The People, The Masses and The Mobilization of Power - Canovan

The People, the Masses, and the Mobilization of Power: The Paradox of Hannah Arendt's "Populism" Author(s): MARGARET
CANOVAN Source: Social Research, Vol. 69, No. 2, Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism": Fifty Years Later (SUMMER 2002), pp. 403-422 Published by: The New School Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40971555 . Accessed: 30/04/2014 17:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The New School is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:14:03 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The People,theMasses,/ of/ and theMobilization The Paradox / Power: ofHannahArendt's/

"POpUUSm"* CANOVAN /BY MARGARET /
feature of Arendt's witha puzzling A his paper is concerned be called the paradoxof her "populism." whatmight thought, direct actionbythepeoshewelcomed while The paradoxis that all actualcasesofgrassand deploredalmost ple,she also feared roots mobilization. toanalyzing the is devoted MuchofThe Origins ofTotalitarianism movements and racistor anti-Semitic of totalitarian activities distrust of almostall mobs,and the book makesclearArendt's their felt of made numbers casesin which presence people large is right to saythatthere is Bernstein in politics. AndyetRichard 1996:61, 111,126hera "populist" a case forcalling (Bernstein, in her and term 33). "The People"wasan honorific vocabulary, action. Buthavseemssympathetic to informal sheoften political in Europe,she had and communism ingseen theriseofNazism mobilization is know that informal and reason to powerful good notnecessarily to be welcomed. most Herownsolution tothepuzzlewastoclaimthat eruptions from thegrassroots are notthework of thePeople at all,butof
*I amindebted inpreparing totheBritish for this andalsoto Academy support paper, Horton andApril Carter for their comments on an earlier version. John helpful
SOCIAL RESEARCH, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Summer2002)
404
SOCIAL RESEARCH
Ifshe still suchas themobor themasses. someother collectivity, in thePeople,this wasbecauseshesharply hadfaith distinguished from wasthe People taking the the caseswhenit really action, in OnRevowhenitwasnot.In Origins, morefrequent occasions between thePeople and she distinguishes and elsewhere, lution, atleastfour Indeedshecomesup with other collectivities. various and theTribein OritheMob,theMasses, different non-Peoples: Alloftheseare in OnRevolution. multitude and thestarving gins, butnone is thePeople.1 all are powerful, mobilized foraction, She herself does notuse Whatis it thatmakesthedifference? and she does notgivethereader as "non-People," anysuchterm thePeowhat deal ofhelpin understanding a great distinguishes at heraccounts So I wouldliketo lookfirst itsimitators. ple from towork Not-the whoare ofmobilization People,and try byothers the thePeople from are fordistinguishing outwhathercriteria it she thought in finding out why rest.But I am also interested she After as distinction. fundamental to make that all, important cases of mobilization, genuineexamplesof political surveyed one towonaction rare, leading bythePeopleseemedtohervery of"thePeople"at tohangon to thelanguage shewanted derwhy it and arguethat a possible all. LaterI shallsuggest explanation, is to The first shouldgiveus food forthought. task,though, thatshe identiof the various sketch a brief now-Peoples attempt A good deal of and elsewhere. in TheOrigins fies ofTotalitarianism harsh to sounds has to she what ears,somecontemporary say so. times outrageously
//
thepower with is concerned of Origins A largeproportion genitis time most of the but in individuals erated moving concert, by In fact therealPeopleare whoarebeingmobilized. notthePeople with as in the evermentioned book, except something hardly is contrasted. ofnon-Peoples a series which
THE PUZZLE OF ARENDTS "POPULISM"
405
The first to appear is the Mob, in the anti-Semitic riotsthat in France. theDreyfus affair Arendt accompanied speaksof"the fundamental error ofregarding themob as identical with rather thanas a caricature ofthepeople"(1967:107). They are,shesays, "allstrata confused becausethePeopleincludes ofsociety," easily whiletheMob is recruited from all classes. She does notactually what the difference but she is, explain speaksof theMob as the "residue" ofall classes"(155), accumu(107) or eventhe"refuse latedfrom thoseleft behindafter each of capitalism's economic These individuals havelosttheir cycles. place in the classstructure.Theyare burning with resentment ordered against society, and easilymobilized forviolenceby demagogues. By contrast, revolutions for (sheclaims)"thepeoplein all great fight true representation" thatat the timeof the (107). She also maintains in support Clemenceau affair, Dreyfus onlythosewhostoodwith of Dreyfus were"thetruepeople of France"(114). So it seems that thePeopleare distinguished from theMob on theone hand firm in theclassstructure, and on theother bytheir anchorage by their action. public-spirited The Mob turns on "Imperialism," in the up againin thesection out"bysociety men," (1967: 189), shapeofthe"superfluous "spat whofound their to SouthAfrica in therushforgoldand diaway mondsin thelate nineteenth century. Theymaysoundlikevictims offate, butArendt claimsthatthey had an alternative: they could have chosentojoin "theworkers' in which" movements, men.. .established a kind (she says)"thebestofthesuperfluous of countersociety which men could find their through wayback intoa human world offellowship and purpose" (189). Thisis not theonlyplace whereshe claimsthatin thelate nineteenth and twentieth centuries the workers' movement was the early actually authentic from suchas theMob People,as distinct non-Peoples . Andthere is a hint herethat what makes thedif(cf.1958:215-9) ference between and not to the belonging belonging People is whether or notone shares a human"world."
