Seminar Paper

Totalitarianism

Chapter 13: Ideology and Terror: A New Form of Government

The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt

Totalitarian governments strive for omnipotence, a means by which they can assert their own ideologies and models for the future upon a nation. Garnering support and realising control is achieved through an elaborate process. Gathering a substantial following is tantamount to the instigation of a successful totalitarian autocracy. Hannah Arendt considers how a population could knowingly opt to join a totalitarian state and how they are influenced.

If we consider the Nazi’s rise to political power; it is evident that many peripheral factors contributed to a peoples forsaking of a democratic Government and a shifting of their allegiances. Hitler’s cynicism echoed that of most of the nation, fed up with a weak constitution, bitter about the First World War and suffering from severe economic conditions. The beleaguered people become impressionable; seeking a new leadership, bringing with it a new set of values. But for the population to adopt such a repressive and dictatorial change they must be moulded. The classes must become the masses; furthermore obedience amongst the masses must reign supreme. Individualism must be yielded from the people and replaced with universal thinking and a ubiquitous identity.

Arendt alludes to two ways in which this is achieved. ‘State terror’; the essence of fear being created by the state, a comparative example of this is exemplified in capital punishment; people refrain from committing an act of crime through fear of extreme repercussions. The idea of state terror is to eliminate, not just the act, but even the thought of a defiant act. Secondly, the totalitarian ideology is imparted to the masses, convincing people of an escape from the burdensome constraints of conscience and common sense or as Arendt puts it ‘a suicidal escape from reality’. It entails the loss of the individual self and the ability to fully reason with one’s self; ultimately becoming ‘one man’ with the masses and part of a universal self. Subsequently, a human’s actions will not be ‘free’; opposition, sympathy and spontaneity will all be repressed, facilitating people to carry out heinous actions.

It seems incomprehensible that numerous amounts of ordinary people can lose their individualism and morality and conform to a totalitarian state. A Freudian model would claim that the irrationality of man combined with the manifestation of the aggression we suppress could be a justification for committing immoral acts. Deplorable economic or social conditions can lead to helplessness and vulnerability, rendering people very impressionable. Hitler used this malleability to manipulate and control. The successful suppression of reason, morality and conscience could be generated by scaremongering, terror and propaganda by the state.

Another idea as to why ordinary people committed atrocities with such banality was deduced from experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram. He concluded that under pressure and under the the weight of authority, people act out of character and transgress their typical boundaries just to remain obedient. This striking obedience may indicate the subject projecting their responsibility onto someone else, namely the authoritarian. This theory could again be applied to Nazi Germany, but on a larger scale; an entire nation passing the responsibility of their actions to the state. 

Once mass cooperation has been achieved, what do totalitarian states intend to accomplish? Totalitarian states disregard the iuris consensus, the subjective rights of man, with the claim of making man the embodiment of the law. Totalitarian regimes therefore attempt to make every man an unfailing, faultless character of the law; unlike with the existing social contracts we are accustomed to, for example in the United Kingdom, whereby people are passively and reluctantly subjected to the law.

Positive laws are replaced by ‘total terror’. Fear of death or other repercussions leaves people powerless and renders a state independent of all opposition. With this omnipotence, the state can work towards its primary endeavours. Nazism’s objective was to produce a Germanic master race. This involved the accelerating of the movement of natural laws to a speed they would never reach independent of human intervention. Darwinistic fundamentals state that we continue to evolve into aesthetically and biologically stronger beings and that the weak will perish in a struggle of ‘survival of the fittest’. It is a belief of totalitarians that inferior, weaker beings and races delay and hinder this necessary process. Totalitarianism asserts that accelerating natural selection eliminates individuals for the sake of an entire species and that we must sacrifice ‘parts’ for the sake of the ‘whole’; parts that nature has already pronounced a death sentence for.

Arendt counters this by saying if we defy nature and eliminate everything deemed unfit to live; it will consequently be the ‘end of nature itself’. She says we cannot use the laws of nature or history as they are not ‘stabilizing sources of authority’ and that ‘man is a source unto himself’. The line between man and law, and legality and justice are very indistinct. The totalitarian rejection of positive laws and the implementation of total terror defy the voice of conscience. The apparent execution of the laws of nature do not consider right and wrong and are not representative of a social contract common to the sentiment of all men.

Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud was a deeply inspired man, living in repressed times. His surroundings and personal alienation lead to his macabre theories. He witnessed both WWI and the Great Depression, the indelible influence of these hard times permeate his discourse.

            Freud was well versed in the work of other philosophical scholars, but was cynical about much of their work, notably he challenged the Enlightenment scholars. His deep pessimism and dark vision of humanity lead him to believe it was impossible for humanity to ever discover and understand the extent of the universe. He alleged that the sub-conscious controlled humankind, therefore making development and progress impossible.  

            Although Freud attacked the content of Plato’s tripartite self, he valued the concept and utilised it to create the ‘Freudian Personality’.

The first part of Freud’s personality was the ‘Id’. The Id is the dominant,

demanding division of the tripartite. It is the amalgamation of sex and aggression, seeking only to gain pleasure and avoid pain. The malevolent and insatiable Id has been ominously described as the ‘reservoir of the unconscious’ and a ‘cauldron of seething excitations’.

            The Id relentlessly besieges what is known as the ‘Ego’ or ‘Self’. This is the voice of reality and reason; endeavouring to placate and gratify the incessant demands of the Id.

            From the ‘Ego’ stems the ‘Superego’. This is the ‘impossible standard of perfection’ we strive for; we impart idealistic social appropriations based around structures, standards and morality to the superego; hence this acts as the ‘policeman in our heads’. An individual’s superego can also be governed by the ideologies of religion. Powerful teachings such as ‘Love your Enemy’ can cause internal conflict between Id and superego. As a consequence of falling short of the ‘impossible standard of perfection’ the superego punishes with guilt.

            Freudian Philosophy, like much modernist art and writings was dark and cynical in its approach. He supported this cynicism by defining his personal reasoning for it. Freud’s ideas are centred on the ‘irrationality’ of man, this is tantamount to Freud’s pessimism; he believes this irrationality makes man just inclined to hurt one another. He says this combined with our constantly decaying bodies, bad fortune and human interaction justify his pessimism. He asserts that our subconscious effectively controls us, but we live under the guise of a ‘collective superego’. His views have echoes of Rembrandt; whose work invariably portrayed a glimpse of light surrounded by blackness and overshadowing.    

            Freud noted ways in which man could cope with the Id’s insatiability. Sublimation of bodily urges can be attained by focusing attention onto something such as sport or work, although this is a mild solution. Less recommended methods such as intoxication (something Freud engaged in frequently, being a notable cocaine user) and isolation; the alienating yourself from society. The latter method is something that appealed to Freud and it alludes to his philosophy that ‘hell is other people’.

            Freud conducted his ‘psychoanalysis’ through various methods. He used hypnosis as well as free association. This allowed people to talk freely without any influence from the analyst; Freud believed this was key to uncovering the subconscious. In addition to this he also asserted that dreams were fundamental to the understanding of the ID. He believed dreams were a method of ‘wish fulfilment’ and each had intrinsic sexual connotation. Dreams working as a manifestation of the ID can help to sublimate the ID’s dominance.

            Freud was a contentious psychologist and has had many critics since. Many proclaimed Freud as a charlatan and a plagiarist, claiming his idea were falsified, stolen or lacked a scientific basis. William Reich’s criticisms denounced Freud’s doomy outlook, claiming humans were innately good and sex was key to good human nature.         

William Randolph Hearst 1863-1951

The influence of William Randolph Hearst on the modern newspaper model is indelible. His first acquisition was the ‘San Francisco Examiner’, passed to Hearst by his affluent father, George. He used this as an outlet for experimenting with sensationalisation and to develop an understanding of public responses and gratification to the media.

Using the knowledge and experience he gained he moved to New York in an endeavour to expand his audience; here he purchased the decaying ‘New York Morning Journal’. He was able to do this by using his deceased father’s money. The inheritance also secured him access to executive and renowned journalists, some of which he poached from rival newspaper ‘The World’, owned by his former mentor, ‘Joseph Pulitzer’.

