I'm not sure if I understand what she means by action only being relevant if we know the actor either, but my best guess would be this:
A piece of art can tell us something about the artist, but the artist isn't strictly necessary (even though knowledge of them can enhance our relationship to their work). We can look at sculptures from ancient Greece without knowing who made them and still appreciate them.
But we can't effectively tell the story about how an anonymous person rallied an anonymous group of people to go to war against another anonymous group of people. We need to know who the actors in the Trojan War are, in order to have an appreciation for this "action"
I don't take Arendt's point about actions disclosing our identity to mean that work can't also disclose some aspect of our identify, merely that it cannot do so as deeply nor profoundly as action. She definitely seems to be attributing a special kind of disclosure of identity to action, but I didn't read that as precluding any other way of disclosing at least some aspect of identity.
I primarily took this point as a modified version of "actions speak louder than words," in that one is only reliably revealed to the world through action. Action, in this way, is less prone to misrepresentation, deception, or misinterpretation than any disclosure through labor or work. I don't know if I fully agree here, but I think the point has some merit.
However, I am definitely struggling to get a firm grip on her concept of what constitutes "action" in terms of normal human activities.
"Action, in this way, is less prone to misrepresentation, deception, or misinterpretation than any disclosure through labor or work" .
There is definitely some truth to it but this is not always the case. Our actions are often limited by our culture that in many cases turns our actions into predictable behaviors. Culture spreads through mimesis and, once established in a particular society, imposes certain norms of behavior on members of that society. Even when we seem to "act" in Arendt's sense by revealing ourselves via our speech and deeds in the political realm, a lot of this "acting" is not truly acting but rather behaving within established cultural or other norms. While acting might reveal something about the person, oftentimes this presentation is misleading and always incomplete.
On the other hand, Arendt seems to underestimate art as a form of self-expression. A true artist, via his work, presents a part of him/herself to public scrutiny, oftentimes a very dark and hidden part. I am thinking of black paintings of Goya or Nabokov's "Lolita" for instance. While art produces something tangible and certainly counts as work, it might be the highest form of action available to a human, at least in my view.
She does note earlier in the book that in mass society, "behaving" has replaced "action" as the primary mode of human relationship, so I think she does acknowledge that we do a lot of "behaving" toward one another, which she doesn't consider to truly be action. Nevertheless, I certainly agree that any disclosing of identity through a specific action would likely be incomplete, and could certainly be misleading, albeit possibly less so than other forms.
I think also she stresses a "beginning" as a crucial aspect of action, not just disclosure of identity. I think she might say that art is more of an end product, so while it may disclose some facet of the artist, it lacks the aspect of beginning that she attributes to action. I'm still a little unclear on what truly is action for Arendt, and even less sure how I feel about it, but I do think beginning is a vital piece of action in her model. Now certainly art could be considered a "beginning" in the sense of the discussion or dialogue it may engender, so that it something to consider as well.
That's right, this beginning ties in with her concept of natality when each of us by being born and being unique is capable of action thereby potentially bringing something new into the word. In the modern world, action and contemplation have been replaced by labor and, less so, production. This "jobholder" society emphasizes automatic behavior fueling consumerism rather than individual expression and action.
I think that by action she means active self expression in the public realm via exchange with other active human beings that fuels personal growth and evolution of the society in a constructive way. I think this is where I also disagree with her about hew views of art. As I mentioned earlier, art satisfies the definition of work but it is also a means of self expression. Isn't self expression simply sharing with the others how we see and feel about the world? By contemplating a work of art, the audience can engage in a discussion of the artist's view of the world that can lead to personal and societal changes. For instance, Gandhi's inspiration by Tolstoy's book "The Kingdom of God is Within You" solidified his belief in non-violence in part leading to historical changes that followed...
I think, for the most part, that art needs to be distinguished from the artist. Thinking about music, I want to continue to enjoy Michael Jackson's music without layering on much about Michael Jackson the person. A different example, with Bob Dylan, everything he "discloses" about himself is a conscious decision to present himself in a certain way. There is no exposure of his true self.
Also, as a side note, I think she puts art on too high a pedestal. Art is legitimate work, any given piece of which is of uncertain value (to all but its creator), but is just that, a work. I don't think it deserves such special treatment. But I'm probably just a philistine.