406
SOCIAL RESEARCH
In hersection isconcerned with on imperialism, Arendt "superbut had movements fluousmen" who hadn'tjoined workers' mob.Thesewereoutside instead becomepartof theimperialist in a number ofsigand purpose" world offellowship any"human had no placein Liketheanti-Dreyfusard nificant mob,they ways. freed also a structured were uprooted, society. They physically Arendt from and restraints. normalexpectations saysthatthey exisintoa "phantom-like" ofcivilization" had "escaped thereality for their had no sense of tencewhere acts, parresponsibility they an alien on in Africa were because utterly they preying ticularly intoPeoneverbeen gathered native thathad itself population "Tribe" with"Peocontrasts She explicitly ples,onlyintotribes. Genuine to the "world." linksthedifference ple,"and explicitly create "a human on nature to have worked she "Peoples," claims, havehistories; a human world, (1967:192),and therefore reality" like animals, livedin and on nature, tribes whereas /^historic She "human and a artifice a human without reality."2 building had themdemoralized that theBoers, maintains bythis example, which Westfrom the "alienated a turned into selves tribe, pride ern man feltin livingin a worldcreatedand fabricated by the Boers had also himself (194). Faced withAfrican tribes, and thiswas eagerly a racist ideology, bydeveloping responded theirviowhitemob. It legitimized adoptedby the immigrant on based thema newbond of unity lence,and offered nothing skin. butthecoloroftheir with of overseasimperialism linksthesepathologies Arendt in Eastern whatshe calls"Continental Europe,the Imperialism" mobs. thatalso recruited movements and Pan-Slav Pan-German to thesemovenationalism" whatshe calls"tribal She attributes of nationalism thecivilized with their racism ments, contrasting is that The difference France. Western nation-states, notably in possession ofa people wastheexpression nationalism Western humanachievelikeFrance, In a country world. of an objective and had been passeddownthrough ments uniting generations, thecultivated thepeople. These rangedfrom territory defining
407
and memories of ancestral and the citiesto the polity deeds. did notshareanysolidhumanworld Tribal nations, bycontrast, of territory and institutions. Instead (according to theirideolsharedGermanblood or the Russiansoul. In other ogy),they shared notan exterwords, internal, characteristics, they portable nal objective world. From Arendt's itwasprecisely this worldpointofview shifting lessness thatmade themob availableformobilization bymovements. Fora movement (in hersense) wasa newwayofholding individuals without them round a stable together gathering in world. could be set motion and held together Instead, they by a racistideologythatproclaimed themsuperior definition, by and byjoining in violentaction to forceanothergroup into inferiority. Arendt sometimes theimpression that this kindofworldgives lessmob isjust a shapeless horde.However, herbook is notpriconcerned with the short-term activities ofracist mobs.She marily is interested aboveall in theformidable of political phenomenon totalitarian and as she triwere movements, those, pointsout, of involved numbers ofindividuumphs organization. They large als acting on a long-term real basis,and they together generated in this is her view not 387-8, 418). Nevertheless, power(1967:xviii, thepowerof thePeople. Instead, we havehereanother kindof theMasses. non-People: Whatis thedifference between theMassesand theMob in her It seemsto have a lot to do withthe sheerscale of the theory? crisesthatgenerated them.Wherethe Mob was a fringe phetheMasses included almost in a that nomenon, everybody society had suffered ecowar, revolution, catastrophic upheaval through nomic The members of the Mob have lost their collapse. placesin a worldthatis still theMassesare left stranded standing; bythe of the world itself. Arendt uses the of a house collapse image divided intoapartments. As longas thehousestands, theinhabitants are related to one another and form a groupsimply bysharthe if house. But the structure are leftas ing collapses,they
408
SOCIAL RESEARCH
ifthestructures unrelated individuals. that holdpeople Similarly, in society are turnedinto a together collapse,the inhabitants massofisolated individuals 1994:357). (Arendt, in Origins The section on theMasses refers tocatastrophic expein Germany riences and Russiaafter theFirst World Arendt War. stress on thecollapseoftheclassstructure, which laysparticular inwhich had been theone apparently solidfeature ofa society all stableinstitutions werebeingundermined (1967: by capitalism wesawthat a salient feature oftheMob 314;cf.1963:162). Earlier was thatitsmembers weredclasss; nowwe findthatloss of the leftbehinda Mass of bewildered entire familiar classstructure individuals. movements succeededbecause Arendt claimsthattotalitarian lostindividuals the"senseofhaving a placein the they gavethese an alternative world world"(1967: 324), and thatthey provided and the based on fictions such as theJewish Aryan conspiracy a for consistent race.Totalitarian explanation ideology provided adrift that had settheseindividuals theevents (352). ButArendt masses foundmuchmorethana soothstresses that theGerman in Nazism.More important, founda parallel they ing doctrine their movein whichthey world could live.The Nazisorganized werea weretrue; as ifthere doctrines ment as iftheir really crazy if different. The blood were and as really Aryan Jewish conspiracy, crebutit nevertheless wasbased on fiction, wholeorganization one ated "a kindofspurious world," (356), a "fictitious stability" with therealone" (361-2). "fit to compete nowto sumup whatit is thatmakesthedifference Let me try in Origins. between thePeopleand non-Peoples twodiswe haveencountered, contrasts at thevarious Looking the Peobetween out. The difference stand features tinguishing to the tohingeon relation Others seemsrepeatedly ple and their are in somesense to "reality." "world" and relation Non-Peoples The People human world. share a the whereas "worldless," People whereas also havea common-sense non-Peoples gripon reality,
