The function of law in political and social conditions of pluralism in the reception of Hannah Arendt

Edyta Sokalska, Małgorzata

Augustyniak

The function of law in political and

social conditions of pluralism in the

reception of Hannah Arendt

Studia Prawnoustrojowe nr 25, 65-88

2014

2014

E dyta Sokalska*

M ałgorzata Augustyniak**

* K a te d ra H istorii P a ń stw a i P ra w a Polskiego i D o ktry n Polityczno-Praw nych ** K a te d ra Filozofii i P olityki P raw a

W ydział P ra w a i A dm in istracji UWM

The function o f law in political and social

conditions o f pluralism in the reception

of Hannah Arendt

In tr o d u c tio n

J o h a n n a “H a n n a h ” A re n d t w as a G e rm a n po litical th e o rist. B ein g often d escribed as a philosopher, sh e re je cted t h a t la b e l. S he d escrib ed h e rs e lf r a th e r as a p o litica l th e o ris t w ho u se d to live in th e U n ite d S ta te s of A m eri­ ca. A re n d t’s w ork d eals w ith th e n a tu r e o f pow er, a n d th e su b jects of politics, d ire c t dem ocracy, a u th o rity a n d to ta lita ria n is m . B ein g th e a u th o r of su ch books a s T h e O r i g i n s o f T o t a l i t a r i a n i s m , M e n i n D a r k T i m e s , A d o l f E i c h - m a n n T r i a l , T h e H u m a n C o n d i t i o n , M e a n i n g o f R e v o l u t i o n , O n V io l e n c e H a n ­ n a h A re n d t seem s to b e r a th e r m ore p o p u la r in th e U n ite d S ta te s th a n in E urope. In P o la n d th e re a re few a u th o rs who a re in te re s te d in h e r th o u g h ts co ncerning h e r re c e p tio n of politics, la w a n d society. T he p u rp o se of th is a rtic le is to show th e fu n c tio n of la w in political an d social con dition s of th e co n te m p o ra ry w orld w h e re p lu ra lis m ex ist on th e b a sis o f H a n n a h A re n d t’s d e lib e ra tio n on politics, law a n d h u m a n n a tu r e . A t firs t th e re w ill be show n a sh o rt o u tlin e of A re n d t’s m ethodology. N ext, th e re w ill be in tro d u c e d th e concept o f p l u r a l i t y t h a t for A re n d t is one of th e m a in co nd itio ns of th e h u m a n ’s actio n s.

„N ever before th e re w ere people in so m a n y c o u n trie s a ro u n d th e w orld [...] so h elp less stru g g lin g in a w h irlw in d of co ntrad ictory , c a u sin g confusion, k ak a fo n ic id eas. [...] E v ery d ay b rin g s a n ew fash io n , a scien tific discovery, religion, a new m o v em en t o r m a n ife sto ”1. As a re s u lt, th e sy ste m in w h ich

th e re a re c le a r divisions in to classes or ideology d isa p p e a rs. T h ere is an eclectic “co n fig u rativ e society” w ere th e re a re m ixed v a rie d (o ften e n u m e ra ti- ve) m in o ritie s c re a te loose, te m p o ra ry co n fig u ratio n s2. F ro m th is p e rs p e c ti­ ve, it is n o t s u rp ris in g t h a t th e t u r n of th e c e n tu ry b rin g s a c le a r re v iv a l of in te r e s t in p lu ra lis m a n d it ca n be o b serv ed a sh ift in th e w ay of a n a ly z in g th is issu e. T he m a in co n tex t of th e discu ssio n is no lo n g er th e is s u e of d istrib u tiv e ju s tic e a n d th e issu e s re la te d to th e p o ssessio n of m a te r ia l goods a n d th e leg itim a cy of ow n ersh ip . T h ere a re q u e stio n s su ch as: w h e th e r p e ­ ople h av e th e rig h t to h av e w h a t th e y h av e, or w h e th e r ju s tic e re q u ire s t h a t som eone else in t h a t possessio n also sh o u ld h av e a p a r t in?

T h e above q u e stio n s give a w ay to th e o th e r q u e stio n s, m ore re la te d to th e issu e s of c u ltu ra l d iv e rsity in th e societies in th e in te rn a lly a n d globally dim en sio n s. In th e c e n tre of ph ilo so p h ical d isco u rse th e re a re p re s e n tly th e issu e s of diversity, p lu ra lis m a n d m u ltic u ltu ra lis m , a n d th e e m p h a sis is p laced m ore on th e issu e s of id e n tity a n d w orldview r a th e r th a n - as it took place before - on th e economy. T h is sh ift o f th e in te r e s t in a la rg e e x te n t is d e te rm in e d by th e ch a n g es ta k in g place in th e societies of th e W e ste rn w orld. In creasingly, th e ir hom ogeneity is b ro k e n a n d on m a n y levels of socie­ ty th e re is a n in c re a sin g diversity. A lot o f th e ch a n g es ta k in g place in th e s p iritu a l c u ltu re a re asso c ia te d w ith th e ra p id d ev elo p m en t of n ew tech n o lo ­ gies, esp e cially in fo rm a tio n technology t h a t e n h a n c e s th e social sy ste m w ith n ew co m m u n icatio n lay ers. C onn ected c o m p u te r n e tw o rk s in te n sify h u m a n m in d s. T hey a re ca p ab le of sto rin g , pro cessin g a n d s h a rin g la rg e a m o u n ts of d a ta . T his is a n a n n o u n c e m e n t of a n u n p re c e d e n te d s itu a tio n in th e h is to ry of m a n k in d in w hich in d iv id u a ls b eg in to h av e b a sic a lly u n lim ite d access to a grow ing know ledge b a s e a n d g e ttin g w id e r social m em ory. T his p h en o m e­ n o n in flu en ces on th e ch a n g e of form s a n d re c ip ie n ts of c o n te m p o ra ry m edia. T hey u n d erg o a process of “off m a s s ”. T he s e n d e r’s in te n tio n s a n d th e expec­ ta tio n s of th e re c ip ie n ts fall o u tsid e an y a tte m p ts of a top-dow n h a rm o n iz a ­ tion. In th e social scale it c o n trib u te s to th e p ro g ress of d e s ta n d a riz a tio n in v a rie d a re a s.

T h e s itu a tio n ca n be observed n o t only in th e sp h e re of m e d ia b u t also in ed u c atio n , co m m unication, ideology, co n su m p tio n , g o v ern m e n t, politics, etc. T h e re th e m a ss p ro d u c tio n h a s b ee n g ra d u a lly giving w ay to in d iv id u a lism : u n ity - diversity, rig id ity - flexibility. T he p re s s u re of new s com bined w ith th e sp eed of c h an g es ta k in g place sim u lta n e o u sly a t m u ltip le levels e n h a n c e s th e cro ssin g a v a rie ty of need s, id eas a n d believes. T h a t is w hy m ore an d m ore in a d e q u a te to th e re a lity th e re a re d iv ision s b a se d on g e n e ra l q u a n ti­ fiers su ch a s l e f t - r i g h t , s t r o n g - w e a k leader. D eeply ro o ted p a tte r n s of g o v ern an ce a re ch a n g in g a n d tr a d itio n a l sources of legitim acy, su ch as r e li­

gion, tr a d itio n o r c h a ris m a a re d ep letin g 3. T his also c o n trib u te s to th e m o di­ fica tio n of view s on th e role o f th e s ta te t h a t is r a th e r a p a r tn e r in n e g o tia ­ tio n s a n d co o rd in a ted collective decisions th a n th e su p e rv iso r w ho a u th o r ita ­ tiv ely decides w h a t sh o u ld be done4. G rad ually, th e im p o rta n c e of th e s ta te in s titu tio n s solving social conflicts is chan g in g . F re q u e n tly h etero n o m o u s a n d o ne-sided m ode of litig a tio n or p e n a ltie s becom es ineffective. T he d eve­ lo p m en t of v a rio u s ty p es of n o n -rep ressiv e m eth o d s of re so lv in g conflicts inv olving sta k e h o ld e rs su c h as m e d ia tio n a n d n eg o tia tio n becom es th e a lte r ­ n ativ e.