Of course, the artist chooses to present in his work the part of him/herself he would like others to see and sometimes it might be deceiving, like with any other type of acrion. But the very fact that the artist makes such a tremendous effort to create a unique piece of work that is meant to deceive already tells a lot about him/her as a person that is a perfect example of action - it is meant to present the artist as a person to the others in the public realm and to foster discussion.
I think, in part, art is so valuable and unique to people who truly appreciate it, because of the physical and contemplative effort that goes into its creation. For many artists, financial rewards for doing this are non-existent, at least in the beginning if their careers. To make money, at least some artists could have chosen the life of a craftsman and produced works with more practical uses that would appeal to a wider audience. For instance, many pop singers or writers are really craftsmen, in my view, and not artists. Their work is created with the goal of appealing to as many people as possible by expressing something MOST people could relate to. But by doing so, even if the artist is honest and is truly expressing himself in his work, he emphasizes his similarity to the masses rather than uniqueness that is not consistent with action as Arendt defines it. Taylor Swift is a good example of this: people go to her concerts to enjoy an easy listening experience and to feel that she is exactly just like them when they actually pay attention to the lyrics. In this sense, I agree with you that this is clearly just work and nothing else. I would not say the same thing about Brothers Karamazov though.
I have been playing a very annoying game of readers debt throughout this book and I am glad to say that I have finally emerged on the other side.
As for the following reading, what struck me as very interesting is the way Ardent expresses the idea that reality is contained inside of the plurality of interaction through speech and action. The end of subchapter 27 "The Greek Solution" there was a particular moment where I really resonated with Ardent. She connected an idea that explained when we are around people the connection we have with those people affirms our existence through lived memory and that when we're isolated, it distinctively shows that there's no one to copy down that memory and therefore, that isolationism causes a lack of reality similar to dreaming.
This concept then made me think of other creatures that act in similar capacities to the "vita activa". Specifically bees in the way that they are laborers for pollen and honey production while also engaging in an action-speech method with their communicative dances. I fail to see a clear homo-faber style "work" component within their societal structure, which I guess could be the queen, worker, and drone caste system but I'm not sure. I then started wondering about other groups of animals that share some of the "vita activa" but lack the cognitive next steps.
I also am wondering how action and speech relate to our post modern world and if non-physically involved digital interactions satisfies Ardent's view of action. Does the internet preserve our own version of "immortal fame" while bypassing action altogether or is it different in some way.
I think if we rely only on other humans to affirm our existence in the form of memory, this would be a speciesm of sorts. We not only interact with humans via speech and actions but also with countless other beings such as animals, plants, bacteria, etc and our interactions with those beings are in fact much more frequent than human interactions. I guess it then comes down to the question of consciousness, whether those other beings are conscious enough for us to cause them to have some sort of a subjective experience or idea of us. If one were to bring in Spinoza here, all these beings, being modes of God like me, via their interactions with me have a partial idea of me. If all these other beings that ever interacted with me disappear and this composite memory or idea if me is gone, is there anything left of me? Spinoza would say yes since God's devine intellect necessarily contains all possible ideas including a complete (or "adequate" in Spinoza speak) idea of me. Arendt does not seem to care much about metaphysics though, hence her emphasis on the societal memory of us, however depending on one's metaphysical or religious views, I think this is a bit of a limited view of reality.
Like many of you, I have at times been frustrated with both the tone and the substance of “The Human Condition;” so much so that I nearly abandoned it several times. I said to myself: “This book has nothing to offer me; there are so many more rewarding books for me to read.” This chapter totally changed how I feel! I begin to grasp the larger structure and purpose of the book; and I find many of the passages in it beautiful and poignant, especially those that identify the possibility of meaning of human existence. Most importantly, for the first time I believe Arendt has something that is crucially important to offer in helping us understand the origins of the crises of modern society and what we must do to overcome them.