THE PUZZLE OF ARENDT'S "POPULISM"
409
a twilight zone of unreality, a "phantom-like" inhabit existence, "fiction." These contrasts are suggestive and resonant, but neitheris In Origins, Arendt draws on thedistinction clear. between entirely and the human-built "world" that she thenatural "earth" later set out in The HumanCondition, butappliesitin ways thatare sometimes forexample, that sheattributes "worldlessopaque. Wesaw, ness"both to the Masseswhojoined the Nazi party and to the Tribesthatimperialists in Africa. encountered But indigenous bothworldand worldlessness seem to mean different in things the twocases,referring to the classsystem in one case and to deliberate on the other. shapingof the naturalenvironment in African tribesmen lacka world thesenseofa Although might - not,at humanized were not landscape, they socially uprooted any rate, until conqueringimperialists uprootedthem. Conthe German masses who voted for Hitlermayhave lost versely, their socialstructure, butthey still inhabited a human artifice that was relatively intact. So worldliness and worldlessness seem to have a range of meanings, and it is not clear whyparticular shouldhavepolitical relevance at particular times and in aspects particular places. Thereare further theassociation ofworldpuzzlesconcerning linesswith accessto reality. This is a recurrent themein Origins. Remember thatthe "superfluous men" whojoined the South African 's words)"escapedthereality of goldrushhad (in Arendt civilization" as they confronted African tribes whohad never constructed "a humanreality." when the masses lose their Similarly, stablesocioeconomic also lose theircommon-sense world, they on It if seems as arein somesensecursed grip reality. non-Peoples with exclusion from whereas thetrue reality, Peoplein possession ofa stable world are epistemically haveaccessto privileged: they their common which comes from sense, reality through seeing their common world from different There is an authentiangles. itis thePeople,rather than cally populist ringto thenotionthat thePhilosopher, whocan escapefrom thecaveofillusion intothe
410
SOCIAL RESEARCH
Butlargephilosophical sunshine ofreality. seemto be questions references to "reality," and Arendt does beggedin thesevarious not give us much help in understanding what she precisely means. We mayfeel thatat least we knowwherewe are withher accountof the "fictitious world"of the totalitarian movement, to since the term"fictitious" refers apparently systematic lying about matters of fact.But thisis less transparent than it may ofNazism wassustained seem.The "fictitious world" bylies and but Nazi organization based on thefantasies of racist ideology, think of the Nuremburg ralliesand the maswas not a fiction: Arendt herself visible of saysthat sively presence organization. in powerestablishes "thefictitious worldof the totalitarianism as a tangible of life."Furmovement reality everyday working she seemsto be prepared to admit thatthis"fictitious thermore, movement had thepotential tobecome world" ofthetotalitarian havesettled downinto a realworld. She saysthatNazismmight couldeventually "take itsplaceamongthe "a newway oflife" that and profoundly waysof lifeof the contrasting widely differing have itwouldstill nations oftheearth"(1967: 391). Presumably butit could have been organized aroundan irrational ideology, no doubt a genuine world with established institutions," "lasting Itdidwith taboosagainst a castesystem intermarriage. including movements are dedicatedto pern't do so, becausetotalitarian Arendt calls"the The masses areheldinwhat manent revolution. ironband of terror" (1967: 466) and cannotbecome a plural Butit seemsto be the a sharedworld. around people gathered ofideology rather thanthefictions momentum oftotalitarianism and a a "real"humanworld ofestablishing standin theway that realPeople. clearcritefrom thebookwith we emerge It is hardto saythat Furimitators. their thePeople from riafordistinguishing many in Origins the genuinePeople are conspicuousby thermore, Arendt that is it,then, their absence. hangson to thenotion Why so doggedly? experiWhydoes she not reactto her traumatic
41 1
enees of massmobilization as othersdid, bycondemning populismoutright? Theremay be biographical answers tothis Butleaving question. aside anypersonal motivations she mayhavehad, I wantto sughad twoconnectedreasonsforretaining her gestthatArendt notion of the the notion idiosyncratically populist People. First, for her a distinctive and attractive ideal,intirepresented political matedin Origins not in thatbook. formulated though yetclearly to a that Second,theterm pointed political phenomenon wasall the moreprecious forbeingrare.Bothof thesepoints willperhaps becomeclearerifwe look at the treatment of People and nonPeople in On Revolution.