F u n d a m e n ta l to th e m o d e rn a p p ro a c h to th e politics becom es th e b e lie f t h a t in a d d itio n to th e in te r e s t in form s o f in e q u a lity re s u ltin g from th e econom ic d is trib u tio n sh o u ld be also th e a n a ly sis of o th e r form s of o p p re s­ sion, occurring, for exam ple, w h e n social re la tio n s a re co n d itio n ed b y th e in te ra c tio n of in e q u a litie s d u e to gender, c u ltu re , relig io n, race, etc. T h a t s itu a tio n c re a te s fa v o rab le co ndition s for th e d iscu ssio n on th e issu e o f p lu ­ ra lis m a n d th e re la te d concepts of “e q u a lity a n d d iv e rsity ”. A sig n ifican t voice in th is d e b a te is th e voice o f H a n n a h A re n d t. F o r h e r th e p lu ra lity categ o ry is of p a r tic u la r relev an ce. I t p e rv a d e s all of h e r po litical reflectio n a n d affects th e m a in conclusions. M a rg a re t C onovan s ta te s t h a t if we h a d to a ssig n one w ord to th e a n y of m a jo r po litical th in k e rs t h a t th e y h a d in tro d u ­ ced in to th e th in k in g circle in o u r w orld, th e w ord t h a t sh o u ld be re g a rd e d as a m a n ife sta tio n of p e n e tr a tin g re sp o n se to specific a n d d efin itely a new ex perien ce o f y o u r tim e , su ch a w ord t h a t in th e case o f H. A re n d t it w ould h av e b ee n “p lu ra lity ”5.

P o litical p hilosophy t h a t H a n n a h A re n d t d ea ls w ith to la rg e e x te n t is d e te rm in e d by a n an th ro p o lo g ical p ersp ectiv e. In th is p a r t o f th e a rtic le on th e fu n c tio n of law in po litical a n d social con ditio ns of p lu ra lis m from th e p e rsp e c tiv e of H a n n a h A re n d t th e r e w ill be in tro d u c e d som e a sp e c t of A re n d t’s ph ilo so p h ical th o u g h ts , p lu ra lity in th e p olitical a n d law con text a n d consequently, th e th r e a ts o f social p lu ra lism .

T he field of h u m a n a ffairs w ith its u n p re d ic ta b ility p u ts th e a u th o r in th is k in d of w o n d er a b o u t th e w orld (th a u m a d z e in ), w h ich since a n c ie n t tim e s h a s b e e n re g a rd e d a s th e b e g in n in g o f all philosophy. In th e in te re sts of A re n d t th e re a re q u e stio n s ab o u t th e n a tu r e of politics, th e specificities of its asp e cts, a n d th e locatio n o f a m a n in a pu blic space. In a n a ly z in g th e se issu e s she h ig h lig h ts th e difference b e tw e e n p h ilo sop hical reflectio n, p o litical

3 More about traditional sources of legitimization of authority see, M. Augustyniak, P. Polaczuk, Typy idealne panow ania. Założenia epistemologiczne i metodologiczne, UWM, Olsz­ tyn 2010, p. 209-230.

4 See, L. Morawski, Główne problem y współczesnej filozofii prawa. Prawo w toku p rze­ m ia n, Lexis Nexis, Warszawa 2005, p. 132.

5 M. Conovan, H an n a h A rendt. A Reinterpretation o f H er Political Thought, Cambridge University Press 1994, p. 280-281.

p ra c tic e a n d th e d a n g e r h id in g in th e a tte m p ts to id en tify th em . T h e specifi­ city of philosophy is th e te n d e n c y to fo rm u la te a single, u n iv e rs a l th e o ry th a t “lay claim s to be free from p a r tic u la r p o in ts o f view a n d to em body th e t r u t h a s such, c re a tin g th e ab so lu te im p o rta n c e o f i t s e l f ’6. P h ilo so p h y ta k e s ca re of e te r n a l th in g s. I t in v e s tig a te s th e u n iv e rs a l o rd e r o f th e w orld. It is d iffe ren t from th e policy w h ich is c h a ra c te riz e d by in stab ility , in h e re n t in liv in g an d m o rta l m e n 7. T herefo re, th e s ta tu s o f t r u t h in th e p hilo sop hy a n d politics sh o u ld be u n d e rsto o d d iffe ren tly 8. T he p ra c tic e of p hilo soph y o m ittin g th e t r u t h is b a r re n , w hile th e fu n c tio n in g of th e p o litica l space t h a t offers only one t r u th , d en ies th is d iscu rsiv e space c h a ra c te r w h ich in th e A re n d t’s a s s e s ­ s m e n t shou ld be th e basis. T hus, th e philosophical t r u t h ca n no t be th e whole tru th . P hilosophy can only p ass as p a r t of th e w id esp read ra tio n a l co m m unica­ tio n as in te rm e d ia rie s b etw e en th e h u m a n an d th e a c tu a l n u m b e r of tru th s . In o th e r w ords, th e political space, u n lik e in th e philosophy, th e m in d only is not eno u g h for som ething to be considered for th e tru th . We n eed also som e social conditions, am ong w hich th e freedom o f discussion is crucial9.

T h e issu e t h a t p e rm a n e n tly took p a r t in th e canon o f p o litica l reflectio n is re la te d to a n a tte m p t to d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e ev e n ts in th e field of p ublic a ffairs a re fu n d a m e n ta l philo so p h ical im p u lse a n d th e y a re th e k ey to in te r p r e ta tio n or, on th e contrary, it sh o u ld be ta k e n in to acco u n t t h a t th e firs t is p hilo so p h ical experien ce a n d e v a lu a te a ll th e p u blic in its lig h t. T his la s t a s s u m p tio n lead s u s to w a rd s sofokracy t h a t on th e b a s is o f a p rio ri re aso n s th e law should be e n a c te d an d th e citizen s m u s t obey t h a t law an d th e p o litica l system . P la to is th e classic o f th is a p p ro a c h in th e E u ro p e a n tra d itio n . H e firs t d esig n ed th e s ta te s u b o rd in a te d to p hilo so p h ical p e rsp e c ti­ ve, w hich fu n d a m e n ta lly ch a n g ed th e e a rlie r G reek conception o f politics. F o u n d e r of th e A cadem y h a s assig n e d th e t r u t h c o n ta in e d in th e id eas of a b so lu te a n d u n iv e rs a l n a tu r e a n d its cave m e ta p h o r e x p resses p erfectly th e te n sio n in h e re n t in th e re la tio n sh ip p re a c h e r of t r u t h w ith o th e rs 10. E x p e ­ rien ced p h ilo so p h er is a sso c ia te d w ith som e ty p e of in su la tio n . H e h a s to t u r n aw ay from th e m a te r ia l w orld. H e h a s to be able to see w h a t a re th e th in g s in th e m se lv e s to u n d e r s ta n d th e ir e te r n a l essence. A p h ilo so p h er m u s t re fra in from th e em p iric a l a n a ly sis of specific c o u n trie s to focus on th e r a tio n a l cognition, objective, c o n s is te n t a n d tra n s c e n d e n ta l id e a of th e sta te . So a k in d of a lie n a tio n from th e world, w hich s h a re a philosopher, h e pu lls on

6 H. Arendt, Salon berliński i inne eseje, Prószyński i S-ka, Warszawa 2008, p. 141. 7 See, H. Arendt, Polityka ja ko obietnica, Prószyński i S-ka, Warszawa 2007, p. 112. 8 H. Arendt, Praw da a polityka, „Literatura na Swiecie” 1985, no. 6, p. 167.

9 The way of comprehension of the truth proposed by Hannah Arendt corresponds to the attitude of J.S. Mill. See, J.S. Mill, O wolności, A. Kurlandzka (trans.), WN PWN, Warszawa 1959, p. 143.

th e ris k of com m on sense, th is “com m on sen se”, w ith o u t w hich it is im possible to u n d e rs ta n d th e com m on w o rld11. “If a p hilo sop her b egins to sp ea k in th e com m on w orld of com m on sense, w hich also inclu des our com m on sh a re d b elief an d su p e rstitio n , alw ays th re a te n in g him t h a t he w ould sp ea k in te rm s of nonsense, or [...] th a t w ill p u t com m on sense on its h e a d ”12.

T he p rim ac y of p h ilosop hy in th e co u n try m e a n t t h a t it sh o u ld provide s ta n d a r d s , ru le s a n d y a rd stic k s by w h ich you ca n be overcom e, re s u ltin g in in d iv id u a l freedom , u n p re d ic ta b ility a n d in s ta b ility of th e h u m a n world. A ccording to A re n d t, th is a p p ro a c h is su b ject to erro r, w hich co n sists of ig n o rin g th e b asic condition o f politics: th e fa ct t h a t it is grow n in th e m id st of m a n y h u m a n b eings, everybody is e n title d to specific differences, to d e te r­ m in e h is own goals a n d to in itia te h is own activ ities. In th is p ersp ectiv e, th e re s u lts of a n in te ra c tio n m u s t be th e r e s u lt of c o n tin u in g th e fin d in g s of m a n y people. It c a n n o t be a p rio ri design. I t ca n n o t d ep e n d on th e th e o re ti­ cal fin d in g s of opinion of one p e rso n or a selected g ro u p 13. If th e goal is to im p le m e n t th e p o litica l le a d e rsh ip , p hilosop hy to ab so lu te s ta n d a r d s of p oli­ tic a l space, m ay h e ra ld a tra g ic end, as in serio u s p re ju d ic e to th e conditions u n d e r w hich th e p ra ctice of politics is possible.