There is one source of information that has helped me tremendously in gaining clarity about “The Human Condition” and Arendt’s thinking: “The Portable Hannah Arendt,” edited by Peter Baehr. Two essays in it are particularly eye-opening for me. They are “Labor, Work, Action” and “What is Freedom?” The latter is especially enlightening. In general, I find Arendt much more straightforward and clear in her essays than in her book; perhaps it is because many of them were first given as lectures and had to be more concise and to-the-point, devoid of all the convoluted distinctions and confusing detours that often distract us from what she is really after.
Baehr’s Editor’s Introduction is also extremely helpful. As he expresses Arendt’s ideas so much more clearly and accurately than I can, I will just share three passages from it that I find particularly relevant and useful.
“The human condition, the limitations with which humans must contend, consists of ‘natality’ and ‘mortality, worldliness, plurality, and the earth.’ Natality and mortality (i.e., birth and death) are the basic presuppositions and boundaries of all existence, whereas the other three conditions correspond to definite human activities (the vita activa) of which all able-bodied humans are capable: labor (whose condition is the ‘earth,’ the terrestrial sphere of physical and organic life), work (whose condition is ‘worldliness,’ i.e., civilization), and action (whose condition is ‘plurality’). In turn, each of these vitae can be understood, not only by its contribution to human existence, but by its proximity to human freedom and its capacity for human distinction.”
“By action, Arendt understands the ability of humans to initiate a new course of events. Action realizes the human potential for freedom, albeit under conditions of ‘plurality,’ that is the existence of diverse human agents in front of whom the action takes place and whose presence confers on it some meaning.”
“. . . the Achilles’ heel of totalitarian evil was the being it sought completely to transform–Homo sapiens itself. This was not because human beings were inherently good, but rather because they were inherently contingent and innovative. Every birth is a new beginning, and ‘beginning’ she [Arendt] would say, echoing St. Augustine, ‘is the supreme capacity of man.’ So long as people were born and inhabited the earth, their capacity to break out of totalitarian conditions, and to create a world worthy of plural human beings, could not be eliminated.”
Even though I haven’t finished the book yet, I already believe that “The Human Condition,” despite its many confusions and shortcomings, contains important insights that deserve to be further explored. (I will try to discuss some of them in future comments.) But, for now, it has given me enough to think about in answering the following questions: What makes us distinctively human? What is a possible source of meaning for our time on earth between birth and death (I love Arendt’s phrase)? What are some threats against our humanity and what can we do to counter them?
Totally agree - starting with the chapter on action the book really started speaking to me. I already finished it and don't want to offer any spoilers, but Arendt does, at least in my view, eventually resolve many of the confusions between work and labor we were discussing earlier and beautifully ties everything together by drawing a vivid picture of how her thoughts still apply to the world we live in today. Very grateful to Jared for picking The Human Condition for the read-along.
I want to apologize for not keeping up with the reading of The Human Condition. A lot of writing and editing came up in December and this month and I fell behind. I have the book, though, and I shall catch up "later in the semester". Thanks for doing this read along.
I share all your concerns. One helpful thought: Damian Jungermann says that when Arendt says action she almost always means interaction. I.e., between humans. I like the idea of something creating a space for interaction but what is that something? Would Substack qualify as such a something?
I think substack would qualify as a public realm of sourts. Not only the writer is expressing his ideas thereby making him or herself known as a person to the readers, but we also get to discuss these ideas and how we feel about them. All this creates a web of human relationships that Arendt was talking about. Consciously or subconsciously, we are likely influencing each other that leads to some downstream action that is rather unpredictable.
Hi, finally I got the time to read all your posts about the read along. I'm sorry I don't have the time to read the work right now, but I will surly read it later.
So far I've follow your line of tought. I really like the way you think it through, making questions, revising opinions formed, the way a true philosopher would, I guess.
As for this chapter in particulary, maybe Arendn't is refering to the importance of art, for art itself. In that sense it is not important to the rest of the community, who was the agent. Is the same later literary critics would name the death of the author.
In your point of view, of course the agent is important, and his/her art say much about him. It is not without reason that biographies are among the best selling books.
As for Arendn's work in general, in particulary for this ouvre, but maybe for it's last chapthers I would like to recommend you the work of Byung-Chul Han, specially his work Vita Contemplativa. Would like to know your though on that, particulary in your interest in the work/labor distintion. Thanks for this read along. It is being interesting to follow.