Ill
On Revolution is organized rounda contrast between the two revolutions. The American Revolution greateighteenth-century succeededin establishing a republic and a constitution thatare still after The French Revolution 200years. failed to goingstrong establish a republic, and rapidly becamederailed intotheTerror. Arendt's reflections on thecontrast arecomplex, butin heranalysisthePeople havea good deal to do with thedifference in outcome.In baldsummary, theAmerican Revolution wascarried out a mobilized who shared a whereas the French world, by People Revolution wasdriven off coursebya mobilized the non-People, starving poor. It is clearer in OnRevolution thanin Origins what itmeansfora to share a world because Arendt can pointto political People institutions roundwhich the (free, white, male) Americans gatheredand in defense ofwhich thePeople couldtakeaction. Even beforethe Revolution, whilethey werestillBritish the subjects, Americans had been "organized in self-governing bodies"(1963: And since were accustomed to moving 164). they already freely within thatsharedpolitical it was easierforthemtojoin world,
412
SOCIAL RESEARCH
to buildthenewfederated world oftherepublic, while together at thesametimeremaining pluraland having scope fordebates between different wasa constituopinions(143-5).The outcome tionthatwas,in Arendt's "a an words, tangible worldly reality," ofexceptional (156). "objective thing" durability In France, there no was or constituted contrast, by organized wasdisplaced, there wasno shared People. Once themonarchy world there to buildone (179). Early political already attempts werederailedby the presencein the streets of a wow-People knownas le people the starving Parisianmultitude. ironically Arendt of the revolution, the incipient saysthatthe potential of the for was overwhelmed freedom," "uprising by the people of "themultitude of the poor and the downtrodden," eruption who emergedfor the first timeinto the public realm (41).3 thiswas politically disastrous. The Despiteitsenormous pathos, of a free was futile by project building republic displaced attempts the sheer ofstartocurepoverty while means, bypolitical urgency the vation But the experience also deformed justified tyranny. misof "thepeople,"becauseparticipants and observers concept in thestreets tookthemultitude fortherealPeople. thepoor nottherealPeople?Becausealthough werethey Why wereunitedin thewrong weremobilized and united, they way. thema shared world outside round Insteadof beinggathered were held selves, by the they together onlybybodilynecessity, them as suffered. Arendt describes identical they pangsofhunger moves as one bodyand acts "a multi-headed a massthat monster, thenon-Peoples Like one will" as though (1963:89). by possessed and quite for in Origins, butonly werepowerful, destruction, they institutions." unableto build"lasting contrast. On theone side,in AmerSo Arendt offers us a stark from thegrassroots an articulated ica, stands People,mobilized On the themselves. and outside for thesakeofsomething objective united in have a other we side, France, only bythings non-People in with mobs "tribal nationalist" like the inside themselves, Origins,
THE PUZZLE OF ARENDT'S "POPULISM"
413
whileallowing for solid thatcould hold themtogether nothing separate perspectives. what she has to sayaboutthePeople in OnRevSo far, though, ofa forthePeople in possession seemsfarfrom olution populist, with bread above the are an raised world elite, preoccupation frank about is uncompromisingly Arendt thatdooms le peuple. tratheclassical this.She also pointsout thatwithin republican of an alternative to had alive the which dition, memory kept of thepopulahadmeanta minority monarchy, "people"always tion(1963:61). in some ways Her understanding of "thePeople" is certainly sideofthebookis a stress on Buttheother conservative. socially do not of newbeginnings, and people evidently the possibility Human classto be capableofthat. haveto belongto a privileged but they worlds, political always beingsmayor maynot inherit itself evihave it in themto build new ones. America provides fathers. Arendt out this backtothePilgrim dencefor points going had established institutions and that thefirst emigrants uprooted of mutual builta newworld the (173-5),and by power promises - with is always there she insists thatthis world-building capacity there. the corollary thata genuinePeople is always potentially She sees signsof thesamegrassroots to establish a new impulse in almost worldemerging revolution, political every subsequent in the "councils" that"sprang from the people as spontaneous ofactionand oforder"(275; cf.242,247,265). Although organs theseefforts had failed, sheseemstobe saying that individuals set adrift and do not have to turn into a mob bycatastrophe upheaval or a mass.Unlikely as it maybe, theycan build sharedworldly institutions from theground do so, they willbe a up- and ifthey Peopleand an eliteat thesametime(282). I suggested earlier thatOnRevolution might helpus to see why itmadesensetoArendt to stick to herkindofpopulism, despite hersuspicion ofthemob,themasses, thebarbarians and lepeuple. So whydid she clingto the notionof the collective People in I think action? wemay be able tosee twoconnected reasons. One
