Question: briefly summarize the article and show how well (or not well!) the author uses evidence from the text to support her/his argument. Elon, Amos. The Excommunication of Hannah Arendt. World Policy Journal Winter 2006, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p. 93 ff. Abstract: The article presents a discussion regarding the political views of Hannah Arendt, adapted from her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Database: Academic Search Premier.
Answer: Amos Elon wrote this article and it is included in Eichmann in Jerusalem as the introduction. The main point of it is to explain the various reactions to Arendt’s book on Eichmann’s trial and to explain the misconceptions. Elon writes about the fact that “No book within living memory had elicited similar passions” (vii) referring to the fact the book was still in heavy debate years after its release. Elon focuses on the fact that many of the harsh reactions and criticisms of the book were because of Arendt’s wording when talking specifically about the Jewish Councils, or Judenräte. Elon poses questions such as “would her argument been less shocking if…?” or “what might they could have done differently?” (xv) After reading the book, I agree with a lot of the things that Elon proposed Arendt could have changed to make the book less alarming. But, part of me believes Arendt chose to write the book that way to elicit the exact response she received.
Also, Elon did a great job explaining a lot of the misconceptions about Eichmann in Jerusalem. While we talked about some of this controversial passages in class, Elon did a good job explaining exactly what Arendt meant to say. After reading this introduction, most of the confusion I had while reading the book has been cleared up.
Finally, Elon obviously used plenty of evidence from the text to explain his argument. He cited multiple passages from the book, and consistently talked about different parts that were of debate. While some of the article spoke directly of the reactions of different groups of people, Elon tied in various parts of the book to explain those same reactions. He concludes with saying that although a lot of the criticism was extremely crude and harsh, she got most of it right and for that “she deserves to be remembered” (xxii).
