Visualizing Atrocity Intro

7/28/2019 Visualizing Atrocity Intro

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/visualizing-atrocity-intro 1/37

V i s u a l i z i n g at r o c i t y

Arendt, Evil, and the Optics of ThoughtlessnessV a l e r i e H a r t o u n i



Visualizing Atrocity



CRIICAL CULURAL COMMUNICAION

Gnrl Eitors: rh nt-Wisr n Knt A. Ono

Dangerous Curves: Latina Bodies in the Media

sbl Molin-Guzmán

Te Net Efect: echnology, Romanticism, Capitalism

Toms trtr

Our Biometric Future: Te Pursuit o Automated Facial Perception

Klly A. Gts

Critical Rhetorics o RaceEit by Mihl G. Ly n Knt A. Ono

Circuits o Visibility: Gender and ransnational Media Cultures

Eit by Rh . Hg

Commodity Activism: Cultural Resistance in Neoliberal imes

Eit by Rooli Mukhrj n rh nt-Wisr

Arabs and Muslims in the Media: Race and Representation ater 9/11

Evlyn Alsultny

Visualizing Atrocity: Arendt, Evil, and the Optics o Toughtlessness

Vlri Hrtouni



Visualizing Atrocity

rendt, vil, and the ptics o Toughtlessness

Vlri Hrtouni

a

w York n Lonon



NEW YORK UNIVERS IY PRESSw York n Lonon

www.nyurss.org

© 2012 by w York UnivrsityAll rights rsrv

Rrns to ntrnt Wbsits (URLs) wr urt t th tim o writing.

ithr th uthor nor w York Univrsity Prss is rsonsibl or URLs tht

my hv xir or hng sin th mnusrit ws rr.

Librry o Congrss Ctloging-in-Publition Dt

Hrtouni, Vlri.

Visulizing troity : Arnt, vil, n th otis o

thoughtlssnss / Vlri Hrtouni.

. m. — (Critil ulturl ommunition)nlus bibliogrhil rrns n inx.

ISBN 978-0-8147-3849-8 (loth : i-r r)

ISBN 978-0-8147-6976-8 (bk. : i-r r)

ISBN 978-0-8147-7183-9 (book)

ISBN 978-0-8147-3899-3 (book)

1. Arnt, Hnnh, 1906-1975. Eihmnn in Jruslm. 2. Arnt, Hnnh,

1906-1975—Critiism n intrrttion. 3. Arnt, Hnnh, 1906-1975—

Politil n soil viws. 4. Eihmnn, Aol, 1906-1962—rils, litigtion,

t. 5. Wr rim trils—Jruslm—History—20th ntury. 6. Holoust,

Jwish (1939-1945) 7. Worl Wr, 1939-1945—Atroitis—Grmny. 8. Gno-

i—Grmny—History—20th ntury. 9. Goo n vil—Politil sts.

10. Goo n vil—oil sts. . itl.

dd247.e5a734 2012

940.53'18092—23 2011051503

w York Univrsity Prss books r rint on i-r r, n thir bining

mtrils r hosn or strngth n urbility. W striv to us nvironmntlly

rsonsibl sulirs n mtrils to th grtst xtnt ossibl in ublishing our

books.

Mnutur in th Unit tts o Amri

c 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

p 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1



v

Contents

Acknowledgments vii

ntroution 1

1 Arnt n th ril o Aol Eihmnn:

Contxtulizing th Dbt 23

2 ology n Atroity 38

3 Toughtlssnss n Evil 64

4 “Crims ginst th Humn ttus”:

urmbrg n th mg o Evil 92

5 T nlity o Evil 114

Notes 125

Bibliography 165

Index 187About the Author 199



vii

Acknowledgments

At th Univrsity o Cliorni, n Digo, m silly ortunt to shr

worl with rmrkbl grou o iniviuls, ly ommitt to th-

ing n th rih lsurs o intlltul xhng. Mmbrs o this sriously

lti ommunity to whom m hugly inbt or thir insights n st-

st suort s wll s goo humor inlu Crol Pn, Mik Col, Dvi

rlin, Ptrik Anrson, Dn Hlin, itin Govil, Mihl huson, om

Humhris, Chnr Mukrji, n silly Robrt Horwitz. For nrly twos, Robrt hs bn trust rin n ollgu, vilbl to tlk n

willing to hllng, nourg, n, uring th mil stgs o this book,

ommnt xtnsivly on rts m quit sur by th nth itrtion h ws sik

o ring. H kinly nvr omlin.

Othr rins n ollgus who r, thought bout, n or riti-

l ommnts n suggstions inlu Chris Littlton, Wny rown, Donn

Hrwy, Ptr Dimok, Etinn Plrt, Dn ritur, Luynn Crlton,

n Lis Crtwright, with whom lso shr bus ri to Trsinstt on

ol, riny, lt ovmbr trnoon in 2005 n trin ri to urmbrg

shortly tr in hvy snowll. t ws n instrutiv n sobring momnt, sit-

ting in th urmbrg ourtroom listning to Grmn high shool stunts

rhrs th history o th ostwr trils n uzzl ovr wht it mnt tht th

ountry tht h l th rosution t thos trils ws itsl t tht momnt

wrking hvo ross th glob, grntly isvowing th humn rights norms

it hl ut in l.

Juith utlr n two nonymous rviwrs r th originl vrsion o

th mnusrit or YU Prss n togthr or mny til, vlublsuggstions or shrning rgumnts. Eri Zinnr n Cir MLughlin o

YU Prss long with sris itors Knt Ono n rh nt-Wisr wr

nthusisti n grious intrloutors: or thir irtion t h stg o this

book’s roution, xtn my st rition. Finnil n institu-

tionl suort or ortions o this rojt wr rovi by th Drtmnt o

Communition, UC n Digo; Mi n Gnr tuis t Ruhr Univr-

sity, ohum, Grmny; th hoto rhiv rtmnts t Y Vshm, Jrus-

lm, srl, n th Unit tts Holoust Mmoril Musum, Wshington,D.C.; n Ami nt Rsrh Grnts n sbbtil rls tim rom

UC n Digo.





1

Introduction

s the twentieth century draws to a close, it is dicult to avoid being over-

whelmed by moral nausea. Tere are well-known numbers: ten million deadin the First orld ar, a war ought over virtually nothing; roughly orty mil-

lion in the econd orld ar, including the six million Jews killed in the azi

concentration and extermination camps; twenty million or more in the oviet

gulag; thirty million dead as a result o the debacle o ao’s “Great eap For-

ward”; plus the millions rom a host o less spectacular but no less horrifc

massacres. ny conception o human dignity that hinges upon the presump-

tion o the moral progress o the species has been shattered by these events.

—Dana illa, Politics, Philosophy, Terror

I.

Rr is th s tht th n w imgin t th bginning o rojt is th

n tht w n or tht ns us on ll is t lst rovisionlly si n on.

t might b li or th worl, h with its otn unritbl, surrising, n

somtims shoking turns; th work or ritil intrvntions o lik-min

(or not) sholrs; it might b th unntiit but unvoibl mns o

nrrtivs intrnl to th txt itsl tht ust th rtiulr trjtory onh thought on woul or n to trvrs to turn st o uriositis into

qustions n qustions into thms n thms into rgumnts whos vl-

omnt might thn shhr n imgin uin, illy, through th on-

tin worl w ll book. uh hs bn th story with this olltion o

loosly rlt htrs tht orbit thmtilly roun issus ris by Hnnh

Arnt in hr 1963 rort on th Aol Eihmnn tril in Jruslm.

A ring o Arnt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem in th ontxt o grut

sminr o-tught som yrs go l m to bgin thinking bout zi tro-ity n its ontinuously invok rsn in oulr isours n bt.1

h no intntion t tht tim—whih now turns out to b this rojt’s r-

tiulr momnt o ontion—o tking u Arnt or o using hr ot-it

n ontrovrsil hrtriztion o vil s bnl s oint o ntry or think-

ing bout or linking ontmorry morl isourss, ontmorry ro-

utions with th Holoust, n ontmorry olitil li rgur n

isgur omstilly n bro in th wk o 9/11. Yt Arnt’s stuy o

Aol Eihmnn— milvl bururt in th Gsto’s Drtmnt o Jw-

ish Airs who ilitt th th o millions, murr no on, n lim

only to hv bn “trnsorttion ofr”—ws both rovotiv n timly



2 ntroution

in its ort to show how worl, ostnsibly nst in mornity, oul r-

tur in unmntlly irrrbl wys. “T trition is brokn n th Ari-

n thr is lost,” Arnt wrot. “ th sris o riss in whih w hv liv

sin th bginning o th [twntith] ntury n th us nything t ll, it

is, think, th siml t tht thr r no gnrl stnrs to trmin our jugmnts unilingly, no gnrl ruls unr whih to subsum th rtiulr

ss with ny gr o rtinty.”2

Arnt’s stuy o Eihmnn l m in vrity o irtions but rst, not

surrisingly, to thinking bout gnoi. An o rtiulr intrst to m wr

th wys in whih th str o gnoi—n hr th historiz, on-

txtuliz th worl o Aushwitz tns to b trt s th sol, rig-

mti mol—ws invok by sktis o “ostmornism” to unrsor th

limittions and ngrs o n inisrimintly grou nsmbl o ritilrtis tht r, in th viw o som trtors, stylishly hostil to notions

o truth, vlu, rogrss, n rtionlity or thos turs tyilly rgr

s hllmrks o mornity.3 y rjting ll ountionlism, or so th rgu-

mnt gos, th ostmorn turn rors rious w rsours or onront-

ing or ountring gnoi whn it rs on th olitil lns; n it

my wll ostr gnoi’s vry onition o ossibility. mning n truth

r soil thnologis, ulturlly sh n ontingnt, in, i th is-

tintion btwn wht is ll “t” n “tion” or “history” n “rbl” is

stblish n mintin (both isursivly n mtrilly) “only” through

rtiulr rltions n rtis o owr, by wht stnrs or rinils r

w thn to intiy, jug, or onmn (stt-sntion) ts o gnoi n

thos who rtrt thm?4

II.

Ts r not unrsonbl qustions. An ovr th ours o th st

thy hv ssum itionl rtil urgny s th mor immit s-tr o trrorism hs join gnoi in ostnsibly xosing th bnkruty o

rtiulr ontmorry turn in thinking. Rrs might rll tht in th on-

us wks ollowing th Al Q–link ssult on th Worl r Cntr

n on th v o ghting nwly lr wr in Aghnistn, ommntry

r in th New York imes s wll s ime mgzin, mong othr romi-

nnt n oulr nws vnus, tht sought to highlight th rniious hrtr

o is romoting wht som rrr to s “ suosohistit rltivism.”

