The Human Condition (5): Action

The related activities of speech and action represent to Hannah Arendt a vital yet rarely understood human capacity. The basic condition of both speech and action is human plurality, which has “the twofold character of equality and distinction” – that is, we are equal in status, yet quite distinct from one another. We do not share identical needs and wants, and thus we must communicate among ourselves in order to determine what action to take. Whereas labour and work are both possible in isolation, action (in Arendt’s terms) is not: “to be isolated is to be deprived of the capacity to act.” 

The capacity to take action comes from power, which in Arendt’s terms is generated by “the living together of people”. Indeed, she saw power as the means that maintained the public realm, where politics occur. As a result of this viewpoint, Arendt sees tyranny as preventing the development of power – the dictator maintains their position by stopping the people from exercising their power, by substituting violence for genuine power. Power – political power – is what is generated when people choose to take action together.

One of the key problems that Arendt sees as a squandering of our collective power to act is what she terms the substitution of making for acting. Ends and means, she contends, are meaningful in the context of work, of fabrication, but they fail in the context of action. “As long as we believe that we deal with ends and means in the political realm, we shall not be able to prevent anybody’s using all means to pursue recognised ends.” She notes that in antiquity the “end” was the protection of the good from the rule of the bad, in the Middle Ages, the salvation of souls, and in the modern age, productivity and progress, but in all cases this approach is flawed: the ends act as poor guides for action. 

One of the key problems is the unpredictability of action (which we have looked at previously in our discussion of future ethics). It was Arendt’s view that “uncertainty… becomes the decisive character of human affairs.” She notes: “The reason why we are never able to foretell with certainty the outcome and end of any action is simply that action has no end. The process of a single deed can quite literally endure throughout time until mankind itself has come to an end.” This is a double-edged sword; while it could be a source of pride that humanity can create such a lasting effect, we struggle to bear the burden of the “irreversibility and unpredictability from which the action process draws its very strength.”

The solution to these problem in Arendt’s view comes from somewhat surprising sources. The predicament of irreversibility (being unable to undo what has already been done) can be overcome through our faculty for forgiveness, while the problem of “the chaotic uncertainty of the future” can be resolved through our capacity to make and keep promises. In both cases, Arendt ties these to religious sources – forgiveness to Jesus of Nazareth, and promising to Abraham. She is keen that we do not neglect the value of these ideas on account of their religious element, noting in the case of Jesus that the fact that his ideas are expressed in religious terms is “no reason not to take it any less seriously in a strictly secular sense.”

One distinction between forgiveness and promising worth noting is that while promises have always been admitted to the public realm (dating back at least as far as the Roman legal system, and likely further), forgiveness is “deemed unrealistic and inadmissible in the public realm”. She argues passionately for the importance of forgiveness in politics – although she does not make the observation, peace in the Middle East undoubtedly requires forgiveness. She equally argues for a realistic use of the capacity to make promises – we cannot treat our agreements as set for all time; the future is unknown, and the people of that undiscovered country must review their agreements in the light of the reality they face, else promises “lose their binding power and become self-defeating”.

Thus, Arendt’s suggestion for action – for politics – is to forgive the mistakes of the past, and make new agreements among ourselves in order to provide “isolated islands of certainty in an ocean of uncertainty,” while honouring those older agreements that still accord with the needs of the present. She observes: “In so far as morality is more than… customs and standards of behaviour solidified through tradition… it has, at least politically, no more to support itself than the good will to counter the enormous risks of action by readiness to forgive and to be forgiven, to make promises and to keep them.”

Finally, Arendt observes that what ultimately saves human affairs from ruin is the miraculous renewal of humanity by the birth of new people. Each new generation represents a new beginning, and simply by virtue of being born the new arrivals to our planet inherit the awesome power and responsibility of action. It is this rejuvenation more than anything which allows humanity to change direction, to determine a new path, to reach fresh agreement on the action we should take together, exercising that power that is the natural product of our living together. 