A re n d t p o in ts out t h a t to ta lita r ia n re g im e s a re b a se d on b a d essen ce of politics. O nly b ec au se politics a rise s b e tw e e n people a w a re n e s s t h a t all th e ru le s - b o th good a n d b ad , tr u e a n d false, so fa r as th e y g o vern th e ir o p eratio n , c a n n o t be im posed from th e o u tsid e, th e y m u s t develop from th e b o tto m u p in th e sam e com m unity. T he d o m ain o f politics is th e re fo re fre ­ edom enjoyed by none. T h e p ublic space o rg a n iz es th o se “w ho a re ab so lu tely d issim ila r from th e o u ts e t w ith a view to th e ir re la tiv e equality , a n d desp ite th e ir re la tiv e differen ces”14. S ince th e fu n d a m e n ta l m e a n in g of politics is freedom , t h a t w h e re v e r th e re is a m onopoly of violence b a se d on th e u se of force, th e re also h av e to deal w ith th e en d of po litical action. R egim es b ase d on fe a r d e stro y “th e s u b s ta n c e of th e h u m a n b ein g to g e th e r”, is o la tin g people from e a c h o th er a n d m a k e th e m h elp less a n d th e y tr y to d e stro y th e h u m a n diplomacy. Also w a rfa re re q u irin g m in d le ss obedience sh o u ld be excluded from th e political sphere.

T he o u tlin e o f h a n n a h a r e n d t’s m e th o d o lo g y

To u n d e r s ta n d A re n d t’s w ritin g s it is w o rth to p ay a tte n tio n to th e specificity of h e r re s e a rc h ap p ro ach . T he a u th o r does n o t a tte m p t to provide

11 H. Arendt, Polityka ja ko obietnica, p. 62-63. 12 Ibidem, p. 68.

13 H. Arendt, Kondycja lu d zka , Aletheia, Warszawa 2010, p. 23. 14 H. Arendt, Polityka ja k o obietnica, p. 127.

a co h e re n t p hilosophical sy ste m or a political ag e n d a. S h e in te rw e a v e s to g e­ t h e r v a rie d tr a in s of th o u g h t, sh e u se s m e ta p h o rs a n d re v e rsa ls. S h e often sp o ts o u t a n d re c o n s tru c ts th e v a rio u s ev e n ts o f th e p a s t, co n fro n tin g th e m w ith c o n te m p o ra ry problem s. W ith th e s e “m o m en ts of h is to ry ” sh e c re a te s a so rt of W e b erian “id e a l ty p e ” - a single, m e n ta l im ag e t h a t “connects c e rta in re la tio n s h ip s a n d ev e n ts of h isto ric a l life in to one space o f link s. As for th e c o n te n t, th is design h a s th e c h a ra c te ris tic s o f u to p ia w h ich we h av e o b ta in e d b y e n h a n c in g c e rta in e le m e n ts of re a lity in th e m in d ”15.

T h e ex a m p le s of su c h th o u g h t m odels in A re n d t’s w ritin g a re G reek polis, th e R o m an R epublic, th e F re n c h a n d A m eric an re v o lu tio n s. A re n d t also com es b ack to th e ac h ie v em en ts of a lo t o f m a s te rs , so m etim es se e m in ­ gly v ery d is ta n t one from a n o th er. S he is in s p ire d by S o crates, S t. A u g u stin e, K a n t, Tocqueville, th e F o u n d in g F a th e r s of th e U n ite d S ta te s , N ietzsch e, L essin g , J a s p e rs , H eidegger. A t th e sam e tim e , am ong th e m u ltitu d e of sources, th e re is one sp ecial source t h a t is r e tu r n in g in th e A re n d t’s d e lib e ra ­ tions. It is p h ilosophy political p ra ctice o f a n c ie n t G reece. T he a u th o r trie s to fin d th e re a still u n c o n ta m in a te d source of p o litical o rg a n iz a tio n o f life.

G oing beyond th e w id e sp re a d th e o rie s, sch em es a n d s y s te m a tiz a tio n s is th e h a llm a rk o f A re n d t. T h ro u g h o u t h e r life, sh e follow ed a S ocratic w ay for reflection, b a se d on th e con duct of th e n ev e r-e n d in g dialog ue w ith o n ese lf a n d th e o th e rs. S he p ro m o ted th is k in d of cognitive o p en n e ss w ith w h ich th e m in d is re a d y to e lim in a te its ow n c o n stru c tio n s. T h a t an tid o g m a tic a p p ro ­ ac h is fo rm u la te d in a m e ta p h o r of th e process o f th in k in g : “P en elo p e’s w e av in g clo th ”, “b u ild in g a sp id e r w eb”, “th in k in g w ith o u t sta b iliz e rs (ra il)”. A re n d t sees h e r s e lf as “b ein g th e q u e s tio n e r”16, a n d a c tu a lly d u rin g re a d in g h e r w ritin g s it is obvious t h a t sh e did n o t ta k e ca re on th e tr a n s f e r to th e o th e rs of h e r ow n in te rp re ta tio n o f th e w orld. S he w as r a th e r in te re s te d in th e fact th a t she should h av e b e tte r u n d ersto o d th e p hen om eno n of th e s u rro ­ u n d in g reality. In th is a tte m p t o f u n d e rsta n d in g she m a ste rfu lly m an ag e s to com bine a n an a ly sis of th e socio-political facts a n d in tu itiv e psychological in sig h t a n d in d iv id u a l a sse ssm e n t of th e ph eno m ena. T he a u th o r o f T h e O r i ­ g i n s o f T o t a l i t a r i a n i s m avoids ex plicit p o litica l s ta te m e n ts , avoids an y -ism s,

a n d she is a w a re t h a t th e se a rc h for t r u t h a p a r t from re a so n a n d solid k now ledge re q u ire s also im a g in a tio n a n d m o ral sensitivity.

A ccording to H a n n a h A re n d t in th e E u ro p e a n po litical philosophy, s t a r ­ tin g from P la to , th e re is a te n d e n c y of try in g to d e te rm in e w ho th e “m a n in g e n e ra l” is. As a ru le , it is ac com panied by a p re su m p tio n of th e ex isten c e of

15 M. Weber, „Obiektywność” p oznania społeczno-naukowego i społeczno-politycznego, [in:] idem, Racjonalność, władza, odczarowanie, Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, Poznań 2004, p. 172-173; E. Sokalska, M ax Weber’s perception o f bureaucracy a n d m odern rational models o f a d m in istra ­ tion, „Studia Prawnoustrojowe” 2010, no. 11, p. 143-160.

a s u b s ta n tia lly u n ifo rm h u m a n n a t u r e 17. T h is a p p ro a c h focuses on th e id e n ­ tify in g of th e u n iv e rs a l t r u t h co n cern in g m a n , p lay in g dow n th e fact of d iv e rsity a n d v a ria tio n of h u m a n . “T he id e a of th e m u ltip lic ity of h u m a n history, th e w orld is tra n s fo rm e d in to one en tity , w hich is th e n called h u m a ­ nity. T his is th e source of th e m o n stro u s a n d in h u m a n a sp e c t of th e sto ry t h a t finds its full a n d b r u ta l en d in th e politics”18. T he consequence of su ch a n a p p ro a c h is a k in d of cognitive m o n ism a n d th e in a b ility to d e te rm in e th e re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n political p hiloso phy a n d re a lity of th e w orld. A re n d t trie s to b re a k th is p ersp ectiv e a n d sh e stick s to th e tr a d itio n of n o m in alism , s ta tin g t h a t te rm s su ch a s “h u m a n ity ”, “m a n in g e n e ra l” do n o t e x ist as re a l e n titie s a n d th e y a re m ere ly a n a b s tra c tio n , a m e ta p h o r19. In fact, we a re able to d ea l w ith g e n e ra liz a tio n of h u m a n b ein g s in th e sp h e re of philo soph y b u t n o t in th e sp h e re of politics. As a b a s is w e sh o u ld ta k e “p lu ra lity ”, th e fact t h a t th e re a lot of people w ho a re in h a b ita n ts of th e w orld a n d nobody is th e sam e, people a re u n iq u e. I t is p ossible in p h iloso ph y to u se som e h u m a n g en e ra liz a tio n s, it is u n a c c e p ta b le in th e a r e a of politics t h a t ta k e s th e b a sis from th e h u m a n m ultiplicity , th e fa ct t h a t “th e people a n d n o t M an , live on th e e a r th a n d in h a b it th e w orld”; “We a re all h u m a n b ein g s a n d w e live in su ch a w ay t h a t no one h a s e v e r lived th e sam e life a n d no one w ill h av e live in th e fu tu r e ”20. T h a t m u ltip lic ity is a n e c e ssa ry a n d p rio r concept to d e te r­ m in a te w h a t is politics a n d w h a t is political, “it is a p a r tic u la r co n dition - n o t only a conditio sin e q u a non, b u t th e conditio p e r q u a m - of a ll political life”21. T herefore, we a tte m p t to an a ly z e th e co n c ep tu al s tru c tu r e d escrib in g th e political co ndition of a m a n t h a t is focused j u s t on th e ca te g o ry of