Hearst’s contentious biographic ‘Citizen Kane’, demonstrates Hearst’s resoluteness; ‘I’ve got to make the New York Enquirer as important to New York as the gas in that light.’ He became an infamous public figure, stigmatised by the administration and much of the general public owing to his yellow journalistic tactics. However, Hearst’s own brand of yellow journalism instigated the birth of the mass media as we know it today. His influence is evident daily, exemplified within every tabloid newspaper. Orson Wells articulates, ‘Hearst published the gossip columns; he practically invented them!’

Hearst allied himself with the Cuban insurgents during the Cuban Revolution of 1895. A smear campaign against the Spanish was implemented to garner public support. This type of biased journalism is still prevalent today, demonstrated in practices such as political persuasion.

Hearst led a very rich, fanciful life, his personal life and business life was as much interest to the public as regular news. Citizen Kane states that, ‘To forty-four million U.S. news buyers, more newsworthy in his own headlines, was Kane himself, greatest newspaper tycoon of this or any other generation’. Hearst’s relationship with the film was less than harmonious; he saw it as a defamation of his and his second wives characters. He sought to have the film destroyed, but instead it went on to have a vast advertising campaign and become one of the all-time great films. Hearst ensured he had no part in this though; banning the mentioning of the film in all of his publications.

Hearst’s ambitions lead him to acquire numerous other daily and Sunday newspapers, expanding his monopoly throughout the United States. The ‘Hearst Corp.’ was established, and as well as newspapers, Hearst acquired magazines, movie newsreels and radio; as well as a stint in politics. 

Seminar Paper

Analysis of J’Accuse- A Letter to Mr Félix Faure, President of the Republic

Émile Zola

In 1898 journalist Emile Zola, risked his livelihood, career and possibly his life when he wrote the influential and subversive ‘J’Accuse’. He was writing in protest against the injustices of what is known as the ‘Dreyfus Affair’. His article permeated the mainstream media and was widely known across the continent, with most people having an opinion in alignment with their political persuasion. This demonstrates how the printed media disseminated extensively, and the effect and persuasiveness it could have.  Zola outlined all the people culpable for the miscarriage of justice to the detriment of the right-wing administration. He was stigmatised into a figure of hate by anti-sematic, right-wing supporters and the French Military. He was tried for libel and defamation of character, subsequently fined and given a prison sentence, but instead he fled to London.

            Such injustices are characteristic of the power of the intellectual, as opposed to the hegemony of the state. Zola’s pursuit was in the interest not only of justice, but of humanism. He states, ‘My nights would be haunted by the specter of innocence that suffer there, through the most dreadful of tortures, for a crime it did not commit.’ In totalitarian fashion and by means of continuing to cover their tracks, Zola was persecuted. The persecution of Zola for confronting the military command and Dreyfus’ inexplicable victimisation demonstrate the power of the French administration; they were able to initially, without opposition, frame and punish an innocent man without providing any evidence at the Court Marshall.

There is a tangible link between this and present day government. The same incongruous reasoning is presented in many terrorism cases; that the exhibition of any evidence would be a threat to national security. This effectively sanctions the state to withhold information, which invariably should be freely available. This can be seen in a recent quote from Barack Obama referencing the release of photographs showing the body of Osama Bin Laden, he said “given the graphic nature of these photos it would create a national security risk”2qr

            Zola openly condemns anti-Semitism, one of the most prolific antagonisms to shape history. He denounces this discrimination when he says, ‘the hunting for the "dirty Jews", which dishonours our time.’

            The hatred for the Jewish community in right-wing France in the late nineteenth century is comparable to and a likely pre cursor to the Nazi Parties Final Solution. The French administrations were notorious for scapegoating Jews. Under the rule of Napoleon III, the French were defeated, captured and humiliated by the Prussians at the Battle of Sedan in 1871. To avoid the degradation of accepting his prestigious and illustrious army had been overwhelmed by Prussian forces, a conspiracy theory pertaining to a Jewish syndicate was used as a scapegoat. Anti-Semitism towards the top of the French military hierarchy was also rife. Zola notes that Major Picquart re-opened the case and pleaded with his superior Dreyfus’ innocence, but was unsympathetically denounced. The superior dismissed, ‘What is it to you if a Jew rots on Devil’s Island’.