Ts is, or so it ws si, h mng to work thir wy into ll ornrso li ovr th ours o svrl s only to wkn th ntion’s rsolv,

obsur its jugmnt, n rnr it blin to its now obvious rsonsibility s



3 ntroution

ling worl owr (n rhs th only worl owr bl) to us or in

bnign n runt shion, lwys lry or goo.5 Tus Ewr Rothstin

sw in th olls o th win owrs—or rhs hr bttr sribs it—

wht h insists ws n unmistkbl “ry . . . or trnsnnt thil rs-

tiv.” Rothstin lborts:T rjtion o univrsl vlus n ils lv[s] littl room or unquli

onmntions o trrorist ttk, rtiulrly on ginst th Wst. . . . On n

only ho tht nlly, s th rmitions sink in, s it boms lr how los th

ttk m to unrmining th olitil, militry, n nnil uthority o th

Unit tts, th Wstrn rltivism o omo [ostmornism] n th obsssiv

ous o oo [ostolonilism] will b wily sn s thilly rvrs. Rigily

li, thy rquir orm o guilty ssivity in th o ruthlss n unyiling

oosition.

6

n this sm vin, Rogr Rosnbltt or ommntry in ime tht

ho Rothstin’s sntimnts; Rosnbltt similrly sw in th olls o th

win owrs lrion ll or morl rlignmnt:

On goo thing oul om rom this horror: it oul sll th n o th g o

irony. For som 30 yrs—roughly s long s th win owrs wr uright—th

goo olks in hrg o Amri’s intlltul li hv insist tht nothing ws

to b bliv in or tkn sriously. othing ws rl. . . . T ironists, sing

through vrything, m it ifult or nyon to s nything. T onsqun

o thinking tht nothing is rl—rt rom rning roun in n ir o vin

stuiity—is tht on will not know th irn btwn jok n mn.

o mor. . . . Ar you looking or somthing to tk sriously? gin with vil. T

t bor our ys is tht grou o svg zlots took th swt n vrious

livs o thos orinrily trvling rom l to l, orinrily strting y o

work or—xtrorinrily—oming to hl n rsu othrs. From? Tt rl

nough or you? Evrything w ling to in our r n suntring ountry ws

imril by th trrorists.7

o b sur, suh hrgs i not go unnswr. Writing in rsons toths ustions n othr nxious lrtions, lso in th gs o th New

York imes, tnly Fish qustion whthr mrshling univrsl bsoluts—

trnsnnt thil rstiv howvr n—ws nssrily th bst

or most tiv strtgy in ns o morti ils, rtiulrly sin

it ws risly in trms o suh bsoluts tht our vrsris lim to b

ting. n, s Arnt ution in th ontxt o thinking bout n lto-

gthr irnt momnt o olitil risis, “T bsolut . . . slls oom to

vryon whn it is introu into th olitil rlm.” An it “slls oom”or numbr o rsons not lst o ths bing tht with bsoluts thr is

no n or thought n thr n b no groun or isgrmnt.8 Morovr,



4 ntroution

thr is th itionl, obvious issu o whos bsolut gts to b bsolut. Tis

hs tn, historilly t lst, to bom mttr o r owr, bloosh,

n boy ounts. Fish lso qustion whthr “ostmornism”—“ rri

orm o mi tlk,” s h srib it—whil th rnt trgt o om-

mntry ws tully th issu. king silly to this issu in n rtilor th New York Review o Books, Jon Diion suggst tht it lrly ws not

th issu, tht ritis h mrly bn oortunisti n siz th onus,

stbiliz momnt “to stk nw groun in ol omsti wrs.”9 ut on this

ront, Fish wnt urthr thn Diion, noting tht wht, in his wors, “sm

to b bothring ol” ws th i tht th “how” n “why” o 9/11, its ri-

itting onitions, might not b trnsrnt n wr rtinly not qustions

nswrbl in th uttrly rutiv mnnr ot by th ministrtion n

in most ss rly on simly rrot by th rss. Ts wr not just “vilo-rs,” n this ws not just mttr o “rom loving ountry” bing st uon

by “svg zlots.” Answring th qustion o how or why, h urg, rquir

n unrstning o omlit history, logi, n st o motivs; n quir-

ing suh unrstning ws not, in turn, bout norsing or ononing th

ttk. Tis lttr oint my sm obvious, but it rquir rt rsttmnt

s th l o ubli isours onstrit. Fish xlins:

How mny tims hv w hr ths nw mntrs: “W hv sn th o vil ”;

“ths r irrtionl mmn”; “w r t wr with intrntionl trrorism.” Eh

is t on inurt n unhlul. W hv not sn th o vil; w hv sn

th o n nmy who oms t us with ull rostr o grivns, gols, n

strtgis. w ru th nmy to “vil,” w onjur u sh-shiting mon,

wil-r morl nrhist byon our omrhnsion n thror byon th

rh o ny ountr-strtgis. . . . T sm rution ours whn w imgin

th nmy s “irrtionl.” . . . T bttr ours is to think o ths mn s brrs

o rtionlity w rjt bus its gol is our strution. w tk th troubl

to unrstn tht rtionlity, w might hv bttr hn o guring out

wht its hrnts will o nxt n rvnting it. . . . s this th n o rltiv-

ism? . . . [] by rltivism on mns th rti o utting yoursl in your

vrsris’ shos, not in orr to wr thm s your own but in orr to hv som

unrstning (r short o rovl) o why somon ls might wnt to wr

thm, thn rltivism will not n shoul not n, bus it is simly nothr

nm or srious thought.10

n th wks n months ollowing 9/11, thr ws littl tin or rw-

ing out th kins o historis n onntions tht Fish n host o othr

ubli intlltuls wr insisting might, i nothing ls, slow th rumbtlong nough to brk th sll o r n mrtil invitbility n thrby

rt n oning or rtion n bt. ut sns o mrgny work



5 ntroution

ginst both, in rnr th ll or ithr rtion or bt sign o

wknss n isloylty. An othrwis lrm ubli ws nourg in th

imuls to onus rightous ngr with morl lrity n morl lrity with

rwkn sns o unity, uros, n ntionl ror. Formr srtry

o ution unr Ronl Rgn, Willim nntt, sw in this rwkn-ing “ll tht is instintully grn bout th Amrin hrtr”— goonss

tht t Hitlr n ws mth by non, “nw rlism” tht mrk th

n o s o guilty ssivity.11 t ws goo ginst vil, in, us ginst

thm. ut s th months vn n rumor o oming wr now with rq

ntr th nws yl with som rgulrity, th muh lbrt “nw rlism,”

isursivly link to risovr sns o morl uros, nhor no lss

to mintury struggl ginst tyrnny; this nw rlism isly hilling

isrgr or th rlity, th worlly onitions, tht h initilly ll it orth.ut or bing rt o lrgr iologilly rivn strtgy, wht, tr ll, i

rq hv to o with th ttk o 9/11?

Tt th nswr to this qustion ws trt or th most rt s ubli

rltions roblm is somthing ormr mmbrs o th ush Whit Hous hv

sin onrm.12 ut th sns in whih it mttr hrly t ll t th tim is

unrsor by now ot-it ount th journlist Ron uskin givs o

onvrstion h h with n unnm mmbr o th ush ministrtion—

wily bliv to hv bn Krl Rov—in summr 2002. n this onvrstion,

it ws sll out or uskin risly wht th rrogtivs o owr wr

with rst to th rl in th nw worl orr tht h bn ushr in with

th olls o th win owrs. uskin lborts:

Atr h writtn n rtil in Esquire tht th Whit Hous in’t lik . . .

h mting with snior visor to ush. H xrss th Whit Hous’s

islsur, n thn tol m somthing tht t th tim in’t ully omr-

hn. . . . T i si tht guys lik m wr “in wht w ll th rl ity-bs

ommunity,” whih h n s ol who “bliv tht solutions mrg rom

your juiious stuy o isrnbl rlity.” no n murmur somthing

bout nlightnmnt rinils n miriism. H ut m o. “Tt’s not th wy

th worl rlly works nymor,” h ontinu. “W’r n mir now, n whn

w t, w rt our own r lity. An whil you’r stuying tht rlity—jui-

iously, s you will—w’l l t gin, rting othr, nw rlitis, whih you n

stuy too, n tht’s how things will sort out. W’r history’s tors . . . n you, ll

o you, will b lt to just stuy wht w o.”13

Wht r w to mk o ths lims, th ynil ismissl o nlightnmnt

rinils n miriism tht tr ll orm th bsis o th Constitution nmorti olitil ormtion this snior visor h sworn to rott? Mor-

ovr, how r w to unrstn th suggstion tht rlity is just mttr o



6 ntroution

wht th owrul mk o it n sy it will b? An, nlly, wht hn to

th “trnsnnt thil rstiv” tht ws suos to hv nhor this

nw ost-9/11 worl in whih goo n vil wr unmbiguously lr; in,

wht o “goo” n “vil” mn in ontxt in whih, rntly, not mrly

“truth,” but rlity itsl r rgr s mttrs o mnutur?ronilly, or rhs not, thos milir with Tuyis’ ount o th

Ploonnsin Wr my hr in ths ommnts rsonns o lims rt-

ly ut orwr by th Athnins s thy subu rin n nmy lik

through subjtion n slughtr in ursuit o mir. nsisting tht tritionl

orms o justition n sntion wr no longr nssry or rlvnt—bing

qul to non, Athnins wr nswrbl to non—Athns ro with-

out isursiv or mtril rstrint, roriting wht o th worl n its

inhbitnts suit its somtims riious ns n intrsts whil rgr-ing its ns n intrsts s th sol msur o orr n mning: “right, s

th worl gos, is only qustion btwn quls in owr, whil th strong o

wht thy n n th wk sur wht thy must.”14 W know how this rti-

ulr story ns: “th whol Hllni worl onvuls” into ivil wr, n Athns

vntully m to ruin. ut mor signint still is wht hn long th

wy to riitt this n: omnying th in vry sh ws th olls

o ultur o isours, o stblish unrstnings, shr lngug, n

struturs o rgumnt tht nbl oxistn vn mong vrsris. An

in this ontxt, oring to Tuyis, “wors h to hng thir mning

n tk tht whih ws now givn thm.”15 Wht ollow ws kin o hos,

or s onvntionl mning ws stbiliz so too wr th shr orms n

rtis o li suh mning m ossibl. “Whn th lngug in whih th

worl is onstitut lls rt, it boms imossibl, s Tuyis shows us,

not only to t rtionlly within it but to mk stistory sns o it.”16

uskin’s onvrstion with snior ush visor on th v o wht turns

out to hv bn rully orhstrt rmtiv strik in th Mil Est

onvys rtinly th onit o owr: s w rrsnt th worl, so it will b;“W’r n mir now n w rt our own rlity.” As olitil thorist hl-

on Wolin obsrvs, “t woul b ifult to n mor ithul rrsnttion

o th totlitrin ro tht tru olitis is ssntilly mttr o ‘will,’ o

trmintion to mstr th uss o owr n to loy thm to ronstitut

rlity.”17 W know now, nrly ltr, tht this rtiulr “rtion”

o rlity ntil n lbort mign o misinormtion n tion on

bhl o n iologilly rivn vision tht ws s muh bout hnging stru-

turs o uthority n govrnn in th Unit tts s it ws bout xort-ing rom to rq.18 From this mign, th worl n ountry ontinu to

onvuls. ut mor mging still is th roblm tht rsists o bing unbl



7 ntroution

to lrly isrn whr risly th tions bgin n n or wht o th rl

ows itsl to th li: this ros n is sign to ro sns o bring

n bsis or tking on’s bring.19 Prhs not surrisingly, ths hllngs

rturn us to Arnt n n obsrvtion sh ror rgring th ntur o

wht sh ll “th morn li” in th ontxt o n rly ort to mk snso totlitrin thniqus n thir lsting lgy:

