HannahArendt.net (E-Journal)
Not a member yet
420 research outputs found
Sort by
The Human Condition Today. Workshop at Tilburg University, Netherlands, 27 November 2019
No full text-
Hannah Arendt, The Modern Challenge to Tradition. Fragmente eines Buchs. Hannah Arendt, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Druck und Digital, hrsg. von Barbara Hahn, Hermann Kappelhoff, Patchen Markell, Ingeborg Nordmann und Thomas Wild, Bd. 6. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2018, 923 pp.
Get PDF---
„Social Isolation Incubates Personal Solidarity.“
Get PDFWir veröffentlichen hier ein Gespräch, das Roger Berkowitz und Jerome Kohn am 14. April 2020 führten, im Rahmen des Podcast „Looking in the Mirror“ (organisiert vom Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities am Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA). Das im Internet live verbreitete Gespräch wurde transkribiert und uns in einer von Jerome Kohn überarbeiteten Fassung dankenswerterweise zur Verfügung gestellt . – Red.Wir veröffentlichen hier ein Gespräch, das Roger Berkowitz und Jerome Kohn am 14. April 2020 führten, im Rahmen des Podcast „Looking in the Mirror“ (organisiert vom Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities am Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, USA). Das im Internet live verbreitete Gespräch wurde transkribiert und uns in einer von Jerome Kohn überarbeiteten Fassung dankenswerterweise zur Verfügung gestellt . – Red
Resisting Hyper-Partisan Silencing: Arendt on Political Persuasion through Exemplification and Truth-Telling as Action
Get PDFA central frustration of recent political discourse is the consistent reduction of politically relevant factual and critical speech to mere expression of partisan commitment. Partisans of “the other side”—members of the other tribe—are viewed as de facto wrong, because partisans, even when their speech invokes mere facts or purportedly shared political principles. Ideally, democratic political discourse operates along at least two central dimensions: a dimension of shared factual, historical, and political assumptions, and a more contested dimension of interpretation, prioritization, and evaluation that results in diverse and often competing understandings of what is good, and so of what is best to collectively pursue. Debates among advocates of competing conceptions of the good and partisans of diverse world views identifiable in terms of the second dimension are, on this picture, constrained and grounded by the shared factual and political commitments of the first, thus ensuring a meaningful basis for ongoing political engagement. While there is little reason to think this ideal has ever been perfectly realized, in recent political discourse statements that events have occurred, drugs are effective, or transparency is important in political conduct cannot seem to get uptake except as mere expressions of political partisanship any more than an actor on stage trying to convince her audience of the danger of a real fire that has broken out in the theater can get uptake for this claim except as an expression in a theatrical performance. In both cases, the real content and discursive intent of speech is undermined by the context in which it occurs. In the case of the actor on stage, the appropriate rules for uptake and interpretation are being followed, just to unfortunate effect. However, in the case of political discourse something seems to be wrong with the rules for uptake and interpretation that have come to dominate in many quarters. This essay relies on recent discussions of silencing and epistemic injustice to introduce the ideas of partisan silencing and hyper-partisan silencing in an attempt to say more precisely what has gone wrong with the rules for uptake and interpretation in political discourse. It then relies on Hannah Arendt’s analyses of truth and lies in politics to connect these phenomena to underlying features of political action and speech. Conditions of partisan and hyper-partisan silencing turn out to be a natural, if not inevitable, consequence of the relationship of truth-telling and deception to political action itself as Arendt understands this. Finally, the essay elaborates on two suggestive passages from Arendt’s 1967 essay “Truth and Politics” to propose potential strategies for resisting conditions of hyper-partisan silencing. Because hyper-partisan silencing itself imposes a certain discursive logic, there are kinds of political speech and action that might succeed in being understood as sincere and so in being persuasive—even in the face of hyper-partisan silencing—precisely because they challenge the assumptions that underpin this discursive logic itself.A central frustration of recent political discourse is the consistent reduction of politically relevant factual and critical speech to mere expression of partisan commitment. Partisans of “the other side”—members of the other tribe—are viewed as de facto wrong, because partisans, even when their speech invokes mere facts or purportedly shared political principles. Ideally, democratic political discourse operates along at least two central dimensions: a dimension of shared factual, historical, and political assumptions, and a more contested dimension of interpretation, prioritization, and evaluation that results in diverse and often competing understandings of what is good, and so of what is best to collectively pursue. Debates among advocates of competing conceptions of the good and partisans of diverse world views identifiable in terms of the second dimension are, on this picture, constrained and grounded by the shared factual and political commitments of the first, thus ensuring a meaningful basis for ongoing political engagement. While there is little reason to think this ideal has ever been perfectly realized, in recent political discourse statements that events have occurred, drugs are effective, or transparency is important in political conduct cannot seem to get uptake except as mere expressions of political partisanship any more than an actor on stage trying to convince her audience of the danger of a real fire that has broken out in the theater can get uptake for this claim except as an expression in a theatrical performance. In both cases, the real content and discursive intent of speech is undermined by the context in which it occurs. In the case of the actor on stage, the appropriate rules for uptake and interpretation are being followed, just to unfortunate effect. However, in the case of political discourse something seems to be wrong with the rules for uptake and interpretation that have come to dominate in many quarters. This essay relies on recent discussions of silencing and epistemic injustice to introduce the ideas of partisan silencing and hyper-partisan silencing in an attempt to say more precisely what has gone wrong with the rules for uptake and interpretation in political discourse. It then relies on Hannah Arendt’s analyses of truth and lies in politics to connect these phenomena to underlying features of political action and speech. Conditions of partisan and hyper-partisan silencing turn out to be a natural, if not inevitable, consequence of the relationship of truth-telling and deception to political action itself as Arendt understands this. Finally, the essay elaborates on two suggestive passages from Arendt’s 1967 essay “Truth and Politics” to propose potential strategies for resisting conditions of hyper-partisan silencing. Because hyper-partisan silencing itself imposes a certain discursive logic, there are kinds of political speech and action that might succeed in being understood as sincere and so in being persuasive—even in the face of hyper-partisan silencing—precisely because they challenge the assumptions that underpin this discursive logic itself
Hannah Arendt, Beiträge beim Podiums-Gespräch „Legitimität der Lüge in der Politik“ in Düsseldorf am 29. Mai 1975
No full textDie Veranstaltung zu dem o. g. Thema wurde von Hans-Friedrich Hölters geleitet, Gesprächspartner waren neben Hannah Arendt der Publizist und Schriftsteller Sebastian Haffner sowie Bernhard Vogel, seinerzeit Kultusminister in Rheinland-Pfalz. Das Gespräch wurde auf Tonband aufgenommen. Adelbert Reif hat es transkribiert, redigiert und in dem von ihm herausgegebenen Band Gespräche mit Hannah Arendt (München: Piper [Serie Piper], 1976, S. 101-126), veröffentlicht. Da Reif sich die Veröffentlichung weder von Hannah Arendt noch nach deren Tod (4. Dezember 1975) von deren literarischer Nachlassverwalterin Mary McCarthy hatte autorisieren lassen, musste der Band nach einer ersten Auslieferung vom Markt genommen werden. Deshalb sind Arendts Gesprächsbeiträge bisher wenig bekannt. Wir veröffentlichen sie hier mit freundlicher Genehmigung des Hannah Arendt-Bluecher Literary Trust in der von Reif herausgegebenen Fassung
