Viktor Klemperer was Jewish, and married to a woman not categorized as Jewish by the Nazi laws. He kept a diary during the Nazi era, and wrote a book called The Language of the Third Reich. It’s an interesting book especially in light of Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt’s argument is often misrepresented (it’s one of those books more referred to than read). One of the most interesting aspects of her observations is that Eichmann didn’t think about what he was doing—ever. She wasn’t defending him by making that observation, nor by pointing out that his level of antisemitism was pretty much the norm. She was pointing out that a common understanding of evil—a person who intends to do what they themselves believe to be evil, and who does so out of pathological hatred for others—isn’t useful for a world where evil actions might be the result of careerism, a desire to fit in, and, most important, thoughtlessness. That is, just not really being open to thinking about one’s actions from the perspective of others.
The distinction is between evil as an issue of intent and an issue of actions. She never defended Eichmann, nor argued that what he did was not evil. But, people committed to restricting evil to intention (not just intending to do something, but intending to do something one believes to be evil) get very, very angry at the idea that we might do evil without intending to do so. (My crank theory is that it has to do with notions about sin.)
[As an aside, I’ll mention that this is the same line of argument that many people have about racism, especially systemic, cultural, unconscious, or implicit racism. They see racism as a sin, and sin as something for which a person will be held accountable. And they believe that one should only be held accountable for deliberate decisions. So, they insist that there can’t be any such thing as racism coming from thoughtlessness.]
But back to Eichmann. Important to Arendt’s observation is that Eichmann’s use of language helped him not to think. Fifteen years later he was still using the euphemisms Nazis employed to obscure what they were doing, to enable people not to think about it. And that’s one of the points that Klemperer makes about Nazi language (it’s a great book, and I highly recommend it).
It wasn’t just the language of course, but also the propaganda that also reinforced the general message: have faith in Hitler, and dismiss any information that might be disloyal to him. Don’t even think about it. What this meant, as Klemperer says, is that people with whom he’d been friends for years were committed to not thinking about what Hitler’s policies meant to people like Klemperer. Klemperer describes trying to talk to a longtime friend who is so thrilled with the new Germany that she cannot think about what his policies really involve, with what is actually happening. When Klemperer brings up concerns, she says that Klemperer is overreacting:
You are allowing yourself to get upset at this moment, and allowing yourself to be distracted from what really matters by minor embarrassments and blemishes which can scarcely be avoided during periods of such radical change. In no time at all you will judge things quite differently. (98)
A few months later, she has completely converted to unshakeable faith in Hitler, and to not holding him accountable, or even constrained. And she has come to talk like a Nazi. (Ryan Skinnell has a great discussion of this interaction in his forthcoming book.) Something similar happens with a friend that Klemperer calls “T.” Klemperer realizes that T. has become a Hitler faithful when T. uses the term Strafexpedition, which Klemperer recognizes as a term from the genocidal war against the Herero and Nama (for more on this, see The Kaiser’s Holocaust).
These stories of Klemperer stick with me because it’s a powerful and troubling description of watching people choosing, moment by moment, word by word, and act by act, to stop thinking about what they’re doing from any perspective other than fanatical faith in a leader who cannot be constrained, held accountable, or held to the same standards as others. It’s like a horror movie when you want to scream, “Don’t go in the basement!”
Thoughtlessness, as Arendt insists over and over, has nothing to do with intelligence, and thinking isn’t the same as believing, justifying, defending, or explaining. Nor is it either empathy or sympathy. It is trying to look at one’s own thoughts from outside of them (Hartouni has a great description, especially 74-77). It is thinking about one’s thinking.
Arendt was a very smart and very well-read woman, and I fully believe that she was able to think about her thinking (as is shown by her often changing her stance on things), but it’s hard for most of us without some kind of direct contact with other points of view. That’s what Klemperer did. That’s what a lot of people can’t do. It’s what neither T. nor Paula could do.
And I’ve yet to meet a Trump supporters who can.
Like Paula, they rely on what their ingroup media tells them Other people think, desire, advocate, and do. And they refuse to look at any information that might complicated their faith. Like Paula, they dismiss incidents and actions as “minor” or “exaggerated” or “distractions.”
That’s what really worries me about them. And it’s why I often suggest sharing media with sources cited that can be checked if you have Trump supporters in your world. It may be seeds over a wall, but it also might be a chip in the wall itself.