Arendt at Bar Ilan University (2)

Hannah Arendt and “The Human Condition”
Note: Some of my friends have expressed concern that I have recently become slightly obsessed with Ms. Arendt. They really have no cause for concern. Arendt is, of course, important for many reasons. However my specific interest in Arendt arose from a desire to research the political category “totalitarianism.” My political and theoretical experience has convinced me that this is a pivotal, litmus sort of category. In most instances, those who subscribe to the need to confront the totalitarianism of both the right and the left, those who equate Fascism and Communism and, of course, Hitler and Stalin, cannot and do not understand the basic principles of progressive politics. This core problem led me to Hannah Arendt’s “classic“, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951, 1954. Arendt was, of course, a brilliant genius. But the question is a brilliant genius for whom and for what.

Hannah Arendt’s contribution to modern political theory is to be celebrated in an upcoming conference at Bar-Ilan University dedicated to one of her central philosophical works, The Human Condition. It is a well known that Arendt’s philosophical texts are complex, and her style rather murky. This might help to understand why it is so unclear whether she belongs to the left or the right, and why despite this lack of clarity, there are many on the left who consider her an exponent of their values. However, with the exception of her important, critical articles on the Eichmann trial, the main thrust of her writings expressed a hesitant kind of liberalism, more amenable to the right than the left.

Those, who reject, with due cause, the idea that Arendt’s political philosophy (as opposed to her outstanding in-depth journalism on the Eichmann trial -1961) is close to the left, can cite two interesting comments connected to “The Human Condtion.” In a letter to Arendt (September 8, 1958), Norman Podhoretz, then editor of Commentary and already one of the leading figures in the formation and the rise of the new right in the US, waxed eloquent over “The “Human Condition,”: “The book is superb, fully equal to the astonishing daring of what it undertakes.” (Library of Congress, Arendt Correspondence # 008982).

In the same context, Professor Russel Jacoby considered it is important to recall that Arendt seriously considered dedicating the work known as The Human Condition to the philosopher Martin Heidegger. Heidegger was, of course, a well known collaborator with the Nazi regime and a devoted admirer of the Fuhrer. She wrote to Heidegger that she refrained from the dedication “because things had not worked out” between them but she wanted him to know that the book “owes practically everything to you in every respect.” (Russel Jacoby, Professor of History UCLA, Chronicles of Higher Education, December 8, 2006)

Of course there is the objection that Heidegger’s long time, slavish affiliation with National Socialism does not, in itself, disqualify his philosophy. Even so, it is rather unlikely that precisely Heidegger’s philosophy would inspire and sustain a rational, humanistic set of values on the Human Condition. And if we actually want to get to the roots of The Human Condition, wouldn’t it be more logical, following Arendt’s own admission, to devote the conference to Heidegger.

Conference on Hannah Arendt at Bar Ilan University

An international academic conference devoted to the subject “Hannah Arendt and the Human Condition” is to take place at Bar-Ilan University this month. The Heinrich Bell Foundation, the Mark Rich Foundation and the Faculty of Jewish Studies at the University of Basle are co-sponsoring the event which is being convened with the support of the President of Bar-Ilan University, Professor Moshe Kaveh.

The tremendous prestige of Hannah Arendt (born in 1906) among intellectual circles in the United States and Europe over the second half of the twentieth century explains the reason for a virtual flood of conferences, lectures and publications marking the hundredth anniversary of her birth. But all during the period that Arendt’s status was steadily rising in the international academic arena, she did not enjoy comparable good fortune here in Israel. In Israel she was vilified and banned.

Hannah Arendt had, through her active involvement in aiding the escape and emigration of refugees to Israel after Hitler’s rise to power, acquired first hand knowledge and experience with the Zionist establishment. Despite this, Arendt expressed concern that chauvinism was emptying Zionism of its ethical content and she gravitated to Martin Buber’s group formed around similar anxieties. Moreover, from the first years of Israel’s existence, she was among the sharpest critics of Ben Gurion’s policies and opposed Israel’s arrogant attitude towards the Arab environment. The years of tension between Arendt, who was on her way to international renown, and the Zionist leadership, found their most profound and dramatic expression after she came to Israel in 1961 to cover the Eichmann trial for the New Yorker. Arendt dared to express blunt criticism of the proceedings on the pages of the New Yorker and refused to join the chorus of admiration for the Israeli legal system. The entire Jewish-Zionist establishment accused her of villainous treachery against the holy of holies, the official Zionist version of the Holocaust and its meaning.