Next week, the final part: The Modern Age

Comments

[zenBen]

This description of action is much closer to what I see as the oncoming condition of human affairs. I set out that view in response to her definitions of labour/work etc, that you posted earlier, so I won't say it again.

Now I see that she had conceived of this form of behaviour already, in a political sense. She simply sat at a different point in the trend curve, and so applied to her definitions accordingly.
I think it is easy enough to map from the burgeoning political metamorphosis of the early Cold War era to the post-wage third order society of the ordinary person today. I'm guessing I may not be followed too readily on that, however :)

By the by, the unpredictability of everything goes to the heart of my view of modern and future society, and may at some level be to blame for my unreasonably optimistic attitude on the R&D into predictive tech - faith in the unlikely is rather like being religious, no? :D

[TT]

zenBen, I don't think I've ever heard a better description of a believer than "one who has faith in the unlikely." Bravo! I have serious issues with people who confuse believing and knowing.

As for Arendt, I see her point about the paralysis of action being overcome by forgiveness, but it does not take into account the role of courage. "Everything's going to be okay" is not nearly as good a reason to act as "everything might not be okay, but I'm going to do what must be done in any case." The former seems more likely to breed recklessness. I do believe in action, and in action as defined by Arendt. Nonetheless, I think I might prefer to argue (still working this one out for myself) that we should act because we feel must, regardless of the outcome. Afterall, isn't "everyone will still love you at the end of the day" just another outcome-based rationale for action?
TT

[Chris]

zenBen: "faith in the unlikely is rather like being religious"

I'm going to nit pick now, sorry... :P You conflate Christianity (and Abrahamic faiths in general) with religion... many religions have no 'faith in the unlikely', or indeed 'faith', and besides, who is to determine the likelihood or otherwise of metaphysical terms? :)

But your central point here is well taken, which is faith in science/technology is much like religious faith - faith is the same, whether it is scientific or religious. ;)

TT: "...we should act because we feel must, regardless of the outcome. After all, isn't 'everyone will still love you at the end of the day' just another outcome-based rationale for action?"

I see your claim here, but Arendt isn't calling upon forgiveness to protect the individual, per se, but as a wider tool. The people who begin the long-lasting conflicts don't survive to see the end; it is forgiveness which allows for those conflicts to be buried along with the people who began them.

I'm not sure about acting because we feel we must - take my own actions in opposition to the "New Atheist" movement. Do I achieve anything in my actions, which alas I must take (at least until I completely make peace with the raw nerve at the heart of my behaviour in this instance)? I'm not sure that I do. I feel the Buddhist cause of inaction must at times be allowed to quell the urge to act.

The difficulty is in determining when to act and when not to act, and Arendt's claim was that we should use our capacity for speech to determine when we should use our capacity for action - that is, we should talk before we act. I find this sound advice. :)

Best wishes!

[James Lillis]

She is keen that we do not neglect the value of these ideas on account of their religious element, noting in the case of Jesus that the fact that his ideas are expressed in religious terms is “no reason not to take it any less seriously in a strictly secular sense.”

I am always suspicious of the attitude "just because Jesus said it, doesn't mean we can't take it in purely secular way"

You really can't. You can't 'cut and paste' the words of Jesus to back up a system of thought that Jesus himself would condemn. We call that lazy exegesis. No context, just snip snip.

Any good theologian will tell you that Jesus' words on forgiveness must be understood within a good framework of soteriology, eschatology and ecclesiology.

The secularist denies them all.

It does seem to me that Arendt's secularism undercuts the possible optimism of your final paragraph. The 'new direction' doesn't seem any better than the 'old direction' in a purposeless universe...

I do find the idea of action without the 'end' (perhaps we could use the Gk word 'telos' here) an interesting one. I am a firm believer than ends often ruin means rather than justify them!

I am still exploring the idea of 'timeless' action ...