414
SOCIAL RESEARCH
of"thePeoan understanding she had developed is conceptual: toappearin polsuchan entity for wanting gavegrounds ple"that - is - and perhaps the more important itics. The other sucha Peoplehad on that She wasconvinced phenomenological. itwas and coulddo so again;that occasionmadean appearance, not a a political concept. phenomenon,just political I themoreinteresting, The phenomenological is, think, point ofthe I am and ifalso themorecontentious, goingtospendmost it.Butletus takea moment ofthepaperconsidering remainder meantby"the Arendt to look at theconceptual aspect at what have a kind of this a action and might by People why people," itseemsthattheAmerican In On Revolution, claimto legitimacy. are act as a People because,unlikeU peuple, revolutionaries they of in for a world and institutions, partinherited, lasting acting own mutual their the from established ground up by part has ofworld a claimto sort Anda Peoplelinked bythat promises. reasons. forthree respect, political arounda In thefirst place,becausethePeople are mobilized their one while act as can shared world, maintaining pluralthey who to Rousseau's In contrast individuals. distinct as "people," ity them General Willinside tobe united aresupposed byan identical held are Arendt's of members all, bybeinggathtogether People worldof the institutional ered aroundthe objective, federated, Condiin Human The says Republic(1963: 70-1).As she famously men and separates relates likeevery "theworld, in-between, tion, at thesametime"(1958:52). and destructive thefutile she contrasts In On Revolution quest withthe Founding in the FrenchRevolution for unanimity differofdebatebetween relaxed Fathers' acceptance remarkably entopinions(1963:88). a worldly reasonwhy So thefirst People mayhavea claimto are unitedandplural.Second,since is thatthey respect political can be mobiare diverse, interests short-term their they private interests of the in favor most lized theyall share, successfully
415
thelong-term oftheir shared world. Actnamely publicinterests them outofpreoccupation with interingas a Peoplelifts private estsintocarefortherepublic. Third,since the pluralPeople look at theircommonworld from haveaccessto a variety different ofperspectives angles, they in the round.Insteadof being thatenable themto see things blinkeredby ideology, therefore have the potentialto they ofrealism and common as theFounding sense, developa politics Fathers indeeddid. None of thisimplies thathaving the good fortune to sharea must raise those concerned to the republic permanently heights of public-spiritedness and politicalrealism.In On Revolution Arendt also deploredthedegeneration ofAmerican into politics tradeoffs between interests. But at the conceptual level, private she offers an ideal of thePeople thatis worth about,if thinking with bothof themostfamiliar onlybecauseit contrasts conceptions.The People as she understands it is quite different from ofthePeopleas a single populist personifications beingspeaking with a single voice.Butitavoids what tends to be seenas theonly alternative: dissolution of thepeople intoan aggreantpopulist with no collective at all (Riker, 1982). gateofindividuals capacity if this isinteresting, lessclearthan wemight wish. Conceptually, We mustremember, that Arendt 's innovathough, conceptual tions arenever in intended as moves a theoretical just game.They - especially are meantto pointto neglected to those phenomena in memorable she humansigrare, phenomena which, believed, nificance is to be found. And I suspect thatthereasonshe hung on to thenotionofthepeoplewasnotsimply that itrepresented an idealofrepublican butalsobecause, in herview, itwas politics, a form of political mobilization thatdid occasionally occur.In otherwords, despitetheoverwhelming presencein her timeof undesirable forms of mobilization, she believedthat thoroughly - such as the American on a fewoccasions Revolution and the
416
SOCIAL RESEARCH
- it was possibleto seethe Revolution of 1956 failedHungarian ofthePeoplein action. phenomenon IV weputa collective Shouldn't what arewe tomakeofthis? Now, into the samecategory of manifests itself that occasionally People seemtheonly as UFOs?Skepticism may appropriate phenomena response. and I wantto suggest thatdespiteour misgivings, However, Arendt is on to ofherthought, obscurities theundeniable despite collective it is clear that For one thing, important. something because theyare the do come and entities go, simply political observation that It is a matter ofcommon ofmobilization. results or moveexistence a into can combine to bring individuals party has new and that did notexist that mentor organization before, that collective entiofobservation to act.It is also a matter power and fallapartagain.We continually kindcan crumble tiesofthis and demobilization. ofmobilization witness thephenomena ofdemocracy thediscourse References to "thepeople"within at all as a collective thatifit exists tendto givethe impression be less Butwe might and always. existeverywhere itmust entity, of it as the kindof collectivity about it ifwe thought skeptical And I thinkthat and intermittently. that existsoccasionally betweenPeople and non-Peoples, whenArendtdistinguishes withdisentities thattheseare permanent she is not claiming thatthey come intobeingwhen but rather tinct memberships, Fromher pointof in are mobilized different individuals ways. in defense ofa shared mobilized thePeople are individuals view, thisseemsto her highly signifipublicworld.Despiteitsrarity, the to be powerful cant.Once in a whileitmay enough generate of a republic, institutions" by the memory legitimized "lasting if it dissolves even of thePeople in action.But and myth again the leave behind can still it that without worldly legacy, leaving
417
and myth thatoffer ofrepublican freedom to memory glimpses others intoaction. inspire I Thisaccountseemsto me to makesenseof theconundrum started with: howArendt could be a "populist" whiledeploring as popularmobilization. mostcasesofwhatothers might classify ButI wantto end bysuggesting thatit mayalso shedsomelight and embarrassing democon an obscure aspectofcontemporary theorists at the start of the For as democratic racy. political twentyfirst we do not seem to be able to do without the century, idea of thePeople,butwe do notknow whatto do legitimizing with it. Since the collapse of communism, it seems that the only sourceofpolitical (forthoseofus whoare remaining legitimacy notreligious is the consent ofthepeople.Even fundamentalists) themost ofdemocratic theorists cannot write unpopulist actually itoutofthescript. Habermas that he does not (forinstance) says what he calls "the intuition connected with the idea ofpopreject ularsovereignty" he does hisbestto render itharmless though it into and by translating anonymousprocesses procedures in other 1994: Similar ambivalence can found be (Habermas, 10). and itprompts further commentators, contemporary questions.4 Ifthecollective if cannot exercise cannot take People power, they actionon thepublicstage, howis it that can be based legitimacy on them? bother 's "intuition with Habermas connected with Why theidea ofpopularsovereignty" ifthenotionofa sovereign People in actionis really quitemeaningless? The answer mayofcoursebe that"thepeople"isjust a necesthisemperor has no clothes, but to keep the system sary myth: we mustgo on admiring his imaginary robes.But functioning there is a lesscynical of at that sees themnot way looking myths as purefictions butas transformed memories. Andwe mayafter all ask howwas it thatthe notionof the collective People as a source of legitimacy ever enteredthe vocabulary of politics? There is certainly self-evident about it. Historically we nothing can trace theidea tocertain of strikingly powerful examples polit-
418
SOCIAL RESEARCH
who generical mobilization, above all to thepopulus Romanus, atedso muchpower and suchlasting institutions as they gathered that shared. The aroundtheir res the publica, publicsomething they actionand collective and the myth of thatcollective memory and themselves, powerlastedmuchlongerthantheinstitutions in mobilization that turn to later cases of popular helped inspire renewed themyth. and others modern as Habermas Within pointout, democracy, for intoa legitimation themyth has been usefully domesticated itisa flight ButI do notthink and procedures. complex processes in therenewal ofthemyth offancy to saythat we havewitnessed in events did notliveto see. Cases of our owntime, that Arendt havebeen quitenumerwhat is sometimes called"PeoplePower" ous in thepastcoupleofdecades,butthemostnotableis surely in Poland in the 1980s.This was the movement the Solidarity of our time, mobilization mostspectacular conjuring grassroots of informal instituits own world out of nowhere, creating power structure to itsfoundathe existing and shaking tions, political in the1930s, tions. Butthesamecouldhavebeen saidofNazism mobilization. ofpolitical and ofmany other Why might examples ofthePeople? in particular countas a manifestation Solidarity of the If we weresimply to drawon the multiple meanings thenwe might word"people"in English, argue thatSolidarity as a tradeunion,it wasin the over.Starting countsthreetimes ofwhatused to be called "thecommon first place a movement it was a Equallyclearly, people" againstthe richand powerful. Soviet Poland of movement ofthenational impeagainst people with democratic in viewofitsconcern And third, rialism. rights acrossPolishsociety, it attracted and theoverwhelming support claimthantheofficial had a better itevidently "People'sDemocauthorto be thedemocratic sovereign people as ultimate racy" 1983: et 2). ity(Touraine al., between distinctions Butdo Arendt's People and non-Peoples Note thismovement? about what was special help us to analyze is notenoughto and spectacular, however that action, large-scale
