On page 210 Arendt writes,
"It is this lack of relatedness to others and this primary concern with exchangeable commodities which Marx denounced as the dehumanization and self-alienation of commercial society, which indeed excludes men qua men and demands, in striking reversal of the ancient relationship between private and public, that men show themselves only in the privacy of their families or the intimacy of their friends."
My interpretation of the above section is that the commercial society that exists today does not allow men to act as men but requires instead that they only "show" themselves in the privacy of their family and friends.
I may be misreading her intended diction, but through her explanation of this change as a "striking reversal of the ancient relationship between private and public", it appears that she views this as an unfavorable change.
If my above assumptions and interpretations are correct, then I would have to argue with Arendt. I do agree that the behavior of men in the public and private realms have switched places, but I do not agree that it is necessarily an unfavorable switch.
Arendt describes the traditional public to be a place where men must put themselves out there, take risks, and act as unique individuals around others who are equally unpredictable. If I am going to be honest, I am not sure the public is somewhere I want to "show" myself.
The realm of family and friends is where I "show" myself and it is a place I feel comfortable doing so and I find it interesting that there was ever a time where people were expected to be more formal at home than when interacting with strangers.
At the same time, if individuals were to "show" themselves elsewhere such as in the work place or school more frequently I wonder how differently the commercial society would have evolved?
Should it be this way? Where people must hide themselves in society? I do not think so. I would propose a society where it is not only permissible, but encouraged, to show ones self in the public as well as the private realm.
Given that the Human Condition was written in 1958, times have greatly changed and I disagree with Hannah Arendt’s focus on speech and action. In the modern world we live in today, our society is very much focused on the visual. Therefore, much political argument is shown through visual practices, such as, political cartoons, documentaries, street art, protests, film, and so much more. I think these mediums are so prevalent in today’s society because they are so easily accessible to the general public, but are still able to get a political message across. It is much easier for someone to watch a documentary that investigates corporations rather than go to a speech or a discussion panel concerning the same issue. However, according to Arendt, the simple act of someone watching a political documentary would not suffice to their active engagement in political discourse, or in her words, action. Moreover, must a person actively engage in public discourse to be political, as Arendt would argue, or is it possible for a person to be political without engaging in public discourse?
ReplyDeletesorry Lizzy! i didn't mean to post a comment on your blog, i meant to post my own blog post, but i don't know how, will you help me? thanks!
ReplyDeletesara
I was really confused when I started reading the response. I will repost yours for you! (Because I don't know how to explain how to do it)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletegreat thanks so much!
ReplyDeleteI interpreted this passage in a slightly different way. I think Arendt may be saying that with the rise of the "commercial society," men are only associated with what they make, or can do, or have done rather than who they are. One of Arendt's biggest concerns when defining Action was to say that it is about the "who," rather than the "what." So I think she is saying that it is dehumanizing us because we are considered to be the sum of our abilities and achievements, rather than just the person in the moment showing ourselves.
ReplyDeleteDo I agree that we should only "show" ourselves in public?
No I don't agree, I am more comfortable being myself in private. However, I think showing who you are in public is also a great thing, and if we are to believe Arendt (and I tend to agree here) it is beneficial to our lives as humans. So I guess I agree with you Lizzy.
What would our commercial society look like if we had more people putting themselves out there? I think there would be more of an emphasis on who somebody is, as experience in Action, rather than just on what they can do. I think this is a little unrealistic though, I think most people are too self interested to care about the who rather than the what, or the what can they do for me. Sure it might be able to happen, such as in ancient Greece (according to Arendt), but at what cost? Having slaves or machines do our work so that we don't need to be judged by what we can do for someone else? It seems like we must emphasize what people can do if we are worrying about necessity, and the who can only be acknowledged once we have our necessities met.