[zenBen]

Didn't Jesus say that one should forgive thy neighbour, as long as he was Jewish?

[zenBen]

And if we're nitpicking, I'm not conflating anything, because the classification rule I posit is fuzzy and has the wrong associativity direction for your point to hold - i.e. I didn't say religiosity is rather like having faith in the unlikely.
No nit-pick taken :D

[Chris]

James:

"I am always suspicious of the attitude 'just because Jesus said it, doesn't mean we can't take it in purely secular way' You really can't."

Why not? I can see no reason whatsoever that one cannot derive a political position from Jesus, or Buddha or Muhammad.

"Any good theologian will tell you that Jesus' words on forgiveness must be understood within a good framework of soteriology, eschatology and ecclesiology."

Sure, if you want to interpret Jesus in a religious context. But that doesn't mean you can't also interpret Jesus in a political context. I might argue that you should do the first before the second, but you can certainly do it.

I don't understand why you would think politics cannot be derived from religious roots - consider the influence of the ten commandments on the legal systems of many nations.

"The secularist denies them all."

You might need a better understanding of what "secularist" means. It is perfectly possible to be a devout follower of religion and still a secularist - look at Raimon Pannikar and Charles Taylor (both Catholic Christians, both secularists).

(Incidentally, I invite you to read Taylor's "A Secular Age" which I will be reading shortly - but don't feel compelled as it's a tome of a book!)

Arendt is saying: Jesus brought something new to the (Western) political arena outside of his religious role, and that idea - forgiveness - is politically useful. (The same idea can be found in Eastern religious thought; it is part of the original meaning of karma).

Are you really going to claim that we can't use forgiveness as a political tool because Jesus created a religious monopoly on forgiveness? I find this a very strange position!

"I am a firm believer than ends often ruin means rather than justify them!"

Amen!

zenBen: "Didn't Jesus say that one should forgive thy neighbour, as long as he was Jewish?"

No, he said love thy neighbour, with no qualifications. In the parable of the Good Samaritan - in which he pointed to the most despised ethnic group in the region he was living - he made it absolutely clear that being a neighbour was not based on ethnic grounds.

Certain atheists like to play-up in-group and out-group divisions in the history of Christianity - I find it all the more odd, then, that such people would go on to try and divide people into "Brights" and "Supers". Pot calling kettle... :)

---

Thanks for the comments!

[translucy]

Chris, I find a level of resignation (maybe even despair)in the way Arendt presents to her German readers the twin prerequisite of "forgiveness" and "to keep your promise" (any comment from you on that?) as maybe the only remaining foundation (after the historical break that the Shoah represents) for the perspective of "birth as new beginning" and "action as new beginning".

[Chris]

translucy: There is a definite sense that Arendt is trying to say: 'We must find a way to go forward', and presenting these ideas of forgiveness and promising as the ways that speech and action can be protected against disasters of the kind that characterised the past. Much of Arendt's work seems to be focussed on finding a way to move past the (totalitarian) catastrophes of the twentieth century. But I don't sense despair in this particular context (elsewhere in Arendt's work, perhaps) - rather, a sliver of hope.

Best wishes!

[James Lillis]

Hi Chris

Taking Jesus' words out of context and using them as a political tool...? (shudders).

[Chris]

James: Arendt studied the Bible very closely - her knowledge of it outstripped my own by an order of magnitude (she was able to discuss the contents in terms of the specific words used in the original manuscripts, making many careful distinctions). I really don't think this is a case of taking Jesus' words out of context and using them as a political tool. Rather, I think it is using Jesus' words and recognising that in addition to their religious context, they also prepared the way for the positive effects of forgiveness in the political realm. Arendt's view is rooted in a firm understanding of what Jesus' ministries meant religiously; I contend that it is unfair to suggest she takes this out of context.

Are we really going to make a case that forgiveness is not admissible to the political realm, simply because Jesus was the first person in the West 0to bring this issue to the fore? I find this a very strange claim!

Best wishes!