Nine-slide THREAD for my academic friends and anyone who has drawn inspiration from the writings of Hannah Arendt, one of the great intellectuals of the 20th century and an influence on scholars in a broad range of disciplines. Best known for her writings on totalitarianism... 1/
One of Arendt's signature moves was to take two terms closely related, which could even be confused for one another, and draw a striking distinction between them. An example is her distinction between "action" and "behavior." In common usage they could almost be synonymous. 2/
"His actions are inexplicable" vs. "His behavior was inexplicable." See what I mean? The two terms do almost the same work. But not quite. Arendt saw that little crack between them as writerly opportunity. And she went on to draw a key distinction between action and behavior. 3/
Arendt defined "action" as starting something, beginning a new chapter, striking out in a different direction, originating, inventing... whereas "behavior" was conforming to type, doing what most people do, meeting expectations, obeying the law of averages. As in behavior-ism. 4/
Bureaucracy — the rule by nobody, she called it — asked of us to behave. Democracy made it possible for us to act. This was the payoff of Arendt's distinction. 5/
As a graduate student, I was obsessed with Hannah Arendt. (You will have to trust me when I say: this is a common condition among grad students in many fields.) And of course we learn by imitating our heroes. 6/
Her method again: take two words that were closely related, sometimes used interchangeably, and pry them apart so that they suddenly felt almost like opposites. This would open white space between the newly opposed terms, on which she could inscribe original thoughts. 6/
Why am I telling you this? Well, my latest post tries to do that. Title: "You cannot keep from getting swept up in Trump’s agenda without a firm grasp on your own." It takes two terms, "political" and "politicized" and draws a distinction between them. 7/ pressthink.org/2020/05/you-ca…
The post then repeats and refines this distinction across several examples:
"Encouraging participation is a political act. But as long as it includes all parties and all voters, election coverage that is shamelessly pro-participation does not unfairly politicize the press..." 8/
"Encouraging participation is a political act. But as long as it includes all parties and all voters, election coverage that is shamelessly pro-participation does not unfairly politicize the press..." 8/
All of which is just a long way of saying: I hope you will read it, and perhaps detect her ghostly — but entirely welcome — influence. pressthink.org/2020/05/you-ca… 9/ END