            Zola was not shy in attacking the integrity of the French military command, he writes, ‘Here for a year General Billot, General De Boisdeffre and General Gonse have known that Dreyfus is innocent, and they kept this appalling thing to themselves! And these people sleep at night’. This attack on the truthfulness of the administration has modern day implications. It can be associated with the undisclosed information about civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, revealed to the general public through Wikileaks. This is also demonstrated in the concealment of the mistreatment of prisoners of war, for example at Guantanamo Bay.

The genuine perpetrator, supplying French intelligence to the Germans, was Commander Esterhazy. The military were keen to keep Dreyfus on Devil’s Island; Intelligence Services even coached Esterhazy on how to lie in court, as well as co-conspiring with handwriting experts to secure Dreyfus’ conviction. The underlying connotations are that people in power potentially have control and authority beyond public awareness.

            The cover ups and co-conspiring in the ‘Dreyfus Affair’ has left an indelible influence upon Western society. Conspiracy theories are endemic; most discerning people will perceive stories as incredulous until concrete evidence is provided. This is epitomised in the recent shooting of Osama Bin Laden, the US Government’s reluctance to release photographic evidence has left uncertainty in many people’s mind.  

            Despite evident miscarriages of justice, the ‘Dreyfus Affair’ did not serve to unify people. It reinforced the divisiveness between the right and left wing parties and their supporters. Zola was exceptionally courageous writing; ‘I am not unaware of subjecting myself to articles 30 and 31 of the press law of July 29, 1881, which punishes the offense of slander. And it is voluntarily that I expose myself’. This shows the power of the individual and the impact far-left socialism can have upon a right-wing administration as well as the effect the media can have upon the spread of information and opinion.  

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau’s romantic ideologies were largely based around the divinity and purity of nature. He was fascinated by all things natural, from the sound of waves, the grandeur of mountains and the beauty of animals. He believed nature alleviated anxieties and engendered a ‘sense of being’.  The innocence and wholesomeness he bestowed upon nature, he extended to man.  This likening was based upon the notion of the natural or primitive man; a man uncorrupted by civilisation and unalienated by fashion or social standards. This also inspired Rousseau’s controversial condemnation of scientific progression, intimating that it detracts from our human connection with the natural world. 

He expanded upon the thoughts of preceding philosophers when he discussed the ‘state of nature’; a hypothetical idea of humanity before any governance, where man was primitive and one with nature. Rousseau acknowledges this may never have existed, also that it would be implausible to regress to such a state. He asserts that in the ‘state of nature’, men were virtuous and untainted. He wrote ‘man is born free, but forever in chains’. Here he insinuates our passion, emotions and self-esteem are suppressed and extinguished by corporation and civilisation. 

This regressive ideology was criticized by some academics, such as Voltaire, an Enlightenment scholar, he wrote of Rousseau, ‘No one has used such intelligence to persuade us to be stupid. After reading your book one feels as if one should walk on all fours’.

Alongside John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau was a figurehead of contractarianism, outlining a theoretical model, detailing the extent of governmental powers, as well as the rights of civilians and their relationship with the administration. Rousseau’s ambitious utopia, detailed in the ‘General Will’, was based around the ideal of direct democracy. It is a unanimously agreed set of rules amongst the people. The ‘General Will’ is democratic in that if civilians unanimously disagree it cannot be enforced by a monarch or superior power; in turn Rousseau believed this was representative of freedom.

Parallels can be drawn with John Locke’s Social Contract. He, like Rousseau, asserted that the hegemony should lie with the people. He wrote the purpose of the government should be to settle small disagreements and land disputes. Locke’s liberality only extended to the private sphere, unlike Rousseau who didn’t differentiate between the two. Locke’s principals of ‘life, liberty and property’ are largely analogous with Rousseau’s ideologies, but Rousseau opposed the concept of ownership.

Rousseau’s influence on the French Revolution is incalculable. The Storming of the Bastille in 1879 was the manifestation of the breaking of Rousseau’s metaphorical chains. The deplorable economic situation bought about widespread poverty. The ‘Divine Right of Kings’ was still in operation giving the monarchy omnipotence over the common man. The revolt against the oppression of the higher powers demonstrated Rousseau’s ideologies in action or as William Wordsworth put it, the idea of the ‘natural man in practice’.