The Origins of Totalitarianism 2
Nov. 4th, 2017 08:50 pmI read Chapter Six, "Race-thinking Before Racism", which describes the development of racism as a philosophy or "science" at the end of the Nineteenth Century. Opinions about race predated this, of course, but now racism became an ideology.
Two ideologies have "essentially defeated" the rest, writes Arendt: "the ideology which interprets history as an economic struggle of classes, and the other that interprets history as a natural fight of races." Both have been adopted by states, by intellectuals, and by the masses. Why do ideologies persuade? Not because of science or history. "Every full-fledged ideology has been created, continued and improved as a political weapon and not as a theoretical doctrine." For example, Arendt points to how the idea of progress guided late Nineteenth Century scientific thought, rather than being a product of scientific research. "The blame is not to be laid on any science as such, but rather on certain scientists who were no less hypnotized by ideologies than their fellow citizens."
In the early Nineteenth Century, this ideology was the attempt of "certain nationalists who wanted the union of all German-speaking peoples and therefore insisted on a common origin." IIUC this was a flop, so there was a switch from language to what we'd call genetics, a "naturalistic appeal... which addressed itself to tribal instincts". All Germans were related by blood, and were of "pure, unmixed stock". At this stage, though, it's only the precursor of racism: there are supposedly separate "races", but they're still equal.
In France, by contrast, the idea was that the French aristocracy descended from the rightful conquerors and were a different "race" to their inferiors. Eventually one such aristocrat, Arthur de Gobineau, puts forward the view that the aristocracy is doomed, and so are Western civilisation and humanity itself; this is "due to a degeneration of race and the decay of race is due to a mixture of blood. This implies that in every mixture the lower race is always dominant." (The Victorian fiction I've read is nervous as hell about this.) What to do? eugenics, of course.
(What an unpleasant thing to realise that the Ernst Haeckel who did those bewitching biology illustrations was also a raving racist.)
In conclusion, Arendt remarks: "It is highly probable that the thinking in terms of race would have disappeared in due time together with other irresponsible opinions of the nineteenth century, if the 'scramble for Africa' and the new era of imperialism had not exposed Western humanity to new and shocking experiences. Imperialism would have necessitated the invention of racism as the only possible 'explanation' and excuse for its deeds, even if no race-thinking had ever existed in the civilized world. Since, however, race-thinking did exist, it proved to be a powerful help to racism."
Two ideologies have "essentially defeated" the rest, writes Arendt: "the ideology which interprets history as an economic struggle of classes, and the other that interprets history as a natural fight of races." Both have been adopted by states, by intellectuals, and by the masses. Why do ideologies persuade? Not because of science or history. "Every full-fledged ideology has been created, continued and improved as a political weapon and not as a theoretical doctrine." For example, Arendt points to how the idea of progress guided late Nineteenth Century scientific thought, rather than being a product of scientific research. "The blame is not to be laid on any science as such, but rather on certain scientists who were no less hypnotized by ideologies than their fellow citizens."
In the early Nineteenth Century, this ideology was the attempt of "certain nationalists who wanted the union of all German-speaking peoples and therefore insisted on a common origin." IIUC this was a flop, so there was a switch from language to what we'd call genetics, a "naturalistic appeal... which addressed itself to tribal instincts". All Germans were related by blood, and were of "pure, unmixed stock". At this stage, though, it's only the precursor of racism: there are supposedly separate "races", but they're still equal.
In France, by contrast, the idea was that the French aristocracy descended from the rightful conquerors and were a different "race" to their inferiors. Eventually one such aristocrat, Arthur de Gobineau, puts forward the view that the aristocracy is doomed, and so are Western civilisation and humanity itself; this is "due to a degeneration of race and the decay of race is due to a mixture of blood. This implies that in every mixture the lower race is always dominant." (The Victorian fiction I've read is nervous as hell about this.) What to do? eugenics, of course.
(What an unpleasant thing to realise that the Ernst Haeckel who did those bewitching biology illustrations was also a raving racist.)
In conclusion, Arendt remarks: "It is highly probable that the thinking in terms of race would have disappeared in due time together with other irresponsible opinions of the nineteenth century, if the 'scramble for Africa' and the new era of imperialism had not exposed Western humanity to new and shocking experiences. Imperialism would have necessitated the invention of racism as the only possible 'explanation' and excuse for its deeds, even if no race-thinking had ever existed in the civilized world. Since, however, race-thinking did exist, it proved to be a powerful help to racism."