Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 375–394 | Cite as

Blending Arendtian Exemplarity with Weberian Ideal-Typic Analysis: Arendt’s ‘Socrates’ as a Vehicle for Social Critique

  • Aaron JaffeEmail author
Article

Abstract

Arendt uses the exemplary validity of Socrates to think and value the possibilities of joint philosophical and political orientations in our present juncture. In this way Arendt’s ‘Socrates’ is not a mythic, historic, or dramatic individual, but offers an example of the best of the human condition. Unfortunately, because Arendt held the social conditioning and constraining of Socrates’ possibilities at arm’s length, his status as an exemplar is problematic and he ends up referring to a historical rather than contemporary possibilities. While Arendt had resources in her notion of the ‘world’ to better ground her simultaneously analytic and normative construction of ‘Socrates’, the lack of a social grounding makes ‘Socrates’ a significantly unmoored and shifting signifier. After showing the vacillations of ‘Socrates’ in Arendt, I supplement her normatively laden account with a Weberian grounding. With this firmer social grounding, ‘Socrates’ can refer to the possibilities of joint philosophical and political orientations in ancient Athens and thereby highlight how our world makes a contemporary version unlikely or impossible. Yet, this Weberian grounding comes at a cost. The normative dimension essential in Arendt’s ‘Socrates’ is lost due to Weberian value-neutrality. ‘Socrates’ can name a contemporary unlikelihood or impossibility, but if the enveloping social order does not value what it renders impossible, Weberian ideal-types on their own are incapable of offering normative resources for critique. I conclude by blending a Weberian social mooring with Arendt’s value-laden framework for social analysis and thereby recuperate the missing normative dimension. In short, by accepting the relational, necessarily plural, and dynamic root of human action we can, much like Arendt’s intended use of ‘Socrates’, value orientations that best express these norms, and criticize contemporary conditions that constrain their realization.

Keywords

Arendt Socrates Ideal-type Weber Normativity Social Critique Plurality Exemplarity 

References

  1. Abensour, Miguel. 2007. Against the sovereignty of philosophy over politics: Arendt’s reading of Plato’s cave allegory. Social Research 74(4): 955–982.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, Hannah. 1968. The origins of totalitarianism. San Diego, CA: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  4. Arendt, Hannah. 1971. Thinking and moral considerations. Social Research 38(3): 417–446.Google Scholar
  5. Arendt, Hannah. 1978. Life of the mind. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and Co.Google Scholar
  6. Arendt, Hannah. 1990. Philosophy and politics. Social Research 57(1): 73–103.Google Scholar
  7. Arendt, Hannah. 2005. The tradition of political thought. In The promise of politics, ed. Jerome Kohn, 40–62. New York, NY: Schocken.Google Scholar
  8. Arendt, Hannah. 2006a [1968]. Truth and politics. In Between past and future, 223–258. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Arendt, Hannah. 2006b [1968]. The concept of history: Ancient and modern. In Between past and future, 41–90. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. Arendt, Hannah. 2006c [1968]. What is freedom? In Between past and future, 142–169. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. Baehr, Peter. 2002. Identifying the unprecedented: Hannah Arendt, totalitarianism, and the critique of sociology. American Sociological Review 67(6): 804–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baehr, Peter. 2005. Personal dilemma or intellectual influence? The relationship between Hannah Arendt and Max Weber. Max Weber Studies 5(1): 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baehr, Peter. 2010. Hannah Arendt, totalitarianism, and the social sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Benhabib, Seyla. 2000. The reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  15. Bernstein, Richard J. 2000. Arendt on thinking. In The Cambridge companion to Hannah Arendt, ed. Dana Villa, 277–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burger, Thomas. 1976. Weber’s theory of concept formation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Canovan, Margaret. 1990. Socrates or Heidegger? Hannah Arendt’s reflections on philosophy and politics. Social Research 50(1): 135–165.Google Scholar
  18. Chiba, Shin. 1995. Hannah Arendt on love and the political: Love, friendship, and citizenship. The Review of Politics 57(3): 505–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Disch, Lisa. 1997. Please sit down, but don’t make yourself at home: Arendtian ‘visiting’ and the prefigurative politics of consciousness-raising. In Hannah Arendt and the meaning of politics, ed. Craig Calhoun, and John McGowan, 132–164. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dolan, Frederick. 2000. Arendt on philosophy and politics. In The Cambridge companion to Hannah Arendt, ed. Dana Villa, 261–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferrara, Alessandro. 2008. The force of the example. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Figal, Günter. 1995. On freedom: Ontological considerations from a practical point of view. Trans. Wayne Klein. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 18(2): 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heller, Agnes. 1987. Hannah Arendt and the ‘vita contemplative’. Philosophy and Social Criticism 12(4): 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Honig, Bonnie. 1995. Toward an agonistic feminism: Hannah Arendt and the politics of identity. In Feminist interpretations of Arendt, ed. B. Honig, 135–166. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kateb, George. 1994. Arendt and individualism. Social Research 61(4): 765–794.Google Scholar
  26. Kohn, Jerome. 1990. Thinking/Acting. Social Research 57(1): 105–134.Google Scholar
  27. Long, Philip. 1998. A fissure in the distinction: Hannah Arendt, the family and the public/private dichotomy. Philosophy and Social Criticism 24(5): 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Markell, Patchen. 2011. Arendt’s work: On the architecture of The human condition. College Literature 38(1): 15–44.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, John S. 1978. Politics and truth: Arendt’s problematic. American Journal of Political Science 22(2): 270–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose, Gillian. 2009. Hegel contra sociology. New York, NY: Verso.Google Scholar
  31. Schlosser, Joel Alden. 2014. What would Socrates do? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Villa, Dana. 1998. The philosopher versus the citizen: Arendt, Strauss, and Socrates. Political Theory 26(2): 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Villa, Dana. 1999. Politics, philosophy, terror: Essays on the thought of Hannah Arendt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Villa, Dana. 2001. Socratic citizenship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Walsh, Philip. 2011. The human condition as social ontology. History of Human Sciences 24(2): 120–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walsh, Philip. 2015. Arendt contra Sociology: Theory, society and its science. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  37. Weber, Max. 1949. Max Weber on the methodology of the social sciences. Trans. and eds. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Yarbrough, Jean, and Peter Stern. 1981. Vita activa and vita contemplativa: Reflections on Hannah Arendt’s political thought in ‘The life of the mind’. The Review of Politics 43(3): 323–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Liberal Arts, Rm 487-DThe Juilliard SchoolNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations