Question: You have three options for today.
Option 1. From the middle of p. 246 to the top of p. 247, Arendt summarizes and quotes the judgment, with which she largely agrees. In what way does the judgment (as Arendt reports it) validate or contradict her portrayal of Eichmann throughout the book? OR: Does this passage change your understanding of how Arendt views Eichmann? OR: What stands out to you in this passage, and why?
Option 2. From the bottom of p. 247 (second full paragraph) to the top of p. 248, Arendt summarizes and quotes Eichmann’s reaction to the judgment. To what extent is Eichmann in Jerusalem a validation or contradiction of Eichmann’s statement here? Does Arendt agree with Eichmann?
Option 3. In the final sentence of the main portion of the book, on p. 252, Arendt uses the phrase “banality of evil.” It appears nowhere else in the book, save the subtitle. In what way does this phrase summarize Arendt’s portrayal of Eichmann? Is it an accurate phrase?
Answer: (option 2) I believe that the main ideas in Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem are very well validated in Eichmann’s reaction to his judgment. I have come to the conclusion that I agree with Arendt somewhat, but I believe she sees him guilty in a different sense than I do. I agree that her goal is to make the audience understand that Eichmann is not a monster, but rather just a man that could represent all of humanity. Arendt started to seemingly defend him, or downplay his faults, by pointing out his stupidity (for lack of a better word). Then she starts to sympathize with him even more when she describes that he is just the perfect victim of totalitarianism. While that does not mean she finds him innocent, she does make it seem as though Eichmann can be understood. By using this strategy of understanding the accused, she makes the reader see him as a human with flaws, not a monster.
Two of the main points in Eichmann’s reaction to his judgement involve him mentioning that he never hated Jews and he was only a victim of the Nazi’s, therefore, he reiterates Arendt’s previous convictions. Arendt intentionally mentioned Eichmann saying many times throughout the novel that he did not hate Jews, therefore she seemingly agrees with him. Secondly, she also made it clear that he was the perfect totalitarian citizen, making him appear to be a victim. I think Arendt completely agrees with everything that Eichmann says in this passage, therefore validating Eichmann in Jerusalem.
However, this brings up the issue of Arendt avoiding degrees of guilt. If she obviously decided from the beginning he was guilty, than what was the point of writing the book? Clearly she is interested in degrees of guilt because she wanted to dissect Eichmann’s trial and decide exactly for what he is to blame. Her goal may have been just to show that he was really not the monster he was made out to be, but in the process of showing that, she created degrees of guilt. Since the issue of the Holocaust is so complex with all the rankings of officials and the hierarchy of the chief orchestrators, degrees of guilt are a necessity. Everyone had such an individualized role that the blame cannot be pinned in one place. To justly execute all the people involved may be an impossible task, but it is important to only persecute each individual for his specific crimes, not the crimes of everyone else around him.