Wstrn hilosohy hs mintin tht rlity is truth—or this is o ours

th ontologil bsis o th aequatio rei et intellectus—thn totlitrinism hs

onlu rom this tht w n brit truth insor s w n brit rlity;

tht w o not hv to wit until rlity unvils itsl n shows us its tru , but

n bring into bing rlity whos struturs will b known to us rom th bgin-

ning bus th whol thing is our rout. n othr wors, it is th unrlying

onvition o ny totlitrin trnsormtion o iology into rlity tht it willbom tru whthr it is tru or not. us o this totlitrin rltionshi to

rlity, th vry ont o truth hs lost its mning. T lis o totlitrin mov-

mnts, invnt or th momnt, s wll s th orgris ommitt by totlitrin

rgims, r sonry to this unmntl ttitu tht xlus th vry istin-

tion btwn truth n lshoo. t is or this n, tht is, or th onsistny

o lying worl orr, rthr thn or th sk o owr . . . tht totlitrinism

rquirs totl omintion n globl rul n is rr to ommit rims whih

r unrnt.20

III.

trrorism is rnt xml invok to monstrt wht lk o lity to

onvntionl notions o truth, vlu, rogrss, n rtionlity my ostr, gno-

i rmins th mor ommonly it rti tht hllngs th ostmorn

turn in thinking: gnoi mns n unmbiguous rsons ritis mintin

nnot b givn i th sttus o ruth, vlus, ts, n rtionlity is in oubt.

onvntionl knowlg-rouing rtis r isrit; i thr is nounivrsl or univrslly rogniz groun or vlu;21 i thr is no omin o

mning, jugmnt, or lw tht ss intrminny, by wht stnrs or

rinils r w to intiy, jug, or onmn ts o gnoi n thos who

rtrt thm? Ts r imortnt qustions s not rlir, but w might

sk s wll or inst wht stnrs or rinils hv bn invok to jug

n onmn or thwrt suh ts sin Worl Wr ? An w n tht vn

with worl orgniz by rtiulr rgim o truth in whih onvntionl

notions o objtivity, vin, vlu, rogrss, n rtionlity r onstitutivlmnts (or ts), gnoi’s rrn hs hrly bn thwrt, in,

hs hrly bn rogniz s suh xt rhs tr th t.



8 ntroution

n omrhnsiv stuy, tly titl A Problem rom Hell, mnth Powr

nots tht thr hv bn t lst our mjor gnois sin Worl Wr —

Pol Pot in Cmboi, m Hussin in northrn rq, th Hutus’ mss mur-

r o utsi in Rwn, n rbin orts to “thnilly lns” osni. An

wr Powr writing toy, on imgins tht sh woul surly th ontinu-ing bl in Drur, with its isl (2.5 million s o this writing) n its

(200,000), to this list. Ts gnois hv or th most rt gon un-

knowlg n/or unhllng s thy unol by both th intrntionl

ommunity n th Unit tts, vn whil, in Powr’s wors, oliy mkrs

“knw grt l bout th rims bing rtut . . . [n h] ountlss

oortunitis to mitigt n rvnt slughtr.”22 Wht ws hning on th

groun in h o ths rgions, in othr wors, ws not in qustion, nor wr ny

o th mny ts o h mttr. n, th “not on our wth” rinils nonvitions o th rst worl wr rit rtly by lrs n thir rr-

snttivs in othr ls n ontxts long with th vow, tru to th sirit o

urmbrg, to “nvr gin” ssum ssiv, isintrst ostur whn on-

ront with “th trribl rim o gnoi.” An yt, whil ignoring, ismiss-

ing, or xlining wy th sriousnss o th slughtr, rst worl mmbrs o

th intrntionl ommunity otn wnt to grt lngths to voi (n rvnt

othrs rom) invoking th U Convntion (on th Prvntion n Punishmnt

o th Crim o Gnoi). T ritil qustion ws not whthr lthl violn

ws bing mloy (in h s sussully) to imt mrk oultions;

th ritil qustion or oliy mkrs ws wht signin to tth to it. An

in h instn, trmintions wr sh by rtiulr goolitil intrsts

n work to shor u th strtgi imrtiv to look wy.23 n th ontxt o

ontmorry mss murrs, in othr wors, lity to onvntionl notions o

truth, vlu, rogrss, n rtionlity sv no on.

Wht, thn, o th ns issonn tht mrgs whn rl-tim troitis

ross th glob r st longsi ontmorry routions with mmo-

rilizing so s nvr to orgt th mss murr o Euron Jwry? Wht o ongoing orts to institutionliz th “ lssons” o tht gnoi? Do ontmo-

rry “rl-tim” troitis onstitut gnoi but or th intrntionl imli-

tions (n inonvnins) o rssing thm s suh? mntion th stuy

o mnth Powr rlir. Consir th isonnt Powr nots t tt

Drtmnt rss onrn tiling th sttus o U.. rsonnl n ntion-

ls in Rwn. At this rss onrn, Ating Assistnt rtry or Arin

Airs Prun ushnll nnoun th rtmnt’s ision to tmorrily

los th mbssy mi mounting violn tht sh srib, sit rortsrom U Pkrs, s yt nothr thni “r-u.” Atr ushnll lt th

oium, Powr writs,



9 ntroution

Mihl MCurry, th [tt] rtmnt soksmn, took hr l n ritiiz

orign govrnmnts or rvnting th srning o th tvn ilbrg lm

Schindler’s List. “Tis lm movingly ortrys . . . th twntith ntury’s most hor-

ribl tstroh,” MCurry si. “An it shows tht vn in th mist o gnoi,

on iniviul n mk irn.” MCurry urg tht th lm b shownworlwi. “T most tiv wy to voi th rurrn o gnoil trgy,” h

lr, “ is to nsur tht st ts o gnoi r nvr orgottn.” o on m

ny onntion btwn ushnll ’s rmrks n MCurry’s. ithr journlists

nor ofils in th Unit tts wr ous on th utsi.24

Powr sts n silly ritil y t th rnt inonsistnis tht

rv U.. orign oliy with rst to gnoi—on th on hn, th

rhtoril rsolv, omstilly, o ision mkrs ross ministrtions

who hv rrly sm rtint to lvrg th ntion’s intrntionl osi-tion s morl rbitr in mttrs o humn rights n thir bus; n on th

othr, thir rtil inirn to “gross thil brbritis” bing xut

in som (ulturlly n gogrhilly rmot) rgion lswhr. till, Powr

onlus tht wht rs to b glring ilur to mobiliz in timly mn-

nr on bhl o mrk oultions rrsnts inst th sussul ursuit

o twool objtiv by lrs rom both rtis in th Unit tts n

th orign oliy stblishmnt mor gnrlly. Poliy mkrs in th xutiv

brnh (with th ssiv suort o Congrss, sh nots) hv sought to voi

boming ntngl in onits riv to b outsi Amrin intrsts vn

s thy hv lso sought to voi ring morlly inirnt to suh onits.

An, s Powr ss it, thy hv “by n lrg . . . hiv both ims. n orr

to ontin th olitil llout, U.. ofils ovrmhsiz th mbiguity o

th ts. Ty ly u th likly utility, rvrsity, n jory o ny ro-

os intrvntion. Ty ststly voi us o th wor ‘gnoi,’ whih

thy bliv rri with it lgl n morl (n thus olitil) imrtiv to

t. An thy took sol in th norml ortions o th orign oliy buru-

ry, whih rmitt n illusion o ontinul librtion, omlx tivity,n intns onrn.”25

bgin with Powr’s gnrl ormultion o th issonn tht mrgs

whn w situt th rtitiv injuntions, not to mntion rvny, o on-

tmorry holoust isours longsi th inirn n (on)strin

rsons o th intrntionl ommunity to wht hv bn qully isstrous

humn tstrohs s thy’v unol sin Worl Wr . ut moving on

now rom Powr’s work n by wy o xning th rm, othr thinkrs hv

similrly sought to ount or n rrm morn gnoi in wys tht mightmystiy th logi o th rti n llow orms o rss tht inlu but

lso go byon wht hv bom th uriously rssuring olmis n now



10 ntroution

omortbl imimnts o th rigm or u by zism. An, to b

lr, by “rssuring” n “omortbl,” mn only to unrsor th routin

wys in whih zi troity is trt s both bnhmrk n n brrtion,

n vnt tht is both insi n outsi history; n vnt tht mrks mor-

nity’s ulmintion or nitiv ilur; n vnt tht must b unrstoo vnwhil it will orvr s unrstning n y ommonl orms o r-

rsnttion. n h instn, th isursiv ths r wll worn—but mor on

this shortly.

otbl mong suh orts r th rst two volums o Mrk Lvin’s ro-

jt our-volum invstigtion, Genocide in the Age o the Nation State.26 As

th titl o this rojt suggsts, Lvin rjts th notion tht gnoi n b

onstru nrrowly s istintly twntith-ntury brrtion, th og o

rtiulr ntionl imrtivs, totlitrin tnnis, or ulturl ors u-lir to Grmny n ossibly th ormr ovit Union. H rgus, inst, or

viw tht situts “xtrmintory violn” in bro ontul n historil

rm s rt n rl o mornizing rosss tht r mor or lss r-

iitt by “ hnul o Euron mritim stts” uring th lt tnth

ntury;27 tht inubt ovr th ours o svrl hunr yrs with th olo-

nil xnsion o “th Wst” n th grul mrgn o n intrntionl sys-

tm o ruls n onvntions s wll s globl mrkts; n tht ulmint in

th (gogrhilly, olitilly, n onomilly) unvn (r)orgniztion n

trnsormtion o trritory, oultions, oliis, n rtis into wht oms

to b known s th “ntion-stt.”28 An it is, in Lvin’s viw, th onsolition

n imril vn o this morn stt ormtion, or ll its librl n libr-

ting onstitutionl n morti turs (n rhs bus o ths -

turs), tht brings with it s onstitunt omonnt th univrsl otntil or

gnoi. o b lr: Lvin’s oint is not tht th ntion-stt r s is inhr-

ntly gnoil but rthr tht its ull mrgn by th lt nintnth ntury

unmntlly isruts th strutur n ortion o olr, thnilly htro-

gnous, ulturlly ivrs, olitilly ntrliz worl mirs—RomnovRussi, Ottomn urky, Hbsburg Austri-Hungry, n Qing (Mnhu)

