Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join

Book corner · Intermediate

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil

Hannah Arendt · 1963 · Medium (150–350 pages)

4.0 from 2 reviews · 23 views

+ Add to my shelf

Be the first to put it on your shelf.

What it is

Arendt's report on the 1961 trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann, the SS officer who organised the deportation of Jews to the death camps, first published as a series in The New Yorker. Watching him in court, Arendt found not a demonic monster but a careerist who spoke in clichés and official jargon and seemed unable to think from anyone else's standpoint. She called this the banality of evil: great crimes committed by people who are thoughtless rather than deeply wicked. The book also examines the legal basis of the trial, the abduction of Eichmann from Argentina, the concept of crimes against humanity, and the role of the Jewish councils in the deportations, a section that provoked bitter controversy. Later historians, drawing on documents unavailable to her, have argued that Eichmann was a more committed antisemite than she thought, so the phrase and its application remain contested.

Why read it

Its question, how ordinary people become instruments of atrocity and what thinking has to do with conscience, is one of the most important in moral philosophy since the war.

Where to start

Read the opening chapters on Eichmann's career, then the Epilogue and the Postscript, where Arendt defends her judgement and answers critics.

Reviews

  1. Miriam Adler

    I teach this with care, because in Jerusalem it is still an open wound. Arendt's account of thoughtlessness is profound. Her tone about the Jewish councils and about some of the victims is, for many of my students' families, unforgivable, and I do not think it is only a matter of tone. Read it, and read Gershom Scholem's letter to her and her reply.

  2. Andrés Zuluaga

    I have spent years listening to victims, and occasionally to perpetrators, in our truth process, and Arendt's description of a man who could only speak in official phrases is horribly familiar. I accept the historians' point that Eichmann was more ideological than she saw. But the larger claim, that terrible harm can be done by people who never stop to think, I have watched happen.