17 These kinds of assumptions help in building monistic visions of the word that are criticized by Hannah Arendt These visions assumes: 1) sameness of the human nature that influence on the fact that human hale the same essence consisting of specific abilities and possibilities; 2) axiological and ontological priority the likeliness over the diversity; 3) socially transcendent character of the human nature; 4) cognizability of the human nature and possibi­ lity of formulating on that basis the principles of good life. See, B. Perekh, M oral philosophy and its a nti-pluralist bias, [in:] D. Archard (ed.), Philosophy a n d p lu ra lism , Oxford - Cambridge 1996, p. 130-132.

18 H. Arendt, Polityka ja k o obietnica, p. 126.

19 Compare, H. Arendt, Korzenie totalitaryzm u, Niezależna Oficyna Wydawnicza, Warsza­ wa 1993, p. 336. In the context of nominalistic description of a man it could be taken into account the concept of guilt and collective responsibility (B. Perekh, op. cit., p. 132). For Arendt usage of such concepts is a kind of falsehood. In practice, everybody is not to be blame, even if the truth is different. The concept of blame and innocence is justified only in the case of an individual. The slogan of “everybody is guilty” in fact served culprits in being absolved from sins (H. Arendt, O dpowiedzialność i w ładza sądzenia, W. Madej, M. Godyń (trans.), WN PWN, Warszawa 2003, p. 54, 62). Taking into account the tradition of nominalism, H. Arendt a lot of her works wrote on the occasion of specific events. About a lie in politics she wrote on the occasion of the famous history of the Pentagon Papers, on the occasion of civil disobedience protests in Vietnam, the banality of evil she judged in the context of the Eichmann trial.

20 H. Arendt, Kondycja lu d zka , p. 25-26. 21 Ibidem, p. 25.

p lu rality . I t sh o u ld be ta k e n in to acco u n t t h a t it is in th e m u tu a l asso c ia tio n w ith o th e r d e te rm in a n ts a n d m a n ife sta tio n s o f h u m a n activity. A re n d t s y s te ­ m a tiz e s th e m in T h e H u m a n C o n d i t i o n by in clu d in g th e follow ing a re a s w ith th e ir specific e le m e n ts22:

1. T h e d e te r m in a n ts of h u m a n existen ce: th e m u ltip lic ity o f life, th e a b ility to b irth , m o rtality , w orld, E a rth .

2. T h e b asic form s o f h u m a n ac titiv ity : w ith in v i t a a c t i v a - w ork, p ro ­ duction, action s; a n d w ith in v i t a c o n t e m p l a t i v a - th in k in g , w ill, th e ab ility of ju d g m e n t23.

3. T he a re a s of h u m a n activity: a p riv a te space, a p ublic space.

All of th e s e conditions a n d o th e r re la te d a sp e cts c re a te o u tlin e s “th e h u m a n co ndition”24. I t covers n o t only th e con ditio ns on w h ich a p e rso n h a s b ee n given life on E a r th , a n d p a r tly o u tsid e it, b u t also e v e ry th in g t h a t people m a k e con stan tly , as th e ir ow n c irc u m sta n ces. T h u s, in ad d itio n to th in g s a n d n a tu r a l p h e n o m e n a “e v e ry th in g com es in a n y la s tin g re la tio n sh ip w ith h u m a n life, in s ta n tly becom es a co n d itio n o f h u m a n existence. T h a t’s w hy people, no m a tte r w h a t th e y do, th e y a re alw ays con dition ed beings. W h a te v e r e n te r s th e h u m a n w orld itself, or is d ra w n in to it by h u m a n effort. It becom es p a r t of th e h u m a n co n d itio n ”25. A re n d t em p h a siz e s t h a t n e ith e r th e specific biology n o r c u ltu re do d e te rm in e u s in a n ab so lu te way. To som e e x te n t we a re ab le to free th e m se lv e s from th e d ic ta te s of gen es from both. Also th e im p a c t of n o rm a tiv e acts, econom ical o r h isto ric a l circ u m sta n c e s ca n n o t d e te rm in e th e h u m a n ’s life in a n ab so lu te way.

A re n d t c a rry in g o u t m u lti-lev el a n a ly sis of th e facto rs t h a t c o n s titu te th e h u m a n condition is n o t in te n d e d to c o n s tru c t a p e rm a n e n t, closed m odel d e sig n a tin g h u m a n ity a n d d efining h u m a n n a tu re . I t ’s n o t h e r am b itio n to c re a te , by m e a n s of th e s e categ o ries, th e fo u n d a tio n s of a single philo sop hy o r political theory. T he aim is to ex a m in e A re n d t’s policies in th e lig h t of b asic h u m a n ex p erien ces a n d conditions t h a t h av e b ein g e x iste d d u rin g th is a re a , a n d c le a rin g it from th e tr a d itio n a l concepts a n d ju d g m e n ts t h a t clu ng to it, b u t t h a t h av e th e ir o rig in s in a v ery d iffe ren t ex p e rien ce26. A tro p h y of J u d g m e n t is also ex tre m ely d a n g e ro u s for th e public, in w h ich “to ta k e on

22 In Polish literature the analisys of Arendt’s process of thought can be fund in: W. Heller, H annah Arendt: źródła p lu ra lizm u politycznego, Instytut Filozofii UAM, Poznań 2000.

23 From the “contemplative” activity associated with the human condition Arendt develo­ ped an analysis in the next two monographs Th in kin g , Willing. The author’s death in December 1975 stopped her work on the third part of it - Judging.

24 The notion of “human condition” Arendt seems to refer to the philosophy of M. Monta­ igne and to K. Jaspers. The first combines the awareness of the possible risks associated with human condition, signalized by conflicts from the seventeenth century. In Jaspers the concept of the human condition and the philosopher explanations can be found - K. Jaspers, Wiara filozoficzna wobec objawienia, Kraków 1999, p. 403.

25 H. Arendt, Kondycja ludzka, p. 27. 26 H. Arendt, Salon berliński..., p. 118.

so m eth in g q u ite C onsequently, o u r in v o lu n ta ry is th e price we p ay for it, we do n o t live alone, b u t in th e m id s t of o th e r people, a n d th e ab ility to act, b ein g active p a r excellence political, c a n be a tta in e d only in one o f th e m an y com plex form s of h u m a n coexistence”27.

T he c a te g o r y o f p lu r a lity

Je ro m e K ohn rig h tly p o in te d o u t th a t: “O ne of th e difficult th in g s th a t A re n d t u n d e rsto o d , w as t h a t th e g re a t th in k e rs w ho h av e so o ften so u g h t in s p ira tio n from P la to a n d A risto tle to N ietzsch e a n d H eidegger, I n e v e r no ticed t h a t th e p ro m ise of h u m a n freedom - folding sin cerely or h y p o c riti­ cally as a po litical objective - it is p erfo rm ed by people in th e ir m u ltip lic ity if a n d only if th e y a c t in a po litical way. E v en K a n t, [...], h e could n o t see, o r a t le a s t did n o t ex p ress i t conceptually, in a p olitical sense, th e m u ltip lic ity is th e sam e as freedom ”28. O nly S o crates, w h ich is ex tre m ely im p o rta n t for A re n d t, in sp ira tio n , p a ssio n for th e c o n sid e ra tio n of d iffe re n t opinions, th e re la tiv e t r u t h s a n d in d iv id u a l p o in ts of view, ack now ledged t h a t only th r o ­ u g h th is k in d of co n fro n ta tio n b e tw e e n th e A th e n ia n polis m ay be o p en to th e m u ltip lic ity of i ts citizen s.