Meanwhile, over the years, Arendt had become the high priestess of right-wing , anti-Marxist liberalism. Her book, the Origins of Totalitarianism,
(1951) became the authentic and quasi- official text for justifying the Cold War waged then and later by the United States government. Arendt “succeeded” in providing the theoretical foundations for the superficial and simplistic thesis that the battle between the United States and the Soviet Union was the battle between liberty and tyranny. In this period, she became a prominent member of a group, later termed the New York intellectuals, which received thinly disguised covert support from the newly operative CIA. Of course, this unpleasant connection does not in any sense exempt us from the obligation to relate seriously to Arendt’s contribution on the theoretical and philosophical levels. (1) While Arendt made a name for herself by virtue of her analytical insight into major universal issues of political philosophy, her antipathy for the Zionist and Israeli establishment was an open secret.

Her clear distaste for Israeli policies and practices explain why radical circles in Israeli academia respected her and held her in high esteem. Indeed, Arendt never hesitated to attack official Zionism or the Israeli political establishment led by David Ben Gurion and his successors. Her courage in this respect earned her the undying hatred of the local political and media establishments which sought to turn the world famous political theorist into an object of scorn and ridicule. Important professors played a leading role in the campaign of personal vilification against Arendt. At the same time, not so paradoxically, many critical, left- wing academicians, usually of the younger generation, were attracted to Arendt and saw in her a thinker of the left or someone whose work could not be defined on the left-right axis. In fact, the ideological content of Arendt’s major work is closer to the right than to the left. The writer hopes to provide, in due course, the basis for this assertion, which exceeds the scope of this article.
The years went by. Arendt died in 1975. Meanwhile, there are almost no other serious liberal, but intensely anti-Marxist and anti-Communist thinkers of her caliber. Arendt, whose impressive intellectual talents are widely recognized, is studied and appreciated as an intellectual prophet for her generation. Thus, it transpired that Israeli academia had a serious problem. When the Israeli academicians go abroad they encounter unstinted praise and deep admiration for Hannah Arendt. But when they return to the homeland, they are reminded that she is a “hater of Zion” of the worst sort – a disloyal daughter who has turned away from the tribe.

The local establishment had to wrestle with a serious dilemma. What should be the decisive factor in determining how to relate to Arendt’s status and her influence? Is it her international “rating” or her local “rating”? The decision to hold the conference at Bar-Ilan University which is the last in a series of conferences during 2006 in Arendt’s honor gives us the answer. At Bar-Ilan, Israeli academia has surrendered shamelessly (from its own point of view) to the members of the academic left who have embraced Hannah Arendt in no small degree because of her ability to reject local chauvinism. It is the international rating that decides the issue.
This result can be explained from a different angle. The Israeli academic establishment is willing to conform to the prevailing global approach to Hannah Arendt because her status as an anti-Marxist, anti-Communist theoretician is overwhelmingly more important than her “reservations” regarding Zionism. It will turn out that the disloyal daughter is truly faithful because of her contribution to the “right side” in the battle of civilizations, a contribution that is sorely needed these days.

---

(1) The rise and fall of the New York intellectuals has been conclusively documented. See Allen Wald (1987) and Frances Stoner Saunders (2000). Irving Kristol, a leading member of the group summed it all up beautifully when he explained that for him there is no difference between the CIA and the Federal Post Office System, except for the tendency in the CIA to be blabber mouths.