Chin. n orr to surviv within n mrgnt globl systm o ntion-stts

n rmin onomilly, olitilly, n militrily omtitiv, vn i only

mrginlly so, ths wning mirs r rivn “towrs som orm o ntionl,

trritorilly groun ohrn.”29 An t lst on o th mns som ot

to hiv this ohrn is thni onsolition through thni lnsing, or

wht is lso ll “gnoi”:

Align lt Hbsburg n Romnov thni oliis with th inrsingly t-strohi Chins n Ottomn bhvior towrs thir subjt ols, in this

rio [1870–1914], n on nnot but om to th onlusion tht wht h



11 ntroution

ws oing ws not simly rsoning to sris o unrlt intrnl xignis

but singl, rlntlss wv o external rssur whih ws thrtning to ngul

thm ll. . . . Wht ws hning, o ours, ws unmntl n rntly

irrvrsibl go-olitil n onomi shi t in vor o th Wst. . . . T Wstrn-

l globl olitil onomy h rriv. . . . t is not simly qustion o whthrth nw mirs wr rtrtors o gnoil tion ginst th ntiv ols

thy irtly nountr. Tr is lso th qustion o th gr to whih thir

olitil, onomi s wll s ulturl ntrtion o th rsiul mirs—un-

turing in th ross th lttr ’s sns o isrt univrsl sl-sufiny, n

oring thm into n ntirly unqul intrtion with th Wst—ws boun to

hv inirt yt srious rrussions on ths mirs’ own rltionshis with

thir subjt ols.30

Lvin rovis n xn historil n goolitil rmwork orunrstning th onitions tht onition gnoi’s mrgn n tht

untion s its ontmorry wllsring. n his viw, gnoi is inxtribly

link to morn stt ormtions, silly, Wstrn librl itlism n

its rtiulr orms o roriting n rgulting oultions, rsours,

wlth, n owr omstilly n ross th son n thir worls; o r-

ting, istributing, n lgitimizing onntrtions o wlth n suring;

o gnrting n nturlizing nw rgims o truth; o ostring, rtut-

ing, stbilizing, or unrmining rgims bro tht gurnt, obstrut,

or rjt Wstrn globl ominn.31 An to th xtnt tht h situts n

ounts or gnoi in onsirbly xn goolitil n historil

rm, h rors signint shit in rstiv. Powr vns viw, both

onvntionl n wily shr, tht rgrs gnoi s somthing tht h-

ns in soilly, ulturlly, olitilly, n slly istint worls, n objt “out

thr” or or th most rt outsi th urviw o th intrsts n tions o

rst worl ntions—n thus somthing to whih th rst worl my or my

not ot to rt or, vn lss likly, rson. Lvin by ontrst insists tht thr

is no outsi to ths intrsts, n tions n gnoi or t lst its onitiono ossibility is risly on o thir ts.32

Whthr th vrit is on o istort iologi l (r usully ommunist or

“totlitrin”) ormtion, thni onit, th vstigs o som bnight or go-

orskn strt o r-mornity, th toxiity is nrly lwys tkn to b rout

o m, b, or s olitis, soitis, struturs or risositions outsi or

ntirly byon th univrs o th orr, iviliz, lglly onstitut, mo-

rtilly lt Wst. . . . T ossibility tht th mrgn o n intrntionl

olitil-onomi systm omint, ontroll n rgult by th Wst mightb intrinsi to th ustion, rsistn, n rvln o gnoi in th morn

worl . . . rmins n ntirly mrginl notion.33



12 ntroution

n its insistn, thror, tht th globl onomi intrnn o n

omtition btwn olitilly sovrign stts hs n n hv otn v-

stting imlitions or oultions tht r or r m mrginl, in

suruous, to us Arnt’s lngug, by th shiting ns n ts o i-

tl, Lvin’s nlysis omls us to think rom n byon th rigmtilims o Aushwitz to rssss wht it is w think w know bout gnoi.

His nlysis, morovr, throws into shr rli th wys in whih onvntionl

ounts o gnoi rw too nrrow n nlyti rm. uh ounts obsur

risly th bror historis o onomi xhng, intrst, n intrn-

nis tht not only ontribut to gnoi’s ossibility, but mk it mk

ily irnt kin o sns— omonnt o globl rrngmnts n th

ow o itl, th rgultion o goos, n th istribution o suring, ir-

ntilly born mong thos “who hv rriv lt t th rtition o th worl,”rthr thn rgrttbl stl tht hns within isrt borrs ls-

whr, riitt by thni or tribl rivlris, lss onit or rligious wrs,

ly root “xtrmintory” imulss or olitilly xint iologis tht

gin soil momntum n institutionl sntion.

imilrly hllng by Lvin’s nlysis r onvntionl notions o stt sov-

rignty n th right o nonintrrn. oth hv bn ntrl in xlining

th rlutn o orml bois to intrr in th omsti ortions o stts

sust o or known to b ursuing or sntioning gnoil tivitis. n,

vn t urmbrg, th wr rims trils tht ollow Alli vitory in Euro,

th rh o th troity hrg ws lrgly rstrit to ts ommitt ginst

ivilin oultions ater th outbrk o wr in 1939, in t ling rwr

troitis ginst th Jws n othr mrk oultions within Grmny

byon th ribunl ’s jurisition. As urm Court justi n hi rosu-

tor t urmbrg, Robrt Jkson, xlin, “W o not onsir tht th ts

o govrnmnt ginst its own itizns wrrnt our intrrn.”34 Howvr,

through th nlyti lns tht Lvin rovis in whih goolitil intrn-

n is th givn, wht ounts s intrrn n nonintrrn is hrly sl-vint (n rhs uttrly irrlvnt whn onsir in light o th lims o

uskin’s uninti Whit Hous ofil). n ithr s, unrstning n

rthinking th imt n imlitions o th wys in whih this istintion is

rwn, oli, n rott is imrtiv, ritil i rliminry rst st in

mystiying n rssing th institutionliz mhnisms n th ll too

milir struturl isritis n islmnts tht llow troity to mrg

n, t th sm tim, rmin uttrly unrognizbl s suh.35



13 ntroution

IV.

th notion tht gnoi hns “lswhr,” outsi th rm o rst worl

intrsts, tivitis, n irt rsonsibilitis, in soilly, ulturlly, oliti-

lly, n slly istint worls; i this notion or th most rt omintshow gnoi’s rn in th lt twntith ntury hs bn ongur

n rss, n oly similr mo o onstrution n rss n b is-

rn in ontmorry n silly oulr rrsnttions o Worl Wr

’s Holoust. Ts rrsnttions work rinilly rom th ssumtion

o ril isontinuity n historil rutur. An rhs th most obvious

xml in this gnr o writing r th nsly strutur isursiv rgims

tht rou n oli th Holoust s uniquly vil n unknowbl vnt,

othrworlly n without rlll in history. As suh, n in som ssntilsns, it is byon th limits n or som th ossibility o rrsnttion. As

Dvi Croll ormults it, th hoh xists s “th limit s o knowlg

n ling, in trms o whih ll . . . systms o bli n thought, ll orms

o litrry n rtisti xrssion, sm irrlvnt or vn riminl”;36 n s

rrn Ds Prs hs instrut on bhl o th isilinry ormtion tht

is Holoust stuis, “T Holoust shll b rrsnt, in its totlity, s

uniqu vnt, s sil s, n kingom o its own, bov or blow or rt

rom history. . . . T Holoust shll b roh s solmn or vn sr

vnt, with sriousnss mitting no rsons tht might obsur its nor-

mity or ishonor its .”37

Atroity imgs rom th rio, silly th now ioni imgs o th lib-

rtion o th onntrtion ms, ontribut to n rinor visrlly wht

ths sholrs ssrt s mttr o t—tht th Holoust is t th limit o

knowlg n ling. An this sns o bing trnsort to som strng

othr ln o inhumnity works in turn to obsur th lrgr historil rms

n ontinuitis tht n to b brought to br to xlin th lthl onjun-

tion o rosss n rtis tht togthr llow gnoi to mrg smor thn n bstrt ossibility; in, tht irtly ilitt th rorg-

niztion o bois o lw roun lws o th boy n work to rou sys-

tmti mss murr s highly rtionliz n miliz vhil or ron-

guring soil worls n olitil trritoris. For xml, howvr ritil to

unrstning th ormtiv onitions o gnoi in Euro, rrly r th

olonil rojts o Euron stts in Ari n Asi n th ril-imril

hirrhis tht vlo through thm irtly link to th gnoi o th

Jws in Euro;38

rrly r th ontinntl imrilism n tribl ntionlismo ntrl n strn Euron stts rgr s n itrtion o ths olo-

nil rojts; n rrly o w nountr th imgs rom th librtion o th



14 ntroution

onntrtion ms, or imgs rom Poln’s ghttos, or imgs rom rmy

rors long with th now mor wily ublish “hotogrhi souvnirs” o

Wehrmacht vtrns n think, “this is wht th builing o n mir ntils;

this is wht imrilism looks lik.”39

A wi-ngl historil lns rmits th highlighting o ritil links nontinuitis, n ths in turn go signint istn in tully situting

Grmny’s gnoi n mystiying it. ut no lss imortnt or unrstn-

ing this gnoi r th wys in whih onvntionl rgims o knowlg ro-

ution n olltion rinilly in th omins o sin, lw, onomis,

nthroology, n mogrhy work togthr to st th stg or th mss

murr o mrk oultions. An hr too on ns rvsiv imuls in

th litrtur to rsu ths omins rom ontminting ssoition with

th rogrm n rtis o zism. An whil this imuls tks vrityo orms, it is xrss most lrly in th insistn tht ths n othr is-

ilinry rns wr oloniz by olitil gn n iology, muh s

Euro itsl ws oloniz, n r thus t bst brrnt xrssions o mth-

os n rtis o inquiry tht r othrwis isintrst, in th sns o

hving no bining rltion to owr, n vlu-r.