I'm not sure if I understand what she means by action only being relevant if we know the actor either, but my best guess would be this:
A piece of art can tell us something about the artist, but the artist isn't strictly necessary (even though knowledge of them can enhance our relationship to their work). We can look at sculptures from ancient Greece without knowing who made them and still appreciate them.
But we can't effectively tell the story about how an anonymous person rallied an anonymous group of people to go to war against another anonymous group of people. We need to know who the actors in the Trojan War are, in order to have an appreciation for this "action"
I don't take Arendt's point about actions disclosing our identity to mean that work can't also disclose some aspect of our identify, merely that it cannot do so as deeply nor profoundly as action. She definitely seems to be attributing a special kind of disclosure of identity to action, but I didn't read that as precluding any other way of disclosing at least some aspect of identity.
I primarily took this point as a modified version of "actions speak louder than words," in that one is only reliably revealed to the world through action. Action, in this way, is less prone to misrepresentation, deception, or misinterpretation than any disclosure through labor or work. I don't know if I fully agree here, but I think the point has some merit.
However, I am definitely struggling to get a firm grip on her concept of what constitutes "action" in terms of normal human activities.
"Action, in this way, is less prone to misrepresentation, deception, or misinterpretation than any disclosure through labor or work" .
There is definitely some truth to it but this is not always the case. Our actions are often limited by our culture that in many cases turns our actions into predictable behaviors. Culture spreads through mimesis and, once established in a particular society, imposes certain norms of behavior on members of that society. Even when we seem to "act" in Arendt's sense by revealing ourselves via our speech and deeds in the political realm, a lot of this "acting" is not truly acting but rather behaving within established cultural or other norms. While acting might reveal something about the person, oftentimes this presentation is misleading and always incomplete.
On the other hand, Arendt seems to underestimate art as a form of self-expression. A true artist, via his work, presents a part of him/herself to public scrutiny, oftentimes a very dark and hidden part. I am thinking of black paintings of Goya or Nabokov's "Lolita" for instance. While art produces something tangible and certainly counts as work, it might be the highest form of action available to a human, at least in my view.
She does note earlier in the book that in mass society, "behaving" has replaced "action" as the primary mode of human relationship, so I think she does acknowledge that we do a lot of "behaving" toward one another, which she doesn't consider to truly be action. Nevertheless, I certainly agree that any disclosing of identity through a specific action would likely be incomplete, and could certainly be misleading, albeit possibly less so than other forms.
I think also she stresses a "beginning" as a crucial aspect of action, not just disclosure of identity. I think she might say that art is more of an end product, so while it may disclose some facet of the artist, it lacks the aspect of beginning that she attributes to action. I'm still a little unclear on what truly is action for Arendt, and even less sure how I feel about it, but I do think beginning is a vital piece of action in her model. Now certainly art could be considered a "beginning" in the sense of the discussion or dialogue it may engender, so that it something to consider as well.
That's right, this beginning ties in with her concept of natality when each of us by being born and being unique is capable of action thereby potentially bringing something new into the word. In the modern world, action and contemplation have been replaced by labor and, less so, production. This "jobholder" society emphasizes automatic behavior fueling consumerism rather than individual expression and action.
I think that by action she means active self expression in the public realm via exchange with other active human beings that fuels personal growth and evolution of the society in a constructive way. I think this is where I also disagree with her about hew views of art. As I mentioned earlier, art satisfies the definition of work but it is also a means of self expression. Isn't self expression simply sharing with the others how we see and feel about the world? By contemplating a work of art, the audience can engage in a discussion of the artist's view of the world that can lead to personal and societal changes. For instance, Gandhi's inspiration by Tolstoy's book "The Kingdom of God is Within You" solidified his belief in non-violence in part leading to historical changes that followed...
I think, for the most part, that art needs to be distinguished from the artist. Thinking about music, I want to continue to enjoy Michael Jackson's music without layering on much about Michael Jackson the person. A different example, with Bob Dylan, everything he "discloses" about himself is a conscious decision to present himself in a certain way. There is no exposure of his true self.
Also, as a side note, I think she puts art on too high a pedestal. Art is legitimate work, any given piece of which is of uncertain value (to all but its creator), but is just that, a work. I don't think it deserves such special treatment. But I'm probably just a philistine.