H a n n a c h A re n d t u se s th e sam e te rm - to describe th e p lu ra lity of two d ifferen t, th o u g h re la te d p h e n o m e n a . of T he firs t is a n e x is te n tia l, is one of th e m a in d e te rm in a n ts of th e h u m a n condition, is its in h e r e n t fe a tu re a n d i t is a n e s s e n tia l s ta r tin g p o in t for th e second - th e p olitical d im en sio n p lu ra li­ ty. T he firs t a p p ro a c h a ssu m e s th a t th e essen ce of h u m a n con dition is t h a t people w ho live in th e w orld u n d erg o co n tin u in g ch a n g es. N ew “in d iv id u a ls ” grow a n d s p re a d in to th e h u m a n w orld by s p e a k in g a n d actin g , a n d i t is lik e jo in in g “th e second b i r th ”. In th e w ords of th e H oly A u g u stin e: In itiu m u t E sse t, c re a tu s e s t hom o (m a n w as c re a te d so t h a t w as th e b eg in n in g ), A re n d t p o in ts o u t t h a t th e b e g in n in g of e v e ry th in g is a n ew b ir th a n d everybody is a ssu m e d to be a new b e g in n in g 29. N a ta lity overcom e m ortality , b ecau se th e m o st s trik in g th in g in h u m a n life is n o t t h a t we die, b u t we give b irth , n o t only ch ild re n , b u t also n ew w ays of living, th in k in g a n d ac tin g . “T he space of h u m a n life w h ich goes to w a rd s d e a th , in e v ita b ly w ould h av e b ro u g h t all t h a t is h u m a n , to collapse a n d d e s tru c tio n . If not, th e ab ility to b re a k th is cycle a n d th e s t a r t of so m eth in g new, th e ab ility to in h e re n tly c o n ta in e d in th e ac tio n as so m e th in g t h a t alw ays re m in d s th e people, th o u g h m u s t die, are n o t b o rn to die, b u t to s t a r t ”30.

27 J. Kohn, W prowadzenie, [in:] H. Arendt, O dpowiedzialność i w ładza sądzenia, p. 186. 28 H. Arendt, Polityka ja k o obietnica, p. 20.

29 H. Arendt, Korzenie totalitaryzm u, p. 516. 30 Ibidem, p. 279.

In A re n d t’s re c e p tio n th e m u ltip lic ity of h u m a n b ein g s is also asso ciated w ith th e fa ct t h a t everyone h a s th e rig h t to u se th e pow er of ju d g m e n t, to u se h is own re a s o n a n d is c o n s titu te d as a n au to n o m o u s m o ral a g e n t, c a p a ­ ble o f consciously, n o t in stin c tiv e ly chooses b e tw e e n good a n d evil. T his a p p ro a c h is close to e th ic a l in te lle c tu a lis m w h e re w isdom is a p re re q u is ite for th e im p le m e n ta tio n of good. T h is w isdom is n o t a p rio ri n a tu re . We w ill n o t be pro v id ed w ith it by a n y n o rm a tiv e sy stem . T he m a in source o f th is w isdom is a c o n tin u a l self-reflection, w h ich r u n s a s a s ile n t co n v e rsatio n b e tw e e n tw o in one31. T his in te r n a l dialogu e is a n in te g ra l p a r t of b ein g an d liv in g am ong others. T he in n e r in te g rity - u n d e n ia b ly th e conflicting th o ­ u g h ts a n d n o t e x p re ssin g th o u g h ts is th e s ta r tin g p o in t to open u p to th e “I” of th e o th e r people. T his a p p ro a c h w as c h a ra c te ris tic of S o crates w ho said t h a t „the only one w ho know s how to p re s e n t h im s e lf a n d is p re p a re d to be am o n g th e o th e rs. O w n „I” is th e only p e rso n from w hom I c a n n o t escape t h a t I c a n n o t leave, w ith w h ich I am involved a n d for all. T h is is w hy “I w ould p re fe r th e s itu a tio n w h e re m o st o f th e people do n o t ag ree w ith m e th a n one in d iv id u a l h u m a n b ein g h a d to w e a r th e in te r n a l rift a n d d eliv er co nflicting th o u g h ts ”32. T his sen ten c e is cru cial to recognize t h a t peace of m in d is b a se d on th e a b ility to conduct a n in te r n a l d ialogue, a n in v e stig a tio n in to th e re a so n s t h a t convince u s a n d act according to th em . T he w ords th a t show th e m se lv e s a re e s s e n tia l to show off to th e o th e rs, a n d to e s ta b lish a dialogue w ith th e o th e rs 33.

M o ral s ta n d a r d s a re em b ed d ed in th e in d iv id u a l pow er of ju d g m e n t, w h ich in t u r n is n o t only a rig h t b u t also a d u ty o f a m an . W ith th is pow er th e y m ay in te rn a liz e c e rta in v a lu e s, w h ich a re th e m a in g u a r a n te e s of th e ir re sp e c t, fa r m ore im p o rta n t th a n ju s tific a tio n tra n s c e n d e n ta l or form al. F or ex am p le, th e p rim a ry re a so n for t h a t som eone sh o u ld n o t tobe killed; th e re is n o t th e fe a r of te m p o ra l or e te r n a l p u n is h m e n t, b u t th e fa ct t h a t we co n d em n o u rse lv e s to living w ith a m u rd e r e r for th e r e s t of th e days. In th is re sp e c t, p e rso n a l re s p o n sib ility w ill be p rim a rily a m a tte r of conscience34. If w e m a k e self-reflection in a n h o n e st way, we h av e to a n sw e r w ith in th e m s e ­ lves to th e q u estio n , to w h a t e x te n t we w ill be ab le to live in h a rm o n y w ith

31 A similar perspective is presented by I. Kant who writes: „Thinking is the same as the conversation with ourselves [...], and also an internal listening” - I. Kant, Antropologia w ujęciu pragm atycznym , E. Drzazgowska, P. Sosnowska (trans.), IFiS PAN, Warszawa 2005, p. 105.

32 Platon, Gorgiasz, [in:] idem, Dialogi, part I, W. Witwicki (trans.), Antyk, Kęty 1999, p. 393. 33 H. Arendt, Polityka ja k o obietnica, p. 54.

34 The personal is different from political responsibility. When it comes to the nation that “it is clear that each generation, by the very fact of appearance in a historical continuum, both burdened with the sins of the fathers as well as benefits from the actions of their ancestors. Anyone who assumes the political responsibility, there will always be a point where he can say with Hamlet: »The world came out of the form and I also have to come back to the norm!«” - H. Arendt, O dpowiedzialność i w ładza sądzenia, p. 60.

ea ch o th e r a fte r th e com m ission of c e rta in acts. T h u s, th e re fu s a l to do b ad ste m s m a in ly from d esire to m a in ta in re la tio n s h ip s b a se d on re sp e c t w ith itself. S elf-an aly sis a n d d ecisio n -m ak in g show th e a d v a n ta g e o f m in im izin g th e ris k of re d u cin g th e role of h u m a n cog in th e sy stem . T he h a b it of th in k in g m a k e s u s to be au to n o m o u s u n its , re a d y to ta k e re sp o n sib ility of th e ir choices. O n th e o th e r h a n d , if we ab a n d o n su ch activity, we c a n be led to th e d irectio n of so-called “b a n a l w rong”. T h is is a k in d o f “w ron g com m it­ te d by an yo ne w ho re fu ses to be a person . [...] S elf-villain who re fu se s to re flect on w h a t h e is doing, a n d also th e fact t h a t u n w ittin g ly th in k s to go b ac k to it a n d re m e m b e r [...], in fact, h e h a s n o t c o n s titu te d h im s e lf as h u m a n beings. By s ta y in g stu b b o rn ly im p e rso n a l everyone proves t h a t h e is u n a b le to dialogue w ith o th e rs who - good, b a d o r in d iffe re n t - a re a t le a s t peo ple”35.

T he te rm p lu rality , as o u tlin e d ea rlier, is th e n o tio n of a n in itia l an d in d isp e n sa b le for th e defin itio n o f th e concept o f politics. P lu r a lity is th e con ditio n of h u m a n action, w hich in t u r n is a p re re q u is ite for a n y p o litical life. A re n d t re p e a te d ly s ta te d t h a t th e e x istin g ru le s in th e com m on w orld a re n o t a p rio ri, n o t su b m itte d in ad v a n ce in th e sen se of tra n s c e n d e n ta l- religious, political or sp ecu lativ e. T he source of th e s e ru le s is th e h u m a n v a rie ty a n d th e rig h t re la te d to th e in d iv id u a l ju d g m e n t o f th e w orld th a t m ak e people free in s h a rin g w ith th e o th ers.