419
ofthePeople.It is onlyifwe forget Arendt's signalthepresence of Nazismthat we can see heras thepatron saintof experience direct of the into action, every welcoming eruption population thestreets. Butifwelookbacktothecharacterization ofaction by the People that emergedfromour examination of Arendt's similarities. One of thestrikwe do findsomeinteresting books, of Solidarity waswhatArendt wouldhavecalled its ingfeatures character: its devotion to institution from the "worldly" building could have been less like an amorphous, groundup. Nothing violentmob or a helpless mass. To quote Alain impulsive, Touraineand his associates, "Here was a popular movement whichbehavedlike a legislative anxiousto assembly infinitely (Touraineet al., 1983: 2; cf.50). Furrespect legal procedures" its trade union origins and economicgrievthermore, despite concerned with ances, the movementwas overwhelmingly interests such as freedom and national long-term public political et al., 1983:4). Itsformidable was (Touraine independence unity forintense internal debateat all levels. unideological, allowing Andthefeature that wasin someways themost remarkable ofall wasa political ofArendt's Fathers: an sobriety worthy Founding exceptionaldegree of politicalrealismand common sense, with a remarkable to exercise self-restraint and together capacity interests aboveprivate interests and shortputsharedlong-term term impulses. Arendt's ofthePeopleunited Up toa point, conception byand in defense ofa shared institutional world built from thegrassroots fits well. But to a One feature of quite only up point. conspicuous as a movement ofthePeople does notfigure muchin Solidarity Arendt's and that is thenational and religious dimension analysis, that wasevidently crucial in theemergence ofSolidarity as a collective actor(Bakuniak and Nowak, that 1987),and in motivating devotion to the interest. As leader disciplined public Solidarity Lech Walesaputit,"The interests ofthePolishnation willalways override ourownparticular interests" et al., 1983:45). (Touraine Whenlooking earlier at TheOrigins we sawthat Totalitarianism, of
420
SOCIAL RESEARCH
theconnection between to recognize Arendt wasat times willing and thePeople,at anyratein thecase ofFrance(cf. nationhood on Franceas an wassquarely Canovan, 1999). Butheremphasis commurather thanas an "imagined inherited humanartifice, 1983). (Anderson, nity" about the People, As a practicaltestof Arendtvs thinking rather thanconis suggestive the case of Solidarity therefore, - and it was significant clusive.As a phenomenon,however, thatthe Arendt insisted Arendtian in yetanother way. always to be was and of human politics, activity, especially meaning Occathanin rareevents. found lessin itshumdrum regularities sional appearancesbythe People memorably by represented such The of fall into this category.5 greatdays any Solidarity leftbehind the limited. But Solidarity are always mobilization into a which myth ofthePeople rapidly crystallized memory whenthepublicarena,whichClaude in action, of themoment Lefort callsan "empty occupiedbya collective place,"wasbriefly yetpluralPeople.6 of the Mob and the Massesforcefully As Arendt's analyses arenotlikethat. mobilization most cases of remind us, large-scale democratic so muchin modern that notsurprising It is therefore to is and democratic institutions theory designed guardagainst it.Butifdemocrather thanto encourage mobilization informal of and possibility from themyth todraw continues legitimacy racy and ofsomeimportance thenitis a matter thePeoplein action, do that thefew casesofmobilization to distinguish really delicacy the from of the tradition the People reinvigorate republican Arendt's with can or not we do not. Whether that along go many attention more us to her pay encourage may judgments, thinking and particuas wellas a concept, to thePeopleas a phenomenon mobilization. of cases on to reflect contemporary popular larly
Notes 1 in this does notherself Arendt etc.;I use capitals "people," capitalize sake of for the clarity. paper
421