Of course, the artist chooses to present in his work the part of him/herself he would like others to see and sometimes it might be deceiving, like with any other type of acrion. But the very fact that the artist makes such a tremendous effort to create a unique piece of work that is meant to deceive already tells a lot about him/her as a person that is a perfect example of action - it is meant to present the artist as a person to the others in the public realm and to foster discussion.
I think, in part, art is so valuable and unique to people who truly appreciate it, because of the physical and contemplative effort that goes into its creation. For many artists, financial rewards for doing this are non-existent, at least in the beginning if their careers. To make money, at least some artists could have chosen the life of a craftsman and produced works with more practical uses that would appeal to a wider audience. For instance, many pop singers or writers are really craftsmen, in my view, and not artists. Their work is created with the goal of appealing to as many people as possible by expressing something MOST people could relate to. But by doing so, even if the artist is honest and is truly expressing himself in his work, he emphasizes his similarity to the masses rather than uniqueness that is not consistent with action as Arendt defines it. Taylor Swift is a good example of this: people go to her concerts to enjoy an easy listening experience and to feel that she is exactly just like them when they actually pay attention to the lyrics. In this sense, I agree with you that this is clearly just work and nothing else. I would not say the same thing about Brothers Karamazov though.
I have been playing a very annoying game of readers debt throughout this book and I am glad to say that I have finally emerged on the other side.
As for the following reading, what struck me as very interesting is the way Ardent expresses the idea that reality is contained inside of the plurality of interaction through speech and action. The end of subchapter 27 "The Greek Solution" there was a particular moment where I really resonated with Ardent. She connected an idea that explained when we are around people the connection we have with those people affirms our existence through lived memory and that when we're isolated, it distinctively shows that there's no one to copy down that memory and therefore, that isolationism causes a lack of reality similar to dreaming.
This concept then made me think of other creatures that act in similar capacities to the "vita activa". Specifically bees in the way that they are laborers for pollen and honey production while also engaging in an action-speech method with their communicative dances. I fail to see a clear homo-faber style "work" component within their societal structure, which I guess could be the queen, worker, and drone caste system but I'm not sure. I then started wondering about other groups of animals that share some of the "vita activa" but lack the cognitive next steps.
I also am wondering how action and speech relate to our post modern world and if non-physically involved digital interactions satisfies Ardent's view of action. Does the internet preserve our own version of "immortal fame" while bypassing action altogether or is it different in some way.
All in all a very thought provoking chapter.
I think if we rely only on other humans to affirm our existence in the form of memory, this would be a speciesm of sorts. We not only interact with humans via speech and actions but also with countless other beings such as animals, plants, bacteria, etc and our interactions with those beings are in fact much more frequent than human interactions. I guess it then comes down to the question of consciousness, whether those other beings are conscious enough for us to cause them to have some sort of a subjective experience or idea of us. If one were to bring in Spinoza here, all these beings, being modes of God like me, via their interactions with me have a partial idea of me. If all these other beings that ever interacted with me disappear and this composite memory or idea if me is gone, is there anything left of me? Spinoza would say yes since God's devine intellect necessarily contains all possible ideas including a complete (or "adequate" in Spinoza speak) idea of me. Arendt does not seem to care much about metaphysics though, hence her emphasis on the societal memory of us, however depending on one's metaphysical or religious views, I think this is a bit of a limited view of reality.
Like many of you, I have at times been frustrated with both the tone and the substance of “The Human Condition;” so much so that I nearly abandoned it several times. I said to myself: “This book has nothing to offer me; there are so many more rewarding books for me to read.” This chapter totally changed how I feel! I begin to grasp the larger structure and purpose of the book; and I find many of the passages in it beautiful and poignant, especially those that identify the possibility of meaning of human existence. Most importantly, for the first time I believe Arendt has something that is crucially important to offer in helping us understand the origins of the crises of modern society and what we must do to overcome them.