Consir, by wy o xml, zi sin n miin: both r tyi-

lly brkt s rvrsions o “rl” sin n mil rtis, tint

by rilly inorm oliis, irrtionlly rivn by n obsssion with inti-

ying thologil ltrity, n ngrously vot to xning n rry o

lthl rogrms im t xunging th ril subltrn on bhl o th hlth

o th iniviul n ntionl boy.40 Likwis, zi lw is similrly imli-

t s hving subvrt “rl” lw. As th ntrntionl Militry ribunl t

urmbrg rsnt it, zi lw ws suril guis, vhil n grn

libi, or riminl onsiry ginst th xisting intrntionl n olitil

orr. n, s hi rosutor throughout th ours o th sonry sris

o twlv trils t urmbrg, lor ylor, nots, urmbrg itsl ws

slt s th sit o th ntrntionl ribunl risly bus it rrsnt“th hysil gogrhil mnisttion o ll tht ws wrong with zi lw”;41

how muh mor rmti n votiv woul th Allis’ rormn o rl

lw r, by ontrst. An nlly, still by wy o xml o ostwr orts

to brkt knowlg-rouing ls n rtis unr th zis, onsir

onomis, mogrhy, n sttistis. Eh o ths ls n rtis ws

ruil to rtionlizing th rgim’s mngmnt, mobiliztion, n stru-

tion o oultions ross oui Euro. An th finy n xnsion

o h l n rti uring this rio ws lrgly bholn to M nits ustom sign n mintin unh r mhin n r sorting sys-

tm:42 this mhin n systm llow ministrtors to mor sily nm,



15 ntroution

istinguish, n trk lboring bois, rroutiv bois, rilly mrk

bois, bois m gntilly routiv or rniious; in short, to mn-

g wht th rgim rgr s rw mtrils in wys tht oul b mobiliz,

isilin, rsttl, xloit, n isr by ofs n untionris s

n.Rgring th Holoust s “kingom o its own” n th zi rio s

rio o rutur writs ril isontinuity into th ror n in t

ls th rio unr qurntin. Tis works most obviously to stbiliz n

rsrv wht Mrio igioli rrs to s “symbioti rltionshi” btwn

knowlg roution n “th vlus o mornity s xrss in th ultur

o Wstrn mory.”43 ut thologizing n qurntining th zi rio

works lss obviously to obsur or, t bst, rnr vgu th ontinuitis in wht

r onvntionl thniqus n rtis or omonnts o morn sttrt,loy to m th soil n nbl both orr n govrnn. ystms

o lssition n objtition, rgultory rgims, juriil rtuss,

ministrtiv thnologis, orgniztions o knowlg, n thir ovrl-

ing inrstruturs sign to both tur n ilitt li—ths wr

hrly uniqu to Hitlr’s Grmny; n thy wr lbort in Grmny s

lswhr in th ontxt o soil morniztion orts to “mk th worl bt-

tr.” Ts systms, rgims, thnologis, n thniqus hv s thir objt

th r n surity o oultions; n in this rst thy r th onstitu-

tiv omonnts o wht orgnizs th rojt o mornity. ut th oint is

lso tht thy ombin s wll to mk th worl, or ombin to r-

t th onitions unr whih gnoi oul r s n ministrtivly

lusibl n rtil “nssity,” s rt o “th ri on ys or rogrss.”

Ts systms, rgims, thnologis, n thniqus hv, in othr wors,

murrous otntil—but otntil tht is nithr invitbl nor nomlous.

T r o li, th istribution o suring, th ministrtion o th: this is

th tringult rltionshi on whih th Grmn gnoi sts n silly

bright light, n it is but on, signint, mnisttion o th rltionshi thtromis, s othrs ontinu to o, mor “rt” soity. o qurntin th

rio s n brrtion, to insist tht it oss n nigm in th vlomntl

trjtory o mornity, mystis to mstr. t lvs in th n unintrrogt

th ll too milir mhnisms n rosss by whih mor ly worls r

born. As historin Rul Hilbrg obsrvs with rst to th Grmn Holo-

ust, it ll bgn innouously with hng in nition: o w toy rog-

niz th ril otntil o suh hngs?



16 ntroution

V.

owr th n o n ount o th ors tht ongl to rt totlitrin-

ism’s onition o ossibility, Arnt not tht th rtiulr thniqus o

trror n mhnisms o oultion mngmnt wr likly to b mrshlgin in worl whr grtr numbrs o inrsingly isolt strngrs woul

b living in losr roximity, omting or vr shrinking rsours; worl

in whih mor ol in mor rts o th glob oul xt to b xll,

to otntilly tstrohi t, by olitil s wll s onomi systms tht

oun no l or us or thm. “otlitrin solutions,” sh wrot, “my wll

surviv th ll o totlitrin rgims in th orm o strong tmttions whih

will om u whnvr it sms imossibl to llvit olitil, soil, or o-

nomi misry in mnnr worthy o mn.”44

Tt ths otntil solutionswoul tk nw n vn unxt orms wnt without sying.

Wht oul not b unon in Arnt’s viw, wht ws originl to th zi

rojt n thus subsquntly hng th onitions o th liworl or th

living-togthr o ol tr th rgim’s t, wr orts “to mk humn

bings s humn bings suruous.” Ts orts wr vin o wht sh

ll “ril vil ”—ril bus thy rrsnt rims tht wr byon

th rmtrs o xtnt juriil n morl systms (n hr sh oint s-

illy to th n Commnmnts) n thus oul b nithr unish nor

orgivn; vil bus thy im to kill ll tht ws, in Arnt’s viw, si-

lly humn in th iniviul. T onntrtion n th ms wr initilly

th sits t whih this rojt o rmking ws most ully imlmnt: ths

wr sits whr iniviuls wr kill n mss n gr, to b sur; but

thy wr lso, n mor signintly or Arnt, sits o xrimnt or th

roution o “living orss” whr th ity or sontnity, rom, n

solirity n thror intity in-rltion ws rush.45 Morovr, rlt,

intgrl omonnt o th rojt o rmking humn bings lso ntil

shit in th sl-unrstning o rtrtors. For vn s thy oloniz thworl s tur’s hosn, thy wr lso tur’s instrumnts n s suh

shool in thir own otntil suruousnss, oring to its hnging ns

n mns.46 As Dtlv Pukrt nots, to nsur th survivl, strngth, n

triumh o th r, xrss in n through th boy o th ol, not only

wr signt nmis o th Volk or “thogns” to b inti n kill;

th Volk itsl woul n to b ull: “ossibly mor thn twnty rnt o

th Aryn oultion wr gntilly unt n [woul b] slt or limi-

ntion through uthnsi or striliztion.”47

An within this shm, trrorort in th srvi o tur, xing n stbilizing humn bings so tht it

might thn vn unim.



17 ntroution

With th tril o Aol Eihmnn, Arnt ws l to ronsir hr ssss-

mnt o th zi rojt n in rtiulr hr unrstning o th hrtr

o vil it rrsnt. h st wy rom th surious grnur n myth-

iying ts o n ount tht sw in th rgim’s rims n th riminls

tht rtrt thm n xrssion o “ril vil” n mov towr nunrstning o vil s “thoughtlss” n thought-ying. “t is my oinion

now,” sh wrot, “tht vil is nvr ril”; nithr ws it, morovr, nor ws

it nssrily rtion o vil motivs or n xrssion o nturl rvity.

T vil sh nountr in th gur o Eihmnn ws bttr unrstoo, sh

rgu, s th outom o rtin thoughtlessness or inbility to think rom

nothr’s oint o viw. “On nnot xtrt ny ibolil or moni roun-

ity rom Eihmnn,” sh lim, “H merely, to ut th mttr olloquilly,

never realized what he was doing . t ws shr thoughtlssnss—by no mnsintil with stuiity—tht risos him to bom on o th grtst

riminls o tht rio. . . . []uh thoughtlssnss n wrk mor hvo thn

ll th vil instints tkn togthr . . . —tht ws, in t, th lsson on oul

lrn in Jruslm.”48

t is with Arnt’s ount o th Eihmnn tril, hr rort on th “bnl-

ity o vil,” n th “lsson” with rst to thoughtlssnss sh insist th

roings bolly tur tht this stuy bgins. T wr rims tril o

Aol Eihmnn in 1961 ws n silly imortnt vnt or numbr o

rsons. First, s Jry hnlr nots, it ws tlvis n rsnt s

mjor nws story in th Unit tts; mor signint still, it ws uring

ths brosts tht “Amrin tlvision uins [wr] most likly to hv

rst hr th wor Holocaust us to srib th zi rsution o Euro-

n Jwry.”49 on, th tril sh n ntirly nw light on imnsion o

Worl Wr tht mny insist h bn ignor, misnm, or ownly t

urmbrg, to wit: tht Hitlr’s wr h bn rivn by virulnt nti-mi-

tism n wg in lrg msur ginst th Jws o Euro or whom “Finl

olution” h bn imgin n rtilly imlmnt. For r o linting ubli sntimnt t hom—nti-mitism ws still vry muh omonnt

o Amrin li—n sking to voi hrgs o stging show tril org-

niz roun th motionlly hrg stl o obviously bis n l-

libl vitim tstimony, hi rosutor Robrt Jkson h ot to buil

s ginst th zi lrshi on oumnts gthr by Alli ors in

th months ollowing th rgim’s surrnr. n, Jkson rus ll but

hnul o survivors who sought to tstiy ginst th zi lrshi n

in t rnr thir storis or thm within th nrrtiv rm o urm-brg’s initmnts s rims ginst th . t ws, thror, in th ontxt

o th Eihmnn tril tht Euro’s Jws wr givn voi n mrg to



18 ntroution

br witnss to vnts tht th zis h nvr mnt or thm to surviv.

Aginst ll os, nlly, to quot oshn Flmn, th vitims wr utho-

riz to sk—to rt living ror n “writ[] thir own history.”50 n

th wors o Gion Husnr, srli ttorny gnrl t th tim n hi

rhitt o th s ginst Eihmnn:t ws byon humn owrs . . . to rsnt th lmity in wy tht woul o

justi to six mill ion rsonl trgis. T only wy to onrtiz it ws to l l

surviving witnsss, s mny s th rmwork o th tril woul llow, n to sk

h o thm to tll tiny rgmnt o wht h h sn n xrin. . . . Put

togthr, th vrious nrrtivs o irnt ol bout ivrs xrins woul

b onrt nough to b rhn. n this wy ho to surimos on

hntom imnsion o rlity.51

Tir n nlly, th Eihmnn tril is silly imortnt bus itbgins to orgniz th Holoust in lrg msur s w know n unrstn

it toy, s isrt n ohrnt vnt with istint nrrtiv strutur n

st o morl initmnts. As Flmn nots, “Prior to th Eihmnn tril, wht

w ll th Holoust i not xist s olltiv . . . [or] smntilly uthori-

ttiv story.”52 An whil th thos n t o tht story hv bn int

n situt in th oulr imginry o irnt ntions in istintly irnt

wys, th nitiv mssg ross ntionl bounris ws tht th Holoust,

whil st, oul nvr b just history: it ws n woul rmin “rmnnt

sr on th o humnity.” Husnr gin:

Whn stn bor you hr, Jugs o srl, to l th rosution o Aol

Eihmnn, m not stning lon. With m hr r six mill ion usrs. ut

thy nnot ris to thir t n oint n using ngr towrs him who sits in

th ok n ry “ us.” For thir shs r il u on th hills o Aushwitz

n th ls o rblink, n strwn in th orsts o Poln. Tir grvs r

sttr throughout th lngth n brth o Euro. Tir bloo ris out, but

thir voi is not hr. Tror, will b thir soksmn n in thir nm wil l

unol th trribl initmnt.53

Arnt rjt th trms in whih Husnr on n rm th s

ginst Eihmnn n insist tht, howvr guilty th nnt ws—n

bout his guilt sh h no oubt—th rosution h unmntlly il

to unrstn both th unrnt ntur o th rim it h ll uon

th ourt to jug n th novl ntur o th riminl. Chtr 1 o this stuy,

thn, tks th Eihmnn tril s its oint o rtur n xmins Arnt’s

ssssmnt o th roings—in rtiulr hr ssrtion tht in th gur o

Aol Eihmnn sh nountr “th bnlity o vil.” T htr lso tksu th vitrioli bt tht hr ssssmnt insir n ontinus to insir

both in srl n in th Unit tts.



19 ntroution

With htr 2, turn to onsir th zi gnoi irtly. n srib-

ing wht oortunitis th Eihmnn tril miss, Arnt suggst tht by

builing its s ntirly roun th unimginbl troitis ommitt ginst

Euro’s Jwish oultion, th rosution su in stblishing th

“who” o gnoi but il uttrly to grs th “how”; to grs, in othr wors,how ministrtiv murr bm rt o th rtionl untioning o n

orrly soity. Drwing on th rsrh o svrl ontmorry Grmn his-

torins, most ntrlly Götz Aly, htr 2 shits th ous wy rom th tril

n rom th msmrizing ntrs o strution to xmin th inrstrutur

o gnoi. Aly mintins tht it ws th ursuit n rt ilur, btwn

1939 n 1941, o onomi n utilitrin gols rt by mogrhrs, s

lnnrs, soiologists, onomists, n nthroologists in th ontxt o soil

morniztion orts tht rt th onitions or mss murr to mrg sn ministrtivly lusibl n rtil ours o tion.

Although ontrovrsil in his ort to i togthr th logi o mss mur-

r—h ssums wht som onsir th sust tsk o ronstruting th

rstiv o th rtrtors—Aly rors rovotiv st o rgumnts

tht mov to th orgroun th mtril ts o othrwis innouous, sily

ignor, n on th o it uttrly bnl systms o lssition n rgis-

trtion, o knowlg olltion n roution. Ts rolirting systms o

lssition, rgims o knowlg, n vr mor rn mtrixs o msur-

mnt long with th xning stt rtuss thy ngnr wr onvn-

tionl, ostnsibly unxtionl (bus “sinti”) omonnts o twntith-

ntury sttrt. Unr th irtion o thn–Prsint Woorow Wilson,

or xml, thy wr loy to rilly orgniz n rtionlly rtition th

ontinnt tr Worl Wr so s to bttr srv lsting .54 And ths

rgims o truth, mos o orr, n mhnisms o govrnn wr similrly

loy by th zi stt—ssntil to th sr o trror uring Worl

Wr n to th ormultion o vr mor ril solutions tht ulmint in

systmti mss murr. o b sur, stt rism n th thnorti, mng-ril logi nimting it wr not lwys n vrywhr xrss, unrstoo,

or rti in intil wys.55 ut th ritil i otn unrstt or ignor

oint o som onsqun is tht thy nvrthlss onstitut (n onstitut)

struturl tur o nrly ll morn stts.56

htr 2 ttmts to mk som sns o how th unrnt might

mrg rom ly onjuntion o othrwis “munn” stt oliy n

rti, htr 3 rturns to Arnt’s nountr with Eihmnn to rstg th

how o gnoi on th historilly mor milir trrin o iniviul rsonsi-bility n jugmnt. T ntri o this htr is Arnt’s lim tht in th

gur o Eihmnn sh nountr vil in th orm o thoughtlssnss rthr



20 ntroution

thn ibolil monstrosity. uh thoughtlessness sh srib s n inbil-

ity to think rom th stnoint o nothr; n this inbility sh rgr s

otntilly mor strutiv “thn ll th vil instints tkn togthr.” Prt

o my ort in this htr is to rw out Arnt’s osition whil lso situ-

ting it longsi wht is rltivly ommon, rtinly instrutiv, but nv-rthlss mistkn rnring tht ss in thoughtlssnss “mrly” n bsn

o mthy.57 Tis intrrtiv mov—quting “thinking rom th stnoint

o somboy ls” with mthti intition—mrks signint shit in

rgistrs in th ontxt o Arnt’s rgumnt. t rhs unrstnbly ol-

lows rom th onstitutiv (though not unontst) l mthy ouis in

ontmorry ounts o morl vlomnt s wll s onvntionl unr-

stnings o wht nhors morl snsibility. ut thr r numbr o rob-

lms, rgu, with ring Arnt’s Eihmnn through th otis o mthy.Prhs th most onsquntil is tht suh ring rnrs wht sh lim

ws unmntlly olitil ilur ( qustion o solirity) rimrily morl

on ( qustion o sntimnt). A mov, thn, by mny ommnttors to lriy

Arnt’s osition ultimtly ns u unrmining it.

o ollow this thr turn t th n o htr 3 to Eyl ivn n Rony

rumn’s 1999 oumntry/rm, Te Specialist: Portrait o a Modern Crimi-

nal.58 Using rstor n mniult (whih is to sy, xtnsivly it n

rmix) vio ootg rom th Jruslm roings, Te Specialist ollows

th nrrtiv r o Arnt’s rgumnt to intrrogt nw wht ws both novl

n ommonl bout th riminl, Eihmnn, n his rim. t rsnts n

srutinizs or ontmorry uin th noly o issus tht th Jru-

slm ourt, t lst in Arnt’s viw, il ully to grs. O sil intrst

to m is th logi o rtiulr squn rly in th lm whih thn quit

invrtntly hijks its subsqunt rgumnt. n this squn, th ourtroom

is rkn n w wth Eihmnn wthing srn on whih is rojt

ootg, originlly shot by th Alli ors s thy librt ms ross

Euro n subsquntly us to ilitt nzition in th months ol-lowing Grmny’s t. rgu tht with this squn—in whih thought-

lssnss is stg n lrly nt or onvy s kin o apathy—ivn

n rumn’s oumntry invrtntly rrous risly th roblm it

sks to hllng. n othr wors, sit th lm’s othrwis quit ontrovr-

sil llin with Arnt’s ssssmnt o th tril—it ws rrr to s “org-

ry” by th ormr irtor o th tvn ilbrg Jwish Film Arhiv in rt

bus o this llin—n notwithstning its bst ritil orts, th -

thti inirn o ivn n rumnn’s Eihmnn rinors th viw thtth roblm h rrsnts is on o thology rthr thn olitis, orgniz by

n bsn o ling rthr thn thought.59



21 ntroution

n htr 4 gin st bk rom Arnt, nrrtivly, to rvisit th wr

rims tril t urmbrg whos ror th tril o Aol Eihmnn im to

st stright. tk u wht som might rgr s rltivly minor or inintl

omonnt o th ovrll lgl ort in trms o its bring on th s, to wit:

th us m uring th urmbrg roings o th sm oumntry lmootg shown som tn yrs ltr in Jruslm (n inorort in th

squn o Te Specialist, onsir in htr 3). ntrou t urmbrg

mr ight ys into wht ws mor or lss n ight-month tril, th visul

txts lnt th roings rtin visrl immiy, urgny, n ribility

tht Justi Jkson’s mrshling o oumnts i not initilly insir. n,

t th tim th visul txts h vrything to o with how (n or wht) “th

zi rgim ws givn ofil ‘riminl sttus’”; n likwis thy hv vry-

thing to o with urmbrg’s lgy, now, t lst s this lgy livs on in o-ulr mmory n unrstning.60 Finlly, n most signintly in trms o

th thms n rgumnts tkn u in rlir htrs, rgu tht rtin

rgim o truth ws st in l t urmbrg with rst to th imgs tht

stblish st o imrtivs (n injuntions) bout looking n owrul

st o ruls or rmmbrn n unrstning; both w s ritrt in Jru-

slm n rmin vn toy mor or lss in l.61

Following n ount o th urmbrg roings, rturn in th book’s

nl htr to Arnt n hr wily onsir but nigmti hrtriz-

tion o vil s bnl: wht “this long ours o wiknss h tught us,” sh

wrot t th n o hr rort on th tril o Eihmnn, ws lsson bout th

“wor-n-thought-ying banality o evil.” Mny ommnttors insist tht sh

mnt only to ortry Eihmnn s bnl, but bout this ring m sk-

til. vil is, s Arnt m to suggst, “tion whih stroys th oni-

tions o its own ossibility,”62 our ttntion is irt wll byon th gur o

Eihmnn to liworl orgniz now s thn by rtis n rosss tht

whil sign to sustin li nvrthlss work s wll to it.

n wht ollows, n to onlu now, rrs n xt to n v htrstht r link thmtilly by bro n rsonnt st o onrns. us

th htrs o not ollow stritly linr trjtory tht mrhs towr or

ulmints in st o swing rommntions or onlusions, thy n b

r squntilly or in n orr o on’s hoosing. Tt si, ritil tsk o

this book is to tk rt th srvibl myths tht hv om to sh n

limit our unrstning both o th zi gnoi n o totlitrinism’s

bror, onstitutiv, n rurrnt turs. Ts myths, rgu throughout,

r inxtribly ti to n rinor visrlly by th troity imgry thtmrg with th librtion o th onntrtion ms t th wr’s n n

m to ly n silly imortnt, vintiry rol in th ostwr trils o



22 ntroution

rtrtors. At urmbrg, s not rlir, rtiulr rtis o looking

n sing wr rst stblish tht hv sin (n through) th Eihmnn

tril bom simly rt o th bri o t. Ty onstitut rtin visul

rhtori tht now irumsribs th morl n olitil ls n owrully

ssists in ontmorry mythmking bout how w know gnoi n whtounts s suh. Arnt’s lims bout th “bnlity o vil” isrut this visul

rhtori n my rovi just nough ritil lvrg to onsir how this rht-

ori works n on bhl o wht; hr lims my lso go som istn towr

xlining th ntur o n g tht sms ontnt to onus solirity n

stl n is thus inlin to “ut u with nything whil ning vrything

intolrbl.”63



125

Notes to Introduction

1. Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (New York:

Penguin, 1963).

2. Hannah Arendt, cited in Jerome Kohn, Introduction to Responsibility and Judgment

(New York: Schocken Books, 2003), vii.

3. See, or example, Bernard Williams, ruth and ruthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy

(Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press, 2002).4. D. D. Guttenplan takes to task the testimony o the historian Richard Evans at the trial

o the Holocaust revisionist David Irvingon on precisely this issue: “In his book, In Defense of

History Evans draws an uncharacteristically crude connection between ‘the increase in scope

and intensity o the Holocaust deniers’ activities since the mid-1970s’ and ‘the postmodern

intellectual climate, above all in the USA, in which scholars have increasingly denied that

texts had any fxed meaning . . . and in which attacks on the Western rationalist tradition have

become ashionable. . . . [A]n atmosphere o permissiveness toward questioning the meaning

o historical events . . . osters deconstructionist history at its worst . . . Holocaust denial is

part o this phenomenon.’” Te Holocaust on rial (New York: Norton, 2001), 290. See also

Richard Evans, Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving rial (New York:Basic Books, 2001), esp. chaps. 1 and 4.

5. For an elaboration o this view, see William Bennett, Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and

the War on errorism (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2003). Te phrase “pseudosophisticated

relativism” is Bennett ’s, pp. 161–63.

6. Edward Rothstein, “Attacks on U.S. Challenge the Perspectives o Postmodern rue

Believers,” New York imes, September 22, 2001, A17.

7.Roger Rosenblatt, “Te Age o Irony Comes to an End,” ime, Special Issue: One

Nation, Indivisible, September 24, 2001, 79.

8. Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (New York: Viking, 1963), 79.

9. Joan Didion, Fixed Ideas: America Since 9.11 (New York: New York Review Books,2003).

10. Stanley Fish, “Condemnation without Absolutes,” New York imes, October 15, 2001.

Available at www.nytimes.com/2001/10/15/opinion/condemnation-without-absolutes.html.

11. Bennett, Why We Fight, 10; see esp. chap. 1, “Te Morality o Anger.”

12. See, or example, Scott McClellan, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and

Washington’s Culture of Deception (New York: Public Aairs, 2008), esp. chap. 8, “Selling the

War.”

13. Ron Suskind, “Without a Doubt,” New York imes Magazine, October 12, 2004. Avail-

able at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/ullpage.html?res=9C05EFD8113BF934A25753C1A962

9C8B63.14. Tucydides, Te History of the Peloponnesian War, ed. M. I. Finley (New York: Pen-

guin, 1972), 402.



126 Notes

15. “Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage o a loyal ally; prudent hesitation,

specious cowardice; moderation, a cloak or unmanliness; ability to see all sides o a ques-

tion inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became an attribute o manliness,” and so on.

Tucydides, Te History of the Peloponnesian War, 403.

16. James Boyd White, When Words Lose Teir Meaning: Constitutions and Reconstitutions

of Language, Character, and Community (Chicago: University o Chicago Press, 1984), 90.

17. Sheldon Wolin, Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted otali-

tarianism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 3.

18. Tere is, o course, more to this story than I am able to detail here. See Patricia Owens,

Between Wars and Politics: International Relations and the Tought of Hannah Arendt (Oxord:

Oxord University Press, 2007).

19. “Te result o a consistent and total substitution o lies or actual truth is not that

the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be deamed as lies, but that the sense

by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category o truth vs. a lsehood is

among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed. . . . And or this trouble there is

no remedy.” Hannah Arendt, “ruth and Politics,” in Between Past and Present (New York:

Penguin, 1977), 257.

20. Hannah Arendt, “On the Nature o otalitarianism,” in Essays in Understanding,

1930–1954, ed. Jerome Kohn (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1994), 354. For an especially compel-

ling engagement with Arendt’s argument on the process and practices by which a “lying world

order” gets put in place and its implications, see Peg Birmingham, “A Lying World Order:

Political Deception and the Treat o otalitarianism,” in Tinking in Dark imes: Hannah

Arendt on Ethics and Politics, ed. Roger Berkowitz, Jerey Katz, and Tomas Keenan (New

York: Fordham University Press, 2010), 73–77; and Cathy Caruth, “Lying and History,” in

Berkowitz, Katz, and Keenan, Tinking in Dark imes, 79–92.21. o get a eel or how these and related matters have been addressed specifcal ly with

respect to the Holocaust, see Alan Milchman and Alan Rosenberg, eds., Postmodernism and

the Holocaust (Atlanta: Rodopi, 1998); Robert Eaglestone, Postmodernism and Holocaust Denial

(London: Icon Books, 2001); Hans Kellner, “‘Never Again’ Is Now,” History and Teory 33:2

(May 1994): 127–44; James E. Young, Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust: Narrative and the

Consequences of Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990); Marou Hasian

Jr., Legal Memories and Amnesias in America’s Rhetorical Culture (Boulder, CO: Westview

Press, 2000); Saul Friedländer, ed., Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the Final

Solution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).

22. Samantha Power, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York:Basic Books, 2002), xvi.

23. Darur is an interest ing example in this respect. While recognized as “genocide”—by

the president o the United States, no less—intervention has primarily taken the orm o

economic sanctions. Consider in this regard the bill Bush signed at the end o his presidency

(December 31, 1907). As the New York imes reports, this bill “makes it easier or mutual

unds and other investment managers to sell stakes in companies that do business in Sudan.

Te bill is aimed at Sudan’s oil and deense industries, in particular, and is part o a broader

campaign to put pressure on the Sudanese government to end the bloodshed in Darur.” Te

obvious question is or whose beneft this bill was signed. Te interest it represents and the

bodies on whose behal it is ostensibly marshaled seem entirely distinct. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/world/arica/02sudan.html.

24. Power, A Problem from Hell, 351–52.



127 Notes

25. Power, A Problem from Hell, 508. A good example o what Power is talking about is

available on George Washington University’s National Security Archive Website: “Te U.S.

and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994: Inormation, Intelligence and the U.S. Response,” William

Ferroggiaro, March 24, 2004 (www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/index.htm).

26. Mark Levine, Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: Te Meaning of Genocide (vol. 1)

(New York: I. B.aurus, 2005); and Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: Te Rise of the West

and the Coming of Genocide (vol. 2) (New York: I. B.aurus, 2005).

27. Levine, Genocide in the Age of the Nation State, 2:8.

28. See also Robert Meister, After Evil: A Politics of Human Rights (New York: Columbia

University Press, 2010).

29. Levine, Genocide in the Age of the Nation State, 1:176; Genocide in the Age of the Nation

State,, 2:216. Notwithstanding important critical dierences, Levine’s reading resonates in

interesting ways with the account Arendt adopted in Te Origins of otalitarianism. Looking

to imperialism o the late nineteenth and early twentieth century—and, specically, to the

continental imperia lism o the Pan-German and Pan-Slavic moments that sought conquests

in Europe rather than Arica—Arendt sees the transormation o the modern (nation-)state

into an instrument o capital as a critical component in creating totalitarianism’s conditions.

It is the shit rom landed property to mobile wealth, with all its attendant social disruptions,

the single-minded pursuit o prot, the competition or new markets and resources, and the

violence that is brought to bear in securing these markets and resources, both natural and

human, that destabilizes extant political institutions and osters a new kind o administrative

politics and political identity, organized principally around ethnic bonds. Te story Arendt

tells is obviously considerably more complicated than this, but what I nd especially interest-

ing are her eorts to contain and mute the role and consequences o capitalist expansion, even

ater she notes that what gets institutionalized at this historical moment and politicized is aneconomic rationality. Following Margaret Canovan, “although in Arendt’s account imperial-

ism started rom the subordination o politics to bourgeois economics, it culminated in the

abandonment o economic imperatives, and the adoption instead o sheer violence by men who

had discovered a new orm o community, a chosen race.” It seems to me a more convincing

account would be to track that constellation o practices that allowed economic imperatives to

be naturalized rather than abandoned. See Margaret Canovan, Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpre-

tation of Her Political Tought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 39.

30. Levine, Genocide in the Age of the Nation State, 2:217–18, 221. Emphasis in the original.

31. On the production and distribution o suering, see Adi Ophir, Te Order of Evils:

oward an Ontology of Morals (Cambridge, MA: Zone Books, 2005), 296: “Systems that regu-larly produce suering tend to naturalize it, to represent it as a result o bad luck, an uncon-

trollable and unpredictable coincidence, which is moreover impossible to prevent: ‘ate,’ ‘God ’s

hand,’ ‘natural disaster.’ A critical discourse will try to describe the suering, its production,

spreading, and distribution, in order to denaturalize the socially produced suering (or the

suering that is not prevented or alleviated). . . . Such a discourse will try to reconstruct the

historicality o suering, the unique sociology o the institutions that produce, distribute,

and legitimate it. In order to do this, one need not concentrate on the phenomenology o

suering or its typology. It is enough to identiy the social conditions that prevent or make it

very difcult to disengage rom various orms o encounter (physical pain, hunger, yearning,

boredom, humiliation). Te conditions that prevent disengagement—the law, a brick wall,alse consciousness, ear, guilt—are enslaving conditions. Increasing the ability to disengage is

liberation.”



128 Notes

32. “We began . . . by critiquing the standard assumption that genocide is extrinsic to

Western liberalism, proposing in its place that actually it is the latter’s global system that

provides the key to understanding how genocides can develop out o modern state-building

agendas. And we conclude by noting that when such regime eorts impinge directly on West-

ern interests that it is only then that the West absolutely demands their eradication. Te blind

spot however remains. Even when it comes to Iraq, the inability to acknowledge that ‘our’

direct or indirect long-term responsibility or the processes by which such a regime ormed,

shaped and perpetuated and in turn became thoroughly toxic seems to be beyond the ken o

mainstream Western analysis.” Mark Levine, “A Dissenting Voice: Or How Current Assump-

tions o Deterring and Preventing Genocide May Be Looking through the Wrong End o the

elescope, Part II,” Journal of Genocide Research 6.3 (2004): 437–38.

33. Mark Levine, “A Dissenting Voice: Or How Current Assumptions o Deterring

and Preventing Genocide May Be Looking at the Problem through the Wrong End o the

elescope, Part I,” Journal of Genocide Research 6.2 (2004): 155, 156. Levine continues: “Where

reerence is made to specic Western acts o genocide it is usually (and arguably rather con-

veniently) related to the quite distant past with racial prejudice or xenophobia the usual—i

aberrant—culprits rather than mainstream state building agendas themselves. Tis does

not mean that there is no wringing o hands over Western ailures in a contemporary rame.

In act, there is rather a lot o this. But it is mostly treated as a ailure o omission. Rwanda

1994 has been the classic, recent reerence point or this approach, vast reams o print being

expended on the Western inabil ity or unwillingness to pronounce genocide ater April 6, 1994

or do anything to activate the UN to halt it. By contrast, studies which have suggested that

Western commission (by which I mean post-colonial actions rather than simply the egregious

nature o a racially-inormed German or Belgian colonialism) may have been central to the

outcome, either in terms o specically aggravating the localized post-1990 crisis o moregenerally determining economic and political conditions which may have destabilized Rwanda

in the rst place, are ew and ar between” (156).

34. Robert Jackson, cited in Lawrence Douglas, Te Memory of Judgment: Making Law and

History in the rials of the Holocaust (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 50. Douglas

continues: “As Jackson acknowledged, ‘We have some regrettable circumstances at times in

our own country in which minorities are unairly treated.’ He was loath, then, to create a prec-

edent that would permit these ‘regrettable circumstances’ to be condemned in international

law as crimes against humanity or which, say, the president could be held personally respon-

sible. . . . Along with Jackson’s political concerns, however, were ormal legal considerations.

