who went to Jerusalem as a correspondent to observe Eichmann's trial.
Adolf Eichmann is the central figure of this book. He was deeply involved in the process of the Holocaust, the mass murder of over six million Jews, and was responsible for efficiently managing the deportation of Jews. His 'appropriate handling' undoubtedly resulted in the deaths of countless Jews. He faced trial on 15 counts related to crimes against Jews, crimes against humanity, and wartime activities during the Nazi regime. According to the 'Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law' enacted in 1950, being found guilty of any one of these charges was punishable by death.
However, Eichmann claimed pure 'innocence' regarding his actions, shocking many. He argued that while he felt guilty before God, he was not guilty under the law. He portrayed himself as a powerless figure before the 'effectiveness of the law' of the Third Reich.
Eichmann stated, "If there had been an order by the Führer, 'even my father, according to his oath, would have killed.' He claimed to have merely been in a military position, obedient to orders, with no ill feelings towards Jews and unaware of the ultimate goal of exterminating them, almost as if he were just one cog in the Nazi machinery. Above all, he showed no remorse or contemplation of the wrongfulness of his actions.
This book records Arendt's observations of Eichmann's trial process and her thoughts on his life. Although her account received criticism from the public and many scholars, it remains an important record for offering a new perspective on the Holocaust.
Memorable Passages
- 74p) "Before God, he felt guilty, but not under the law."
- 78p) "He remembered perfectly well that if he had not obeyed orders, he would have felt guilty for having failed in his duty. But what was that duty? To ship millions of men, women, and children to their death with great zeal and the most meticulous care."
- 106p) "Thinking from the perspective of others becomes increasingly incompetent and deeply insightful. There was no communication with him."
- 109p) "Is this a textbook example of infidelity, a combination of ridiculousness and false self-deception? Or is it just an example of a criminal who never repents? Such people are those who cannot face reality because their crimes have become part of reality. But Eichmann's case is different from ordinary criminals. Ordinary criminals can effectively separate themselves from the reality of their crimes within their narrow group of criminals. Eichmann only needed to recall the past in order to feel confident that he was not lying or deceiving himself. Because he once lived in a world where he was in perfect harmony."
- 150p) "The normal effect of the system of lies was not to keep their actions secret from such people but to make sure that their actions were not equated with their long-standing 'normal' knowledge of murder and falsehood."
- 324p) "There are no holes of oblivion. Nothing human is perfect, and there are too many people in this world to allow oblivion. There will always be at least one person left to tell the story. So nothing is 'practically unnecessary.' At least not in the long run. If more such stories were heard, they would be practically very useful, not only for today's Germany but also for its reputation abroad, and unfortunately for its confusing internal conditions. Because the lessons of such stories are simple and understandable to everyone. Politically speaking, the lesson is that under conditions of terror, most people will follow, but some will not."
- 379p) "What is so disturbing about Eichmann is precisely that so many people were like him, and that so many of them were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal."
- 404p) "Today, many people will agree that there is no such thing as collective guilt or innocence, and if there were, no individual could be guilty or innocent. Of course, this does not deny the existence of political responsibility, such as the political responsibility for the acts and omissions of one's predecessor government, or the national political responsibility for the acts and omissions of the past."
Reflections
This book delves into heavy themes surrounding massacre. Considering the subjects and themes covered in the book such as war, massacre, crime, capital punishment, villainy, legitimacy, reason and unreason, it is not a light read. While reading the book, my initial thoughts perhaps revolved around the cruelty of war and the complex inner conflicts of humanity that emerge within it.
As a soldier who faithfully carried out his duty, Adolf Eichmann claimed to have no guilt, stating that he had not committed any crimes. I couldn't help but wonder what standards should be used to judge the presence of guilt or innocence in Eichmann's case. Why did Germany need to raise its arms so fervently against the Jews? These were the initial questions that came to mind. Moreover, as always, even without an exhibition, the somewhat melancholic emotions of doubt about true human beliefs, arising from unexpected and unfamiliar twists and turns of life, seemed even more intense.
The author discusses the concept of "the banality of evil" in this book. Adolf Eichmann, the defendant of unreason, is not a person with terrible thoughts. He simply accepted his tasks without reason, meaning he carried them out without any thought or reflection. Hannah Arendt calls this phenomenon the banality of evil. It can be seen as a concept contrasting with the conviction and belief that should be the basis for doing something.
Arendt argues that Eichmann's atrocities cannot be traced back to any specific weakness, pathological aspect, or ideological conviction, thus she labels it as banality. Therefore, no matter how heinous the act, the actor is not a monster or a devil. This term is not intended to represent any theory or ideology but rather a very realistic representation of a colossal phenomenon of atrocity.
Perhaps the banality of evil can be thought of as the concept of someone acting as a tool for regulation and execution. It's a very dangerous thought, but entirely plausible. Eichmann, realizing that his actions were now being referred to as crimes, immediately accepted the new rules without any hesitation, just as if memorizing a foreign word.
Humans are social animals. Most humans live buried within society, sometimes prioritizing collective values over individual ones and deriving results unrelated to the degree of reasoning. When individual values clash with societal values, it often leads to confusion and resistance. In such cases, individuals tend to ignore their personal values to minimize the stress of conflict.
Society hopes to freely manipulate individuals. To achieve this, society must prevent individual reasoning from a social perspective. Through various means such as media and education, society teaches humans ways to live without reasoning. In other words, it consistently teaches that there is no discomfort in living without reasoning and disperses human energy intended for reasoning in other directions.
A world without reasoning cannot expand. Without reasoning, to exaggerate, there is no reason for existence. Do machines think? No matter how precise and sophisticated, even artificial intelligence that performs tremendous calculations does not reason, so we do not attribute personality to them.
Therefore, for humans to have their own subjectivity, they must engage in constant reasoning. However, the process of reasoning is arduous. Issues of right and wrong, conflicts of values, differences between others' and one's own interests make reasoning difficult. Yet, these reasonings accumulate to form one's own complete reasoning, leading to a state where one can be most human while living as a human.
Eichmann, unwilling to join Hitler's dictatorship externally, found himself complying with his demands unavoidably and, on the other hand, enjoyed the power gained as a consequence of Hitler's madness. To engage in ethically questionable behavior, humans must first cease reasoning. This is because thinking leads to tormenting thoughts of doing something wrong, conflicting with the morals and common sense learned since childhood.
Eichmann, along with other Nazi followers, halted their personal reasoning in such a manner. To discriminate against Jews and, ultimately, to 'eliminate' them, they had to stop reasoning to numb themselves from guilt. To them, Jews were merely targets to achieve their goals, not equal individuals.
Concluding Thoughts
I first became interested in this book after watching it featured on a TV program, and it intrigued me enough to purchase and read it myself. When I first encountered the book, its thickness intimidated me, but upon finishing it, I felt a sense of satisfaction that matched its size. The book offered an objective perspective on Eichmann rather than simply criticizing the Nazi regime. The author's intention to set a high barrier against the life without reasoning is well reflected in the term 'banality of evil.' It's truly an astonishing expression.
"Evil" can arise from ordinary circumstances without the need for grand beliefs or religions. If we fail to judge our thoughts logically and think critically, anyone of us could commit atrocities akin to Eichmann.