T he fa ct of h u m a n p lu ra lity is ex p re sse d n o t only in th e fact t h a t th e E a r th is p o p u la te d by a lo t of h u m a n b eing s. P lu r a lity is n o t e q u iv a le n t to th e a m o u n t of th e in te llig e n t c re a tu re s t h a t for som e in d e p e n d e n t g ro u n d s th e m se lv e s a re forced to live to g e th e r a n d m a k e one politic body36. H u m a n m u ltip lic ity is n e ith e r a m u ltip lic ity of objects, m ad e w ith a single design, n o r th e m u ltitu d e of v a rie tie s w ith in a species biodiversity. “J u s t as th e re is no p e rso n as such, b u t only th e m en a n d w om en w ho, in th e ir ab so lu te differences a re th e sam e, t h a t is h u m a n , so th e w ord is a com m on h u m a n id e n tity equality, in tu r n , it m a n ife sts its e lf only in th e a b so lu te o th e rn e s s of th o se w ho a re th e eq u al. [...] T h u s, w hile th e ac tio n a n d s p e a k in g a re two m ajo r po litical ac tiv ities, so d iv e rsity a n d e q u a lity a re two b asic e le m e n ts of po litical b o dies”37. In th e q u o ted p assa g e , we c a n see th e m u ltip lic ity of a u n iq u e com b in atio n of th e tw o e s s e n tia l asp ects. T hey a re m a n ife ste d b o th as - sa m e n e ss (eq u ality ) a n d as th e o th e r - difference (d iv ersity )38.

35 Ibidem, p. 140.

36 H. Arendt, Polityka ja k o obietnica, p. 92. 37 Ibidem, p. 93.

38 The two aspects of equality and diversity correspond with the Aristotle reception of justice as the coincidence of equality and good proportions; see, M. Augustyniak, Spraw iedli­

wość w m yśli Arystotelesa, [in:] B. Kruszewska and others (eds.), Sprawiedliwość. Wybrane koncepcje, UWM, Olsztyn 2010, p. 19-23.

E x p la in in g w h a t is e q u a lity in th e field o f p ub lic affairs, A re n d t re fe rs to th e re p u b lic a n tra d itio n in w h ich b ein g a citizen o r belon ging to a sm all n u m b e r of e q u a l “hom oioi” m e a n t to be allow ed to live am o ng e q u a ls 39. It w as th e e q u a lity of th e n o t eq u a l, who n e e d to alig n only in som e w ays a n d for specific p u rp o se s. W as a ss u m e d t h a t from b irth , o r from n a tu r e (physei) people a re n o t e q u a l a n d t h a t is w hy th e y n ee d a n a rtific ia lly c re a te d p o liti­ cal in s titu tio n w ith th e positio n to m ak e th e m e q u a l by v irtu e of h is law (nom os). So, e q u a lity e x iste d only in th e specific w orld o f politics, w h ere people cam e in co n tac t as citizen s a n d n o t as in d iv id u a ls. M ak in g eq u a l fa cto r did n o t come e ith e r from God or from th e n a tu re . It w as c re a te d by people in th e ir own. T hey o rg a n iz ed a p ub lic space w ith e q u a l rig h ts t h a t th o se w ho a re in d iv id u a lly d is sim ila r h a d g u a r a n te e d to e a c h oth er. S u ch u n d e rs ta n d in g of e q u a lity is n o t th e sam e as th e ex am p le of C h ris tia n th o ­ u g h t of th e e q u a lity of all m en by God, o r th e sam e fa te of a ll w ith facing d e a th . N e ith e r one n o r th e o th e r is d ire c tly co n n ected w ith th e politics a n d th e re is no m e a n in g for it. A re n d t say s t h a t e q u a lity in d ic a te s e q u a lity in te rm s of p o ssib ility of a c tin g p ro d u c in g effects in th e p u blic space. “The fo u n d a tio n t h a t s u p p o rts th e R ep u b lican p olitical body is th e ex p erien ce of co-existence of th o se w ho a re e q u a l in s tre n g th , a n d th e jo y of re p u b lic a n v irtu e t h a t we a re n o t alone in th e w orld. Alone is th e only one w ho does no t live am ong e q u a ls ”40.

In th e reflectio n of A re n d t, e q u a lity is n o t a v a lu e in itself, o r au to telic, b u t it sig n ifican tly d e te rm in e s th e re a liz a tio n of th e o th e r v alu es, p a r tic u la r ­ ly ju s tic e a n d p o litica l freedom . E x p la in in g w h a t th is freed om is, th e a u th o r com es b ac k to th e m odel “polis”, w h e re freedo m in d icates: “n o t to be s u b o rd i­ n a te d to th e life n ec e ssitie s or o th e r o rd e rs a n d n o t to co m m an d him self. T h is m e a n t do n o t to ru le or do n o t to be ru le d ”41. F ro m th is p ersp ectiv e, th e ru le r s th e m se lv e s, as such, ca n n o t be sa id th e y a re free, b ec au se em b ra cin g d o m in atio n over o th e r people, th e y b re a k aw ay from e q u a l people, a n d only am o n g th e e q u a l th e y c a n be free. T h u s, a n e c e s sa ry co nd ition for freedo m is th e p re sen ce of o th e rs - e q u a l b u t d iffe ren t people. L aw is a n in s tru m e n t of e q u a lity o f citizen s in th e p u blic sp h ere. By m e a n s of law it is possible to c re a te a space b ein g able to o rg an ize th o se “who a re a b so lu tely d is s im ila r from th e o th e rs, a n d from th e v ery b eg in n in g ta k in g in to acco u n t th e ir re la tiv e eq uality, d esp ite th e ir re la tiv e d ifferen ces”42. T h a t s o rt of p olitical re la tio n s w as d efined as “izonom y” - e q u a lity to th e law. I t w as n o t an e q u a lity of living conditions, e x iste d only in th e specific w orld of politics, w h e re people m e t a s citizen s n o t as in d iv id u a ls. B asically, e q u a lity in th e

39 See, H. Arendt, Kondycja lu d zka , p. 61. 40 H. Arendt, Polityka ja k o obietnica, p. 98. 41 H. Arendt, Kondycja ludzka, p. 52. 42 H. Arendt, Polityka ja k o obietnica, p. 127.

G reek c ity -sta te w as n o t a p ro p e rty o f th e people, b u t a ttr ib u te o f th e “po- lis”43. I t w as n o t g u a r a n te e d w ith th e b irth , it w as n o t tr e a te d a s a given by n a tu re , b u t by th e pow er of a co n v e n tio n a l h u m a n p ro d u c t w h ich is th e law 44. I t w as th e law t h a t sh o u ld h av e s e t th e fra m e of freedo m a n d p ro te c ­ te d th e irre g u la ritie s in th e g o v ern m e n t. In a m u ltitu d e of h u m a n , th e law sh o u ld h av e s ta n d a n id e n tific a tio n pole, it sh o u ld h av e b ee n th e com m on good t h a t se ts ru le s of th e gam e of po litical sy ste m a n d it is th e source an d g u a r a n te e of in d iv id u a ls’ dignity. F o r th e p u rp o se s o f th is d ig n ity A re n d t a llu d e d to Im m a n u e l K a n t, w ho in s iste d t h a t th e h u m a n b ein g w ill h av e n e v e r serv ed to o th e rs or th e m se lv e s as th e a g e n t for o th e r p u rp o se s45.

P lu r a lity

in th e p o litic a l a n d la w c o n te x t

T he m u ltip lic ity of eq u a l, in som e re sp e c ts, citizen s re q u ire s a public space as a p o litically o rg a n iz ed a n d leg ally p ro te c te d space, free from v io len ­ ce, in w h ich people a re visible to e a c h o th er; th e y c a n re v e a l th e ir u n iq u e p e rso n a l id e n titie s , ta lk to e a c h other, a r tic u la te th e ir re a so n s a n d ta k e action. T h e life of a free m a n re q u ire s th e activ e p re sen ce of th e o th e rs. T his p re sen ce is n o t ac cid en tal, in v o lu n ta ry re la tio n sh ip s, j u s t as th e a b ility to sp e a k is n o t th e sam e a s conv ersatio n . In th e p u blic space th e p o in t is a k in d of p re sen ce t h a t allow s you to in flu en ce th e w ay of life, c re a te n ew b e g in ­ n in g s, m a k e p ro m ises to forgive, it ’s a b o u t th e k in d of sp eech t h a t ca n m ak e sen se a n d it ca n h av e a p e rs u a siv e m ean in g . A ccording to A re n d t, for th e pu blic d im en sio n of th e w orld, th e re is e s s e n tia l to b u ild sym bolic a n d com ­ m u n ic a tiv e space. I t allow s to m e e t people who c a rrie rs a lo t of d iffe ren t op in io n s46. T he space it is co m p ared to th e ta b le lo cated am ong th e people s ittin g a ro u n d h im - it collects th e m to g eth er, b u t a t th e sam e tim e it is n o t

43 It could be remind here that Greek did not involve law legislation into the political activities. The creator of law was someone like the builder of the town’s defensive walls. The similar situation was of a craftsman or an architect who had the task to build defined structure and to create space for the activities of inhabitants. He could have been a person outside the town, but he should have finished his work before the political activities took place. The laws were not treated as the result of political actions - H. Arendt, Kondycja lu d zka , p. 225.

