Skip to main content

Coercion by Necessity or Comprehensive Responsibility? Hannah Arendt on Vulnerability, Freedom and Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Phenomenology and the Primacy of the Political

Part of the book series: Contributions To Phenomenology ((CTPH,volume 89))

  • 390 Accesses

Abstract

Hannah Arendt is sometimes read as reserving the prerequisites and perquisites of genuine action to an elite. This is largely a misunderstanding. I propose a reading of Hannah Arendt’s collection of essays, Between Past and Future, as a coherent argument that might be characterized as a kind of phenomenological description of Bildung, understood not as private selfrealization but in the public and shared sense, as the vocation of being human, or rather, of achieving humanity. Arendt invites us to see formal education as an “institution of truth”. To bring this aspect to light, the paper first rehearses the salient points in Arendt’s argument in Between Past and Future, together with relevant forays into the Kantian context of practical philosophy which she takes as her starting point on certain fundamental points. In the second part, a number of changes in ideas about thinking, learning and judging which have both contributed to and been exacerbated by the massification, marketization, mediatization and juridification of culture and learning, are analyzed in light of Arendt’s understanding of what it means to be human.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Arendt’s description of The Human Condition as an attempt to trace back modern world alienation, its twofold flight from the earth into the universe and from the world into the self, to its origins, in order to arrive at an understanding of the nature of society as it had developed and presented itself at the very moment when it was overcome by the advent of a new and yet unknown age (Arendt 1998, 6.)

  2. 2.

    It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the vexed question of how to understand Descartes’ methodological doubt and to what extent it can or should be distinguished from genuine doubt. What is relevant for our purposes here are the kinds of criticisms raised by Heidegger: “Descartes does not doubt because he is a skeptic; rather, he becomes a doubter because he posits the mathematical as the absolute ground and seeks for all knowledge a foundation that will be in accord with it. (See Heidegger and Gendlin 1985, 103). For a critique that the very idea that we could doubt everything presupposes the ability to identity with certainty dubious knowledge, see Rosen (1989), 23f.

  3. 3.

    See also Arendt (1998), 154.

  4. 4.

    Arendt’s references to Aristotle’s Politics (1328b35) are from The Basic Works of Aristotle (Aristotle 1941).

  5. 5.

    Arendt’s references to Aristotle’s Economics (1343a1–4) are from Aristotle (1941).The “equality” to which Aristotle refers and which is of most importance to Arendt has not to do with any similarity between individuals with regard to aptitudes or virtues, which of course vary greatly and are all dependent on accidental conditions of birth and upbringing, but to a general capacity to participate at all in the regime. This ability is shared to the extent that man is by nature a political animal, even if the virtues associated with it are not distributed evenly among citizens.

  6. 6.

    This is explicit in, for example, Dewey (1944), especially 100–110.

  7. 7.

    I argue for the idea of philosophy as tied to human freedom in just this respect in Rider (2015), 1185–1197.

  8. 8.

    The edition used is not given in Between Past and Future, but it is known that where not translating directly from the German herself, Arendt relied on Norman Kemp Smith’s translation of the Critique of Pure Reason: Kant (1963), and J.H. Bernard’s for the Critique of Judgment: Kant (1951), with minor changes of her own. See Ronald Beiner’s notes to Hannah Arendt’s Lectures on Political Philosophy (Beiner (1992), 157) and Mary McCarthy’s Postface to Arendt’s The Life of the Mind (McCarthy (1978), 251). All references hereafter will be to those editions. References to Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason are to the T.K. Abbot translation used by Arendt: Kant (1898).

  9. 9.

    Arendt cites here Kant’s vindication of freedom of speech (if limited to scholars communicating ideas as citizens not as state officials) in Kant (1996) and “What does it Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking?” in Kant (2001). But also, for instance, Kant’s famous argument for “academic freedom” (if limited to the Philosophical Faculty) in Kant (1979).

  10. 10.

    Compare with Arendt (1958, 57): “Only where things can be seen by many in a variety of aspects without changing their identity, so that those who are gathered around them know they see sameness in utter diversity, can worldly reality truly and reliably appear.”

  11. 11.

    Cf. Max Weber’s remark in “Science as a Vocation” (Weber 1946) that the main duty of a university teacher is to confront students with “uncomfortable truths”, that is, statements of facts which are not congenial to his political opinions.

References

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1968. Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992a. Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992b. Postscriptum to thinking. In Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy, ed. Ronald Beiner. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994. We refugees. In Altogether elsewhere: Writers in exile, ed. Marc Robinson, 111–119. Boston: Faber & Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1941. Economics & Politics. In The basic works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beiner, Ronald. 1992. Notes to Hannah Arendt. In Lectures on Kant’s political philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1944. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue, Frank. 2008. The last professors: The corporate university and the fate of the humanities. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin, and Eugene T. Gendlin. 1985. What is a thing?(Repr.). Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 1898 [1788]. Critique of practical reason. Trans. T.K. Abbot. London: Longmans, Green & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1951 [1790]. Critique of judgment. Trans. J.H. Bernard. New York: Hafner.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1963 [1781]. Critique of pure reason. Trans. N. K. Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1979. Conflict of the faculties. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. Answer to the question: What is enlightenment? In What is enlightenment? Eigteenth-century answers and twentieth-century questions. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. What does it mean to orient oneself in thinking? In Religion and rational theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1909–1914. Some thoughts concerning education, Vol. XXXVII, Part 1, The Harvard classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, Mary. 1978. Editor’s postface. In The life of the mind, ed. Hannah Arendt. New York: Harvest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Readings, Bill. 1996. The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rider, Sharon. 2015. Human freedom and the philosophical attitude. Educational Philosophy and Theory 47 (11): 1185–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Stanley. 1989. A central ambiguity in descartes. In The ancients and the moderns: Rethinking modernity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taminiaux, Jacques. 1985. Dialectic and difference. In Dialectic and difference. Finitude in modern thought. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. La fille de Thrace et le penseur professionell. Paris: Payot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1946. Science as a vocation. In Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon Rider .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rider, S. (2017). Coercion by Necessity or Comprehensive Responsibility? Hannah Arendt on Vulnerability, Freedom and Education. In: Fóti, V., Kontos, P. (eds) Phenomenology and the Primacy of the Political. Contributions To Phenomenology, vol 89. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56160-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics