After reading
On Revolution,
Karl Jaspers writes to Hannah Arendt:
Your comparison and identification of the meaning of the âworkersâ and âsoldiersâ councils, the âsmall republicsâ, the beginnings and the truth of all revolutions since the American one, were familiar to me from your Hungary essay. That essay left me hesitant; but now I am convinced of the parallels of meaning and of the opportunity you see in them, though that opportunity has so far always been lost⊠1
Jaspers points here to the continuity between Arendtâs 1958 essay on the Hungarian Revolution 2 and her 1963 book, On Revolution. 3 In both, the vision of a new, participatory form of government based on citizen councils plays a prominent role. Later in the same letter, Jaspers adds: âI sometimes think in reading your book that Greece is there for you: without your homeland among the Greeks you would hardly have been able to find the form, without them you could not have found the perspective that allowed you to perceive the marvelous significance of the American Constitution and its origins.â 4 Jaspers makes here an interesting observation: he reads On Revolution, the ârevolutionary spirit â and Arendtâs celebration of the American town-hall meetings, which she treats in On Revolution as a kind of precursor to the councils, as informed by the inspiration of the Greek polis and its conception of âthe political,â which Arendt had attempted to recover in The Human Condition.
Revealingly, in her
response Arendt fully approves this reading:
I canât tell you how much your approval of the revolution book pleased me. Not only because I was afraid you mightnât like it, but because every word you wrote strikes at the very heart of what I meant to say. A tragedy that warms and lightens the heart because such great and simple things were at stake. Heinrichâs experience, of course, and the experience of America. 5
âHeinrichâs experienceâ is Arendtâs husband, Heinrich BlĂŒcherâs participation in the workers and soldiersâ councils in Germany in 1918â1919, as a member of the Spartacus League . 6 The âtragedy that warms and lightens the heartâ is the appearance and demise of the councils and, more broadly, the modern revolutionary spirit . For Arendt too, it seems, the councils and the revolutionary spirit were closely related to the meaning of âthe politicalâ she gleaned from the experience of the Greek polis . 7
One may wonder whether Arendt is not simply deferring here to her former mentor and then friend, without genuinely approving his reading. However, she herself hints at this connection at the conclusion of On Revolution, right after her most detailed discussion of the councils. Modern accounts of the revolutionary spirit , she tells us (referring specifically to the poet RenĂ© Char) are âperhaps too âmodernâ, too self-centered to hit in pure precision the center of that âinheritance which was left to us by no testamentâ.â 8 Where can we turn to, in order to get a more precise understanding of this inheritance? Arendt refers us to Sophocles, and through him to âthe polis , the space of menâs free deeds and living words, which could endow life with splendor.â 9 It is as if Arendt intimates to her readers that in order to understand the deeper meaning of the revolutionary spirit , and more specifically what kind of human experience the councils could make possibleâthey have to go back and read The Human Condition.
In her preface to the collection of essays Between Past and Future, Arendt describes the treasure Char found during his participation in the French RĂ©sistanceâthe experience of freedom , action and self-disclosure âand relates it to what she calls âthe lost treasureâ of modern revolutions , from the summer of 1776 in Philadelphia and 1789 in Paris to the autumn of 1956 in Budapest. These events revealed for those who participated in them, Arendt tells us, the meaning of public happiness and public freedom âexperiences whose meaning was forgotten almost immediately, as no tradition and no testament had theorized and preserved them before or after they occurred. 10 Arendt does not mention the councils explicitly; nor does she mention them when she writes, in the posthumously published essay âIntroduction into Politics,â that â[o]nly in such revolutions , from the American and French in the eighteenth century down to the Hungarian Revolution of the recent past, was there a direct link between the idea of participating in government and the idea of being free. But, at least thus far, these revolutionsâand the direct experiences they provided for the possibilities inherent in political action âhave proved incapable of establishing a new form of state.â 11 Yet, in other writings what she celebrates most when she describes these events is the appearance of the councils or institutions similar in spirit and form, such as the American town-hall meetings, the revolutionary associations in the French Revolution or the revolutionary councils in the 1956 Hungarian Revolution . It is the memory and vision of radical, participatory democracy , which Arendt laments and celebrates over and over again, even if often implicitly.
Arendtâs advocacy of participatory democracy in the form of a citizen council system appears in various places in her writings, from her political interventions in the Jewish-Arab conflict in Palestine during the 1940s through her major works in political theory to interviews she gave late in her life. However, it remains a relatively neglected topic in the scholarly literature on Arendt , and this in two main senses: first, in the simple sense that, while it is often mentioned by commentators, there are relatively few studies dedicated to the role of the councils in Arendtâs thought. 12 This reflects a common tendency among commentators to regard Arendtâs support for the council system as a romantic utopia Arendt herself did not take seriously 13 ; presented in her âdarkest momentsâ 14 ; invoked as a kind of a metaphor to stress the need for moderate democratic reforms and a more vibrant civil society 15 ; or backed away from after On Revolution. 16 Indeed, as one commentator noted a few years ago: âWhen Arendtâs critical appropriation of the council tradition is not ignored altogether by her commentators, it is generally explained away as being a juvenile and utopian tendency within her thought, more an embarrassment than a theme to be grappled with.â 17
The second sense, in which the council system is a neglected topic in Arendt scholarship, is that even commentators who do take it seriously tend to focus on specific places and historical episodes where Arendt discusses the councils directly. They do not pay sufficient attention to the various ways Arendtâs support for a council democracy relates to her political philosophy as a whole. The exchange between Arendt and Jaspers as well as Arendtâs many references to the councils suggest that something more far-reaching is involved in her support for a new form of government based on the councils. They point to John Sittonâs suggestion, more than twenty years ago, that Arendt âclearly believed that council democracy is the only possible modern embodiment of her political principles. Far from merely revealing a perverse delight in historical rarities, Arendtâs argument for council democracy is the concentrated expression of her political philosophy .â 18
In this study, I seek to show that the vision of radical, participatory democracy is indeed much more central to Arendtâs political thought than commentators usually re...