Chapter V: Action, §§ 30 - 34

[Thomas]

30. Arendt seems to have Marx on her mind again here. The overall theme seems to be sameness vs. difference, and how diverse people can act together effectively. She argues that workers are apolitical and laborers are anti-political. Naturally, then, only those who act and speak in the public realm are truly "political." But she says the public realm is disintegrating, along with the messy common space that action and speech create. What is replacing it?

31. Tyranny is one possible replacement. Or monarchy, or any way of regulating society that eliminates the uncertainty and risk that comes with plurality. Instead of the web of relationships that action creates, there is a ruler. She backs this up with an allusion to Plato's theory of forms, where the everyday world of appearances is just a dim reflection of the real world of ideal "forms". It seems to me this is essentially about control, but isn't there also a need in society for law and order, definitions and laws? Isn't there a balance between freedom and stability? Between pure democracy and monarchy?

32. The uncertainty of action is also seen in its process character. She says that people cannot undo what they have done, which seems fair enough, but she also says that they cannot prevent the consequences of their actions. This is a problem, especially since people often do not know what they are doing when they initiate an action. This uncertainty might be expressed in something like vaccine hesitancy due to concerns about the safety of gene editing technologies which are completely new and not entirely understood. But what is the alternative? Not acting? But aren't we in some sense condemned to act? (I think Arendt's existentialist bones are showing again here.)

33. There is a nice summary of the developments at the start of this section: the laborer is saved from perpetual toil by fabrication, and the fabricator is saved from meaninglessness by action/speech through stories. But what is the remedy for the unpredictability of action?

We have to act, and being unable to control the consequences of our actions, we will undoubtedly make mistakes. What is the remedy for our past mistakes? Forgiveness. And how do we attempt to control an unpredictable and chaotic future? Commitment. Both of these depend on plurality, the presence and acting of others. At this point Arendt has some interesting things to say about Jesus, whom she credits as "the discoverer of the role of forgiveness in human affairs."

34. Since individuals cannot know themselves or others with certainty, they risk the loss of their identities. The remedy for this is making and keeping promises. Commitment provides stability and predictability. But that kind of identity requires plurality. Does that mean that an individual's identity is actually dependent upon others? That the identity of an individual is actually conditioned by the community?

[Mike]

Nothing to really add to the discussion but I found section 33 and 34 to be a rather succinct summary of the whole book so far.