The Severe Limitations of the NGO Format

Something is wrong. There are more and more organizations on the left. But this plethora of NGO’s does not seem to signify an expansion of action on the left and growing impact on society here in Israel. There are signs that there are other processes at work. The following essay can be seen as an attempt by the writer to set off a serious debate on the organizational paths of the left. (1)

The NGO Format and the Work of the Left
The writer readily admits that he is inspired by an organizational model from the not too distant past. In the broadest sense, progressive content calls for progressive forms of organization. A progressive organization is one in which the exploited, the oppressed and those who have allied themselves with their cause associate for the improvement in their situation. The first requirement is that the group must be independent vis a vis the government and the establishment and able to decide its own policy on the basis of democratic procedure. Its political goals and aims must be expressed openly and it must consider itself free to engage in any lawful activity necessary for the advancement of its declared goals. The group itself provides the main financial support for the work of the organization through dues, contributions and funding campaigns and activities aspiring to create the broadest social network of members and supporters. If it enlists support from outside sources this is done in the name of solidarity. Such support is unconditional and the donors do not presume to supervise or control the organization in any form or fashion. On the contrary, any such attempt or suggestion of control would be considered unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of the group.

This kind of organization that appears so totally utopian in the above description was commonplace in the not so distant past. It was and will be the sign of vibrancy and relevance on the left.

The left in all of its various formations and personifications suffered a serious retreat with the demise of the Soviet Union and other related phenomena. Almost, as if in a parallel development, there was an enormous proliferation of non-governmental organizations, which continues to this very day. Many people saw the appearance of the NGO movement as a satisfactory substitute for the traditional left organizations. Even those who tended to express important reservations were hard pressed to oppose the NGO phenomenon which seemed as a welcome development when so many veteran groups on the left were in a state of retreat and dispersal.

This process also occurred, of course, in Israel and in the Palestinian territories. And the NGO’s in Israel, especially those dealing with subjects and raising demands that are generally considered causes of the left, are the subject of the present inquiry.

I cannot hide my opinion that the NGO operation is a poor substitute for vibrant, fighting organizations of the left. But my skepticism does not change the fact that many fine, wonderful and progressive people who are on the left consider the NGO’s as perfectly valid tools for left wing activity. Therefore, since NGO’s will be around for quite a time and may even be considered the main vehicle for day to day progressive activity, it is time to subject the phenomenon to detailed criticism.

NGO’s: People, Money, Office…Politics
On one end of the scale there are excellent NGO’s, staffed by wonderful and devoted people, who do important work. On the other end, there are also highly problematic NGO outfits, whose output is rather insignificant; the operators have secured their own income and spend their time writing for more grants and composing reports about activities that leave no imprint on the local scene.

Any attempt to create criteria for evaluating the different NGO’s must deal with two central aspects of this kind of organization. External funding is the critical common component of all the groups. This, of course, means that none of the groups is a truly independent entity. Moreover, it is common knowledge that NGO’s are not political and not supposed to participate in politics. They do have political impact but it must be registered under some other the heading of another kind activity such as humanitarian, educational, and advocacy related problems. These limitations on independence and the scope of NGO activity tend to tend to inhibit the action of many NGO’s in times of crisis when the resources of the groups and their membership is critically needed by the community.

Criteria for Evaluating the NGO
The following criteria should be employed in any attempt to evaluate the value and effectiveness of any particular NGO. There are important conceptual and practical differences between NGO’s operating in different fields of activity, so these criteria must be applied with due caution and a readiness for revision. It is hoped that the beginnings of the discussion here will inspire a wider debate among all concerned.

Measurement Is Absolutely Necessary and Always Problematic

We shall proceed in presenting criteria which seem to us central to evaluating the functioning of any NGO group.

People: Membership, Activists, Democracy
Who are the people working out of this NGO? How many non-staff volunteers are involved in the group. Are there members and membership lists? What is the ratio between paid staff members and volunteers? Does the group chart the development of membership and members activities?

The principle that we are trying describe here is very basic:
The main, central and essential goal of the organization should be drawing unorganized individuals into the work of the group. The main work of the staff should be attracting, interesting and helping new/old volunteers carry out the work of the groups.

Membership must be real and must grant real powers in running the organization. People are drawn into the organization in order to further its goals, but they can only sense that the group is their own if they have a genuine democratic role to play in determining policy and how the group functions.

Only the constitution of a clearly-defined membership can avoid the manipulation that comes when it is not clear “who decides.” Regular general meetings of the membership must monitor the work of an elected administration and approve annual reports and [re] elect the leadership.

In summary, the NGO should be devoting its main strength to mobilizing volunteers and empowering them in the administration of the group.