For, as one expert in international law put it, ‘Even i the acts o nationals o one state againstcitizens o the same state amounted to the most agrant violations o undamental principles

o civilized behavior as recognized by most nations, it is not certain that this act alone would

constitute sufcient legal basis or holding individuals criminally responsible or them.’” Simi-

lar issues have emerged with respect to prosecuting members o the Bush administration who

authorized the use o torture. See Austin Sarat and Nasser Hussain, eds., When Governments

Break the Law: Te Rule of Law and the Prosecution of the Bush Administration (New York:

New York University Press, 2010).

35. An analysis o Germany and the rise o National Socialism within a ramework

resonant with Levine’s is developed by the political economist Guido Giacomo Preparata

in his decidedly unconventional and provocative history, Conjuring Hitler: How Britain andAmerica Made the Tird Reich (London: Pluto Press, 2005). What Preparata oers, as the title

suggests, is a close reading o international markets in the early twentieth century and over



129 Notes

approximately a thirty-year period in order to oreground the ways in which these markets

were manipulated primarily by Britain and to a lesser degree the United States, especially

between 1919 and 1933, to drive Germany into the arms o a reactionary orce that would in

turn eventually move against the Soviet Union. According to Preparata, this was part o a

master geopolitical scheme frst devised by Halord Mackinder and more or less executed by

Montagu Norman, governor o the Bank o England. And the rationale behind this strat-

egy? To prevent an alliance between Germany and Russia that would “use into a Eurasian

embrace” two powers whose combined resources o men, knowledge, and military capability

would threaten, certainly, what was let o the British Empire but more generally endanger

Anglo-Saxon dominance. Preparata explains: “In standard textbooks, the economics behind

the rise o Nazism suers a dreadul treatment at best, or, most oten, is not treated at all, and

the reader is customarily derauded by being hastily assured that Hitler came ‘because o the

crisis,’ no urther explanation being orthcoming. What o the ‘crisis’? Unless an eort is made

to unveil the mechanics o this spectral collapse, Hitler remains an eect o chance, the social

by-product o a silly fnancial season gone awry. And such a view is absurd. . . . Without prop-

erly comprehending the unctioning o traditional banking systems and the nature o money,

the key to Hitler’s rise to power may never be held. And it is the lack o such comprehension

that is chiey to blame or discarding the decisive passage in the promotion o Nazism as the

ruit o bad luck in times o crisis” (140–41).

36.David Caroll, cited in Friedländer, Introduction to Probing the Limits of Representation, 6.

37. Des Pres, cited in Ernst van Alphen, “Deadly Historians: Boltanski’s Intervention

in Holocaust Historiography,” in Visual Culture and the Holocaust, ed. Barbie Zelizer (New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001), 46. For a more exhaustive account o the

stakes o these claims, see Alan S. Rosenbaum, ed., Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on

Comparative Genocide (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996).38. Hannah Arendt certainly oregrounds these links in Te Origins of otalitarianism; or

a study that develops them both in terms o Arendt’s account and the contemporary literature,

see Owens, Between War and Politics.

39. A controversial exhibition o mostly amateur photographs taken by soldiers rom the

Wehrmacht—the German Armed Forces—in the course o actions in the East raises precisely

such questions o what it is one sees when one looks. See Hamburg Institute or Social

Research, Te German Army and Genocide: Crimes Against War Prisoners, Jews, and Other

Civilians, 1939–1944 (New York: New Press, 1999).

40. Mario Biagioli, “Science, Modernity, and the Final Solution,” in Friedländer, Probing

the Limits of Representation, 185–205.41. David Fraser, Law after Auschwitz: owards a Jurisprudence of the Holocaust (Durham,

NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2005), 127. See also Telord Taylor, Te Anatomy of the Nurem-

berg rials (New York: Alred A. Knop, 1992), 61: “Symbolically the city was quite appropri-

ate or a trial o the Nazi leaders, as it was here that the Nazi party had staged its annual mass

demonstrations and where the anti-Semitic ‘Nuremberg Laws’ had been decreed in 1935.”

42. Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust: Te Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and

America’s Most Powerful Corporation (Washington, DC: Dialog Press, 2001), 10: “People and

asset registration was only one o the many uses Nazi Germany ound or high speed data

sorters. Food allocation was organized around databases, allowing Germany to starve the

Jews. Slave labor was identifed, tracked, and managed largely through punch cards. Punchcards even made the trains run on time and cataloged their human cargo.” On the importance

o IBM’s punch card and sorting system or the Nazi census, see Götz Aly and Karl Heinz



130 Notes

Roth, Te Nazi Census: Identifcation and Control in the Tird Reich (Philadelphia: emple

University Press, 2004).

43. Biagioli, “Science, Modernity, and the Final Solution,” 186.

44. Hannah Arendt, Te Origins o otalitarianism (New York: Meridian Press, 1972), 459.

45. “Te camps are meant not only to exterminate people and degrade human beings, but

also to serve the ghastly experiment o eliminating, under scientifcally controlled conditions,

spontaneity itsel as an expression o human behavior and transorming the human personal-

ity into a mere thing, into something even animals are not.” Arendt, Origins o otalitarianism,

438.

46. Dana Villa, Politics, Philosophy, error: Essays on the Tought o Hannah Arendt (Princ-

eton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 20, 34–35.

47. Alan Milchman and Alan Rosenberg, “Foucault, Auschwitz, and the Destruction

o the Body,” in Postmodernism and the Holocaust, ed. Alan Milchman and Alan Rosenberg

(Atlanta: Rodopi, 1998), 220.

48. Arendt, Eichmann, 287–88; emphasis in the original.

49. Jerey Shandler, While America Watches: elevising the Holocaust (Oxord: Oxord

University Press, 1999), 83.

50. Soshana Felman, Te Juridical Unconscious: rials and raumas in the wentieth Cen-

tury (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 126.

51. Gidean Hausner, Justice in Jerusalem (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 292.

52. Felman, Te Juridical Unconscious, 127.

53. State o Israel Ministry o Justice, Te rial o Adol Eichmann, Volume I: Record o the

Proceedings in the District Court o Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Israel State Archives, 1992), 62.

54. On Woodrow Wilson’s vision o establishing racial ly homogeneous territories (as

opposed to strictly strategic ones) in Europe in the a termath o World War I, see JeremyW. Crampton, “Maps, Race and Foucault: Eugenics and erritorialization Following World

War I,” in Space, Knowledge, and Power: Foucault and Geography, ed. Jeremy W. Crampton and

Stuart Elden (Burlington, V: Ashgate, 2007). Wilson’s vision was inormed by the work o

a secret research group called the “Inquiry.” Established by presidential order to rationalize

the redrawing o borders on the war-torn continent, the group was headquartered at Isaiah

Bowman’s American Geographical Society and called on the critical skills o a variety o intel-

lectuals, journalist Walter Lippmann and eugenicist Charles Davenport among them.

55. Sheila Faith Weiss, Te Nazi Symbiosis: Human Genetics and Politics in the Tird Reich

(Chicago: University o Chicago Press, 2010), 32–35. While noting the global nature o state pro-

grams and practices during the early to mid-twentieth century that sought to regulate, ensure,and enhance the health and quality o populations, Weiss makes the especially important obser-

vation that oten what regulation and enhancement meant and/or entailed varied widely.

56. Crampton, “Maps, Race, and Foucault,” 233.

57. Illustrating precisely what Arendt seemed to be reaching or with the notion o

“thoughtlessness” is the fgure o the Bosnian Serb military leader and war crimes ugitive

Ratko Mladic. Accused o overseeing the 1995 Srebenica massacre, or what is considered the

“worst ethnically motivated mass murder on the Continent since World War II,” Mladic was

fnally arrested in May 2011. During an extradition hearing to transer him to the Hague to ace

charges or crimes against humanity, Mladic’s oremost concern, apparently, was having the

reeze on his military pension lited. As the New York imes reports, “He asked or his pensionthree times: ‘I need my pension. I need my pension.’” Doreen Carvajal and Steven Erlanger,

“Serb Fugitive Slowly Starved o Friends and Cash,” New York imes, May 30, 2011, A1.



58. Rony Brauman and Eyal Sivan, he Specialist: Portrait o a Modern Criminal

(France, Momento! 1999) (128 min.). he video ootage used in the making o he Special-

ist was originally shot by the American ilmmaker Leo Hurwitz, working or American

Cities Broadcasting Company. As Rebecka hor notes, “Hurwitz . . . placed our con-

cealed cameras in the courtroom and connected them to a control booth across the street,

rom which he could instruct the camera operators and edit the ootage in real t ime. He

had our monitors screening the camera images and in accordance with his instructions

one camera was recorded on videotape, while the other three were not recorded at all .

Hurwitz had to make instant deci sions and, since he could only understand what was said

when the trial was conducted in English since he spoke neither German nor Hebrew, his

editing was dependent not on what was said but on his understanding o the situation

based on visual inormation. He shot up to 600 hours in this manner.” “Representing

the Eichmann rial: en Years o Controversy around he Specialist” (M.A. thesis, New

School, 2009), 13.

59. Hillel ryster, “We Have Ways o Making You Believe: Te Eichmann rial as Seen in

Te Specialist,” Antisemitism International (2004): 34–44. See also Hillel ryster, “Eyal Sivan

Eichmann, Lies, and Videotape,” Indymedia, 2007, http://no666.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/

eyal-sivan-eichmann-lies-and-videotape/.

60. Fraser, Law ater Auschwitz, 27.

61. On the visual rhetoric o Holocaust imagery and its disruption, see Norman L. Klee-

blatt, ed., Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Press, 2001).

62. Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Why Arendt Matters (New Haven: Yale University Press,

2006), 198.

63. Giorgio Agamben, Means without End: Notes on Politics (Minneapolis: University o Minnesota Press, 2000), 124–25. On the media practices and pressures that readily exchange

sentiment and high drama (or the look and eel o crisis) or political analysis, see Susan D.

Moeller, Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War, and Death (New York:

Routledge, 1999); Lilie Chouliaraki, Te Spectatorship o Sufering (Tousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

2006); Luc Boltanski, Distant Sufering: Morality, Media, and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1999); Carolyn J. Dean, Te Fragility o Empathy ater the Holocaust (Ithaca:

Cornell University Press, 2004).

Notes to Chapter 1

1. Gideon Hausner, Justice in Jerusalem (New York: Herzl Press, 1977), 300, 90–97.

2. As at Nuremberg, establishing a direct link between the deendant’s actions and the

sufering o those brought to testiy was especially challenging or the prosecution. Much o

the lengthy survivor testimony rarely mentioned Eichmann in a legally reliable or authorita-

tive way, leading presiding Judge Landau to describe the evidentiary value o such testimony as

being “next to nothing.” Lawrence Douglas, Te Memory o Judgment: Making Law and History

in the rials o the Holocaust (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 134, 140–49.

3. Douglas, Memory o Judgment, 179.

4. Elaine Scarry, Te Body in Pain: Te Making and Unmaking o the World (New York:

Oxord University Press, 1985), 58–59.5. Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality o Evil (New York:

Penguin, 1964), 287–88; emphasis in the original.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	livia-mariana
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Visualizing Atrocity Intro

Documents