44 See, H. Arendt, O rewolucji, M. Godyń (trans.), Czytelnik, Warszawa 2003, p. 33-34. 45 Kant states that a person “is obliged on the basis of his actions to recognize the dignity [...] in every human being. This obligation requires respekt to every human being” - I. Kant,

M etafizyka moralności, WN PWN, Warszawa 2005, p. 347.

46 Arendt shows the distinction between opinions and dealings (businesses). The dealings are deeply rooted into economic situation that described class or group of people is involved. Their antagonistic character is determined by material needs. As far as opinions are concerned, they come from reasonable premises, from entitled to the human the power of judgment, or an individual, personal capacity to judge certain phenomena without subjecting them to the gene­ ral rules and standards. The diversity of opinions can be destroyed because of their identifica­ tion with the interests of a group or mass, which took place in totalitarian systems.

allow ed to s tu m b le on ea ch other. T hey ca n a ll m e e t a ro u n d th e ta b le an d everyone w ill be seen a n d h e a rd , b u t ev e ry p erso n occupies th e o th e r place a n d m ay perceive issu e s in a d iffe re n t way. P o litics w ith o u t th is k in d of d iscu rsiv e n a tu r e is b a r re n , a n d an y te n d e n c y to a m a ss convergence of view s a n d ta s te s lead s to th e d e g ra d a tio n o f a com m on w orld. “T h e E n d of a com m on w orld is com ing w h e n th e w orld is see n only in one a sp e c t a n d it is n o t allow ed to p re s e n t only from th e one p e rsp e c tiv e ”47.

A re n d t p o in ts o u t t h a t th e public space is also h a rm fu l to p ub lic confu­ sion a n d a rg u m e n ts b a se d on th e opinions, from th o se re la te d to b u sin ess. T hey a re ro o ted in th e econom ic s itu a tio n in w h ich th e re is a p a r tic u la r g ro u p or class. T h e ir a n ta g o n istic c h a ra c te r is d e te rm in e d by dom estic an d m a te r ia l n ee d s w hich as w as p re v io u sly ex p lain e d , th e y b elo ng to th e re a lm o f necessity. As fa r as th e opinions a re concerned, th e s itu a tio n is differen t. B asically, th e y flow from th e p re m ise s of ra tio n a l a n d m o ral reflectio n, u s in g ow ed to m a n th e pow er to ju d g e, t h a t is a n in d iv id u a l, p e rso n a l a b ility to ju d g e c e rta in p h e n o m e n a w ith o u t su b jectin g th e m to th e g e n e ra l ru le s a n d s ta n d a r d s 48. T he opinions m ay be re la te d to in te re s t, b u t th e y ca n n o t be re d u c e d to th e m . D iv ersity of opinions ca n be d estro y e d b ec au se of th e ir id e n tific a tio n w ith th e in te re s ts of g roup or m a s s t h a t ta k e place in to ta lita ­ r ia n sy stem s. A re n d t n o te s th e close re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e ris e of to ta lita ­ ria n is m a n d th e a n n ih ila tio n o f th e d iscu rsiv e n a tu r e o f th e public space, re s u ltin g in th e loss o f social a b ility to e s ta b lis h com m on sense.

T h e e q u a lity g u a r a n te e d by th e law in th e public sp h ere, in an y e v e n t sh o u ld n o t le a d people to m a s s s ta n d a rd iz a tio n , conform ity a n d m ediocrity. O n th e contrary , it h a s a s ta r tin g p o in t to be able to s ta n d a n d th ro u g h specific ac tio n s or q u a litie s to show t h a t it is p ossible in som e w ays b e tte r th a n o th ers; you c a n ex p erien ce th e u n iq u e n e s s of ev e ry h u m a n being. W i­ th o u t equ ality , th e h ig h lig h tin g of th e w ord it w ould be difficult. In th e w orld o f p olitical a ffairs reco g n itio n of one’s c h a ris m a o r a n o th e r ca p acity m ay m a n ife st its e lf only to o th e r in d iv id u a ls, ea ch o f w hom s h a ll h av e th e sam e r ig h t to ex isten c e a n d actio n in p ublic space. A re n d t say s t h a t tr u e g re a tn e s s co ncerns only th o se w ho h av e a n e e d for th e offense above m ediocrity, to prove t h a t th e y a re th e b e s t (a risto i) a n d “im m o rta l fam e su b m it th e m o rta l th in g s ”49. In sp ite of th e fra g ility of th e h u m a n condition, th e y s triv e to c re a te w orks, deeds a n d w ords t h a t w ill be re m e m b e re d by o th e rs a n d th u s

47 H. Arendt, Kondycja ludzka, p. 79.

48 The concept of judgment Arendt drew from Kant. For him judging is a separate ability of our mind and has nothing to do with the operations of logic: judging is not the output or deduction or induction. Judging is a specific type of talent that can be continually practiced, but it can be learned. See, H. Arendt, M yślenie, H. Buczyńska-Garewicz (trans.), Czytelnik, Warsza­ wa 2002, p. 258.

th e y w ill live in a com m on world. T hose who com e from th e p riv a te w orld to th e p ublic w orld n ee d to g et rid of, as f a r as possible, th o se fe a tu re s t h a t d estro y a n d p re v e n t th e o p eratio n of th e jo in t, or p rid e, envy, sh am e, blam e. T his so u n d s id e a listic b u t only u n d e rs ta n d in g of th e politics w as in te re s tin g for A ren d t. S he e q u a te d th e policy w ith th e h ig h e st form of re a liz a tio n of th e h u m a n co m m u n ity a n d th e re fo re its c u ltiv a tio n re q u ire s - as long as th e policy is a form of a h a p p y h u m a n life - selflessn ess. D oing politics, people h av e to keep e a c h o th er a n d th e dialo gue b e tw e e n th e m a n d c o n tin u a lly look for n ew form s of collective actio n, in w hich it is possible to re p o rt good of th e com m unity.

A ssu m p tio n s p re s e n te d by A re n d t’s a re in opposition to th e classics of po litical re a lism , su ch as M ach iav elli a n d M ax W eber50. In view o f th e alleg a tio n s t h a t th e a u th o r of T h e H u m a n C o n d i t i o n does n o t in clu d e in h e r concept of b a se n e ss of h u m a n n a tu r e a n d th e fa ct t h a t th e policy am b itio n a n d lu s t for pow er p re v a il over th e id e a of jo in t actio n, t h a t th e policy will in e v ita b ly produce sy stem s of su b o rd in atio n . W ell, am b itio n - p e rh a p s b e tte r to say, excessive a m b itio n - is a form of evil, a form of th o u g h tle ssn e ss. Policy a n d c a n only d ea l w ith people w ho th in k a n d only w h e n th e y re ally w a n t to d ea l w ith it. A re n d t re p e a te d ly s ta te s t h a t no one h a s th e rig h t to force an yone to go in to th e in te rio r of th e oikos. P olitics is for v o lu n te e rs an d for th o se who choose it th em selv es, w ho te n d to be in a p lu ra lis tic an d d iv erse w orld a n d th e y w a n t to m e e t to g e th e r in th e w orld a n d to have p le a su re from doing th in g s together.

T he p h en o m en o n of people is t h a t on th e one h a n d w ith o u t a c e rta in level of u n ifo rm ity th e y w ould n o t h av e b e e n able to u n d e r s ta n d ea ch other. T hey w ould h av e n o t b e e n able to co m m u n icate in e ith e r th e p a s t or th e p re s e n t tim e s. “W ith o u t th a t, d e p a rtin g to w a rd s p o te n tia l h u m a n im m o rta li­ ty is n o t possible, stric tly speaking, no politics, no com m on w orld or an y public area. [...] It goes beyond (a com m on w orld) - o u r life eq u ally in th e p a s t an d th e fu tu re , it w as h e re before we h av e cam e, a n d su rv iv ed o u r sh o rt stay in g th ere . We s h a re it no t only w ith th e people we m odern, b u t also from tho se who w ere h e re before u s an d tho se who come a fte r u s ”51. O n th e o th e r h an d , w ith o u t th e d iv e rsity ex p re sse d in d iv e rsity of ea ch p erso n , th e a g re e m e n t w ould occur a lm o st a u to m a tic a lly a n d instin ctiv ely . I t w ould n o t d e m a n d an y speech, p e rs u a s io n or action, a n d th e la n g u a g e of sign s w ould be e n o u g h to sig n al one a n o th e r e sse n tia lly id e n tic a l n ee d s a n d biological n e c e ssitie s52.