There is one source of information that has helped me tremendously in gaining clarity about “The Human Condition” and Arendt’s thinking: “The Portable Hannah Arendt,” edited by Peter Baehr. Two essays in it are particularly eye-opening for me. They are “Labor, Work, Action” and “What is Freedom?” The latter is especially enlightening. In general, I find Arendt much more straightforward and clear in her essays than in her book; perhaps it is because many of them were first given as lectures and had to be more concise and to-the-point, devoid of all the convoluted distinctions and confusing detours that often distract us from what she is really after.
Baehr’s Editor’s Introduction is also extremely helpful. As he expresses Arendt’s ideas so much more clearly and accurately than I can, I will just share three passages from it that I find particularly relevant and useful.
“The human condition, the limitations with which humans must contend, consists of ‘natality’ and ‘mortality, worldliness, plurality, and the earth.’ Natality and mortality (i.e., birth and death) are the basic presuppositions and boundaries of all existence, whereas the other three conditions correspond to definite human activities (the vita activa) of which all able-bodied humans are capable: labor (whose condition is the ‘earth,’ the terrestrial sphere of physical and organic life), work (whose condition is ‘worldliness,’ i.e., civilization), and action (whose condition is ‘plurality’). In turn, each of these vitae can be understood, not only by its contribution to human existence, but by its proximity to human freedom and its capacity for human distinction.”
“By action, Arendt understands the ability of humans to initiate a new course of events. Action realizes the human potential for freedom, albeit under conditions of ‘plurality,’ that is the existence of diverse human agents in front of whom the action takes place and whose presence confers on it some meaning.”
“. . . the Achilles’ heel of totalitarian evil was the being it sought completely to transform–Homo sapiens itself. This was not because human beings were inherently good, but rather because they were inherently contingent and innovative. Every birth is a new beginning, and ‘beginning’ she [Arendt] would say, echoing St. Augustine, ‘is the supreme capacity of man.’ So long as people were born and inhabited the earth, their capacity to break out of totalitarian conditions, and to create a world worthy of plural human beings, could not be eliminated.”
Even though I haven’t finished the book yet, I already believe that “The Human Condition,” despite its many confusions and shortcomings, contains important insights that deserve to be further explored. (I will try to discuss some of them in future comments.) But, for now, it has given me enough to think about in answering the following questions: What makes us distinctively human? What is a possible source of meaning for our time on earth between birth and death (I love Arendt’s phrase)? What are some threats against our humanity and what can we do to counter them?
Totally agree - starting with the chapter on action the book really started speaking to me. I already finished it and don't want to offer any spoilers, but Arendt does, at least in my view, eventually resolve many of the confusions between work and labor we were discussing earlier and beautifully ties everything together by drawing a vivid picture of how her thoughts still apply to the world we live in today. Very grateful to Jared for picking The Human Condition for the read-along.
I want to apologize for not keeping up with the reading of The Human Condition. A lot of writing and editing came up in December and this month and I fell behind. I have the book, though, and I shall catch up "later in the semester". Thanks for doing this read along.
I share all your concerns. One helpful thought: Damian Jungermann says that when Arendt says action she almost always means interaction. I.e., between humans. I like the idea of something creating a space for interaction but what is that something? Would Substack qualify as such a something?
I think substack would qualify as a public realm of sourts. Not only the writer is expressing his ideas thereby making him or herself known as a person to the readers, but we also get to discuss these ideas and how we feel about them. All this creates a web of human relationships that Arendt was talking about. Consciously or subconsciously, we are likely influencing each other that leads to some downstream action that is rather unpredictable.
Hi, finally I got the time to read all your posts about the read along. I'm sorry I don't have the time to read the work right now, but I will surly read it later.
So far I've follow your line of tought. I really like the way you think it through, making questions, revising opinions formed, the way a true philosopher would, I guess.
As for this chapter in particulary, maybe Arendn't is refering to the importance of art, for art itself. In that sense it is not important to the rest of the community, who was the agent. Is the same later literary critics would name the death of the author.
In your point of view, of course the agent is important, and his/her art say much about him. It is not without reason that biographies are among the best selling books.
As for Arendn's work in general, in particulary for this ouvre, but maybe for it's last chapthers I would like to recommend you the work of Byung-Chul Han, specially his work Vita Contemplativa. Would like to know your though on that, particulary in your interest in the work/labor distintion. Thanks for this read along. It is being interesting to follow.