Arendt’s Absolute Power against Locke’s Impossibility of Totality

For the purpose of completing the essay, the paper will compare the work of Arendt to that of John Locke. It has been carefully chosen as the two philosophers bring out similarities in their works as well as offer a large gap in the difference in the modes of approach and their points of view especially on the totality of totalitarianism. Hannah Arendt, in the origin of totalitarianism, offers insight in Europe after the Second World War. She focuses on the ideas that lead to extremism and terrorism from governments which lead her to create an accumulation of theories on political directions and systems.

Argument

The very life of Arendt is an experience that brings out the political philosophy that defines the concepts in her book. She experienced the atrocities that her fellow German –Jews had under Hitler’s rule, moved around in refugee camps before heading to New York. Her publication rendered her the most controversial theorist on totalitarianism given that her point of view was that it aimed at the elimination of life meaning that murdering of all people against the system was a must. She also argued that it was a result that comes from the distortion of social setting and disregard of civil and political rights (Parekh & Bhikkhu, 85).

            Unlike Arendt, Locke spent his life in administrative positions in Britain. His approach is more psychological as he focuses on how ideas are built up in human minds from the young age to a time when people can react to a political situation. The similarities in their work are mainly seen in their political views on the different forms of governments, but Locke is more positive on contemporary democracy. He offered his argument on the origin of government. He believed that originally, there were no governments but people were able to leave in society as they all respected the natural laws.

            It only means that Arendt believed that authoritarianism and other oppressing governments only emerged from a series of ignoring both human and natural laws. The fact that the second world war came just before the time in which Arendt views as the beginning of totalitarianism offers evidence that these forms of governments are calculated and more opportunistic in nature. It would not have been possible to formulate such a government if the war had not distorted the society.

            Locke offers the need for us to understand ourselves in order to understand the world. He subdivides the theory into different projects which when brought together created a complex network that dictates our point of view. The examination of human mindoffered insight on how people build ideas; their self-identities, knowledge acquired and political philosophies that we create. It makes it possible to look at Arendt as a subject of analysis from Locke’s point of view.

            Her work is highly influenced by the experiences of her life. Being a German- Jew in the late 1930s only made her subject of oppression. It also meant that she would have to undergo the many violations such as losing her rights as a citizen and a human being. Natural laws provided that the Jews would be treated with the human dignity they deserved but it was not the case. Mass murdering of Jews and their families provided the basis of the violation. When the war was over, a scramble for Europe begun. His point of view has been referred to as quantitative given that totality means the absoluteness of power without challenge or devolution (Bickford & Susan, 15).

            Locke experiences political hostility where his association with Shaftesbury made him a target of political persecution. He thus had to flee to Netherlands and travelled through some countries. It was at these times that he formulated his theories on the proper forms of governance. He came to understand affiliations would lead to murder and thus concluded that good government must respect the diversity of citizens especially on religion and beliefs. People have the right to worship as they please, and thus, governments must respect what must be instead of what is the norm in society.

            Locke was a thinker who spent his life looking at ways best to govern to society. He acquires knowledge that has evidence the need to create a more democratic rule that there is. By looking at the two philosophers, there are both right in that they understand the characteristics that serve the different forms and agree that natural and human laws should be enforced in a way that creates a responsible and responsive government (Pitkin & Fenichel, 46).

Conclusion

            Arendt is convinced that totalitarianism is possible and thus, must be stopped. Locke, on the other hand, believes that no government can be formed with ultimate and absolute power. The government’s authority must be limited and thus creating the impossibility of totalitarianism. The paper, on the other hand, concludes that bother scenarios are possible for instance the current rules that have been applied by terror groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan but just because it is not a recognized government does not mean it does not exist. Locke ‘s point of view offers insight on the need for people to govern themselves in a way that the government is subject to obligations.

Works cited

Bickford, Susan. The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict, and Citizenship. Cornell University Press. (12-24). 1996.

Parekh, Bhikhu. "Liberalism and Colonialism: a critique of Locke and Mill. "The decolonization of imagination: culture, knowledge, and power: (81-98). 1995

Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and political thought. University of California Press. (43-57).1993.