50 About Max Weber see for example, E. Sokalska, B iurokratyczny m odel funkcjonow ania nowoczesnej adm inistracji w twórczości M aksa Webera, [in:] E. Kozerska and others (eds.),

Wybrane problem y n a u ki i nauczania praw a, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, Opole 2010; see also, E. Sokalska, M ax Weber’s perception o f bureaucracy..., p. 143-160.

51 H. Arendt, M yślenie, p. 75-76. 52 Ibidem, p. 206.

T h e k in d of m u ltitu d e to g e th e r w ith th e e q u a lity is a fu n d a m e n ta l co nd ition for th e dev elo p m en t of specific h u m a n fa cu ltie s of speech a n d actio n s t h a t A re n d t co n sid ered to be th e m o st political. T h ey e n a b le th e c re a tio n of n ew b eg in n in g s a n d forgiveness of th e p a st.

A re n d t pay s m u ch a tte n tio n to th e p h en o m en o n of forgiv en ess t h a t is a u n iq u e, “m ira c u lo u s” h u m a n ability. I t allow s ta k in g off th e tra g ic b u rd e n of irre v e rsib ility from th e h u m a n ac tiv ities. F o rg iv en ess gives you a ch an ce to ex it “from th e in a b ility to u n ra v e l w h a t som eone h a s done, ev en th o u g h h e did n o t know a n d could n o t know w h a t h e d id ”53. I t is a k in d of “c a th a r ­ sis” t h a t allow s you to b re a k th e a u to m a tic ity of c e rta in re a c tio n s, d estro y th e w orks of th e p a st, th e “s in s” h a n g like a sw ord of D am ocles over every n ew g e n e ra tio n . T h a t effort seem s to be e s s e n tia l in th e p ub lic space, as it h a s th e pow er to re sto re th e freedo m o f b oth : th e p e rso n w ho h a rm s b ecause it allow s h im to th ro w off th e b u rd e n of g u ilt a n d th e victim , b e c au se it trig g e rs a c h a in re a c tio n in w hich is th e sim p le st a n sw e r a n d w ould be re v en g e for h a rm . A re n d t places th e p h en o m en o n of forgiveness in to th e h u m a n con dition a n d u n d e rlin e s t h a t it is co n d itio n ed by th e h u m a n p lu ra li­ ty, th e p re se n c e a n d a c tio n of o th e rs w ith t h e i r r ig h t to co m m u n icate - “nobody ca n forgive h im s e lf a n d nobody m ay feel obliged w ith th e prom ise to him self; forgiveness ta k in g place in th e so litu d e is u n re a lis tic ”54. I t is im p o rta n t to e m p h a sis t h a t A re n d t d en ies su c h categ o ries lik e g u ilt an d collective re sp o n sib ility a n d a s a conseq uen ce sh e p u ts in q u e stio n th e m a ss c h a ra c te r of forgiveness. T h a t m e a n s t h a t no e x te rn a l facto r sh o u ld dep rive th e rig h t of in d iv id u a l v ictim s to forgive th e w rongdoer. So, w hile forgiveness is alw ays done in a social con tex t, th e vehicles (c a rrie rs) of th e process are exclusively in d iv id u a ls.

T h e th r e a ts o f s o c ia l p lu ra lism

P o litical rig h ts provide o rie n ta tio n in th e issu e s o f c o m m u n ity a n d allow to ta k e p a r t d ire c tly o r in d ire c tly - by th e assem bly, asso ciatio n , elections a n d o th e r form s - in collective decisions. T he law gives a p erso n th e chance to tra n s c e n d th e biological co ndition s a n d th e b e tte r re a liz a tio n of v i t a a c t i v a

d im en sio n a sso c ia te d w ith in v o lv em en t in p ub lic affairs. F ro m th is p e rs p e c ti­ ve, th e a r e a o f p riv a te life, w ork, family, etc. p erfo rm only a “s e r v a n t” fu n c­ tion. T hey a re re la te d to th e n ee d of su p p o rtin g th e life of in d iv id u a l a n d th e species. F o r th e G reeks, it w as c le a r t h a t th e po ssessio n of c e rta in m a te ria l goods en a b le d a p e rso n “b ein g h is ow n m a s te r ”. O n th e o th e r h a n d , m isery

53 Ibidem, p. 269. 54 Ibidem.

forced a free m a n to b e h a v e like a slave, b u t concern for th e po ssessio n of th e p ro p e rty it w as tr e a te d m e re ly as m e a n s a n d one from th e co nditio ns for po litical life, a n d it w as n o t e q u a te d w ith th e objective of p olitics55. The h o u seh o ld ( o i k o s ) served for th e biological n eed s to lib e ra te from life, p ro du c­ tion, or delivery of goods an d eq uip m en t. It w as tre a te d as necessary, giving dim ensio n sta b ility an d roots. B u t it w as j u s t a s ta rtin g p oin t for another, m ore sublim e d im ension of life - b io s p o l i t i k o s . According to A ren dt, th e p re se n t problem of o u r tim es is th a t w ork an d con sum ptio n a re tre a te d as th e first m a tte r a n d we place th e m into th e sp h ere of politics. T his re s u lts in p e n e tra tio n of conceptual categories a n d issues th a t g en e rally come from two d ifferen t spaces - p riv a te (d e te rm in a te d by necessity) a n d public - th e a re a of p o te n tia l freedom . T he difference b etw e en th e se sp h eres lies in th e fact th a t politics is n o t ab o u t life, b u t ab o u t th e w orld in w hich we live, a n d to live. The w orld re q u ire s a n to overcom e a n in d iv id u a l p assiv ity a n d com fort-loving n a tu re in e rtia a n d lazin ess a n d ta k in g th e full ris k of th e em ergence of o th ers - eq u a l people. M oreover, by red u cin g v i t a a c t i v a to activities re la te d to th e e n su rin g of w elfare, we m ove aw ay from th e political dim ension of freedom to th e direction of m ass society in w hich life is d eterm in e d by th e consum ption a n d m a te ria l w ell-being. O rie n te d in a s u b s ta n tia lly un iform im p le m e n tatio n of th e ir w elfare people a re s ta r tin g to be m ore a n d m ore confirm ed w ith th e ir individuality. T hey a re m oving aw ay from th e d im en sio n of p lurality. A re n d t w ith an x ie ty w rite s t h a t c o n te m p o ra ry politics is o ften tr e a te d as a n e c e ssa ry evil. P eople w ith d ra w th e m se lv e s from th e com m on w orld an d from th e ir o bligations. I t re s u lts in t h a t th e w orld b e a rs a ta n g ib le loss, an d alw ays “th e so m eth in g t h a t is u n iq u e dies »among«, th e so m eth in g th a t sh o u ld h av e b ee n c re a te d b etw e en th e in d iv id u a l a n d h is com p an io n s”56.

M odern W e ste rn societies aro se as a r e s u lt of th e dev elo p m en t of civili­ za tio n in th e c o u n trie s t h a t m e e t c e rta in co nd ition s re la tin g in p a r tic u la r to th e d ev elo p m en t of economy, technology a n d th e m e c h a n ism s of th e free m a rk e t. A la rg e p a r t of m em b ers of th e pub lic h a s becom e b en e ficiarie s of th e b e n e fits a ris in g from in c re a s e d p ro d u c tiv ity a n d c o n sta n tly ex p a n d in g ra n g e of goods a n d services. A lth o u g h , in p rev io u s e ra s it c o n trib u te d to th e im p ro v em en t of liv in g s ta n d a r d s , b u t it could also r e s u lt in ax io m atic t r a n s ­ fo rm atio n s. T h e re w as in c re a se d im p o rta n c e of m a te ria l, u tilita r ia n a n d h e ­ d o n istic goods57.

55 „Polis did not infringe on the private life of its citizens. The borders of the ownership were almost holly. It took place not because the private ownership was respected in our meaning, but without any house the man could not have been able to take part in world’s affairs, because he exactly has no place in that world” - H. Arendt, Kondycja lu d z k a, p. 49.

56 H. Arendt, O człowieczeństwie w mrocznych czasach. Myśli o Lessingu, A. Jacki, B. Młynarz (trans.), „Znak” 1986, no. 7-8, p. 43.

57 K. Matsuyama, The Rise o f M ass Consum ption Societies, “Journal of Political Economy” 2002, no. 110, p. 36.