claimthat 2There are echoesofLocke,Hegel,and Marxin Arendfs to be on nature and transform it have to work human; fully youhave you torealon a humanized to have access artifice tobuilda human territory in about this. There is her view and to be a nothing genetic ity people. intoa tribe, be redeemed havebeen born youcan still youmay Although that laborand urbanlife"(1967:205). Butshe claims through "regular and in theirpre-imperialist African tribes wereworldless condition, be gathas Peoples,though couldat times couldnotactpolitically they as in Chakavs Zulu conquests eredintoa horde, (1967: 192). Allofthe in are mobilized and powerful, various that non-Peoples appear Origins or None ofthem shares a solid,lasting butonly fordestruction. world, ofcreating one. hasanyprospect 3For an alternative treatment witha markedly more sympathetic takes le peuple, see Arendt where she (1958: 218-9), repreemphasis in French to mean "theactual sented the sans-culottes the Revolution, by as suchfrom thepopulation as wellas from body, distinguished political society." 4Amoreingenious with itisprovided ofdealing way byClaudeLefort, nature ofthePeople.Forhim, whoexplicitly theproblematic recognizes mistake thatmade totalitarianism was to suppose the historic possible in other to to that was words, democracy analogous monarchy: suppose, left when the thatthe People as a bodycould fillthe political space in sacred of was is his view a the Instead, democracy body king expelled. moresubtle form ofpolity: The legitimacy ofpower is basedon thepeople;buttheimageof is linked to the imageof an empty popularsovereignty place, such that those to whoexercise authorimpossible occupy, public can never claimto appropriate it.Democracy combines these ity twoapparently on theone hand,power contradictory principles: emanatesfromthe people; on the other,it is the powerof Lefort (1986:279). nobody. 5Cf. can never be overstressed: (1991:117): "Thepoint Goodwyn populardemocratic is rarein history." is somewhat critical politics Goodwyn account oftheHungarian of 1956. (403) ofArendt's uprising 6Cf.theattempt Bruce Ackerman to articulate what (1991, 1998) by he sees as the unscripted role of the People within the constitutional of the Americanrepublic.Like Arendt, Ackerman is development to what he sees as that are real and responding neglected phenomena theproblems ofconceptualizing them. His practical significant despite
422
SOCIAL RESEARCH
aim is to devise procedures that can accommodate the rare moments when the population is jolted out of its privatepreoccupations and as he putsit, reform: mobilizedbehind a greatconstitutional moments, when The People speak. Ackerman(1991: 6; 1998: 409).
References
I: Foundations. B. WeThePeople. Ackerman, Cambridge:HarvardUniverPress,1991. sity II: Transformations. . WeThePeople. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press,1998. and Spread on the Communities: Anderson,B. Imagined of Origins Reflections London: Verso, 1983. Nationalism. of Chicago Press, Arendt,H. TheHuman Condition. Chicago: University 1958. on the Hungarian Revolution."TheOri. "Epilogue: Reflections ed. London: George Allen and Unwin, Totalitarianism. 2d gins of 1958. London: Faber and Faber, 1963. . On Revolution. London: GeorgeAllen and Unwin, Totalitarianism. . TheOrigins of 1967 (1951). San Diego: HarcourtBrace, 1972. . Crises ofthe Republic. . Thefew as Pariah. Ed. R. H. Feldman. New York: The Grove Press,1978. An Essayin Understanding." . "On the NatureofTotalitarianism: Ed. 1930-1954. in J. Kohn. NewYork,Harcourt Essays Understanding, 1994: 328-360. Brace, in Bakuniak,G., and K. Nowak. "The Creation of a CollectiveIdentity and in Poland." of 'Solidarnosc Social Movement:The Case Theory 16 (1987): 401-429. Society and the R.J. Hannah Arendt Bernstein, Cambridge:Polity, Question. Jewish 1996. ConCanovan, M. "Is There an ArendtianCase for the Nation-State?" 103-119. Politics 5 (1999): temporary inPoland.NewYork: TheRiseofSolidarity the Barrier: L. Breaking Goodwyn, OxfordUniversity Press,1991. I Habermas,J. "Three NormativeModels of Democracy."Constellations (1994): 1-10. Formsof ModernSociety: Lefort,C. The Political Democracy, Bureaucracy, 1986. Totalitarianism. Cambridge:Polity, San Francisco:Freeman,1982. W. H. Liberalism Riker, Populism. against lhe Analysis rocana, Touraine, A, et al. Solidarity: oj a SocialMovement, 1980-1981.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1983.

The People, The Masses and The Mobilization of Power - Canovan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The People, The Masses and The Mobilization of Power - Canovan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The People, the Masses, and the Mobilization of Power: The Paradox of Hannah Arendt's "Populism" Author(s): MARGARET

The People,theMasses,/ of/ and theMobilization The Paradox / Power: ofHannahArendt's/

THE PUZZLE OF ARENDTS "POPULISM"

THE PUZZLE OF ARENDTS "POPULISM"

THE PUZZLE OF ARENDT'S "POPULISM"

THE PUZZLE OF ARENDTS "POPULISM"

THE PUZZLE OF ARENDT'S "POPULISM"

THE PUZZLE OF ARENDTS "POPULISM"

THE PUZZLE OF ARENDTS "POPULISM"

THE PUZZLE OF ARENDTS "POPULISM"

THE PUZZLE OF ARENDTS "POPULISM"

You might also like