Funding and Staffing
Funding is the heart of NGO activity and its main problem. Obviously, the first duty of any group is to know the identity and the reputation of the funders, since all money is not “kosher.” The next central question is the relation between salaries and operating expenses. If the whole or almost the whole of the budget goes on salaries, then it is obvious that very little efficient work is actually being done. Here, I make the assumption that there is usually a sharp and clear distinction between internal work and work in the field. Simply said, every sustained effort outside of the office is “work in the field” and most of the expenses and most of the time of paid staff and volunteers must be in the field.

The group that wants to believe in its mission should be able to contemplate its continued existence without the bulk of its current funding. The organization should of course work seriously on generating its funds from the conventional sources abroad. But the group must recognize the ever present danger that the means become the goal, and it is the scramble for outside funding which justifies and perpetuates the existence of the organization. Moral and spiritual independence requires of the membership a determination to reach and maintain a modicum of financial and political independence. This spirit is the main guarantee of the group’s ability to transform itself in the face of different circumstances. The central conclusion is that any group worthy of its existence should be devoting serious efforts to local fundraising and covering some part of its budget from “internal sources.” In this respect, it is worth observing that there are many progressive middle class, affluent and even relatively wealthy people who could support progressive activity in the country. It seems that in some ways, the local NGO’s are influenced by the local Israeli mentality which has been conditioned to look abroad for funding without ever looking into its own pockets.

It goes without saying that all financial operations be subject to the most stringent version of regular accounting procedures. The group and its members must be guided by the principle that public funds are sacred and should be treated with a sense of respect.

Is there a policy regarding staffing. One of the danger signals is the existence of one or two “big chiefs” for whom the NGO has become a personal power base. These may be and are usually talented and devoted individuals with a record of devoted service to the goals of the left. But the very fact that it is clear to all concerned that everything rises and falls on the “big chief” means that the NGO is sacrificing, as it were, democracy and values to so-called efficiency. The NGO is usually structured as to become a stronghold for forceful individuals. The problem is that sooner or later this imbalance dis-empowers all others connected to the group. Indeed there is a danger that the NGO reproduces completely (or almost completely) the values and the mechanisms of the society which it is challenging in one form or another. Therefore, policies regarding staff positions, remuneration, work conditions and hiring-firing policies must be declared openly as a basis for the group’s operation.

The Non-NGO’s
It is worth mentioning that even in the period when most groups on the left are NGO’s, the left’s most impressive achievements of come out of groups which are not NGO’s. Women in Black, Yesh Gvul, Ta’ayush, Anarchists Against the Wall, Machsom Watch and the Refusenik movement chose to ignore the “convenience” and the advantages of the NGO’s format. After all is said and done, it is spontaneous moral urgency which is the best motivation for action. The existence of an “office and a staff” and connection with an overseas funding operation, are often an impediment to action.

The Media – Ah, the Media
In a world, where the measurement of effectiveness is indeed difficult and problematic, there is a tendency to over emphasize the importance of media coverage. There is something very ephemeral and even mystifying in counting lines in the press, or seconds on television as proof of effective activity. The point is not that these outlets are not important, but that they can be deceiving and act as a substitute for real action and activity. The tremendous expansion of media outlets has led to a major devaluation in such coverage. Moreover, successful and thoughtful action by the organization can generate coverage without ignoring the most important organizational questions: the educational value, the sense of empowerment, the activization of more and new people.

Respect and Self-Criticism
The writer realizes that he has not dealt with all the important aspects of the question on hand. He also wishes to stress that many devoted and capable people on the left are involved, as a result of circumstances, in NGO work. However, there is also a real danger that for generations to come, the NGO format will appear to be the main or exclusive format for the left’s action. This was and is not true and the main purpose of this article is to remind us that autonomous, independent, politically informed membership-based organization is not a thing of the past, but the hope for the future.

---

(1) The reader is directed to “The Emergence of a Palestinian Globalized Elite”, Sari Hanafi and Linda Tabar, Muwatin, Jerusalem 2005. See also an important article by Arundhati Roy, Le Monde Diplomatique, March 2006 on problems and limits of NGO’s in third world settings