Essay · Political theory · February 2024
For far too long we have neglected the significance of action.
In Martin Scorsese’s film, Public Speaking (2010), author and humorist, Fran Lebowitz remarks that in our state today there is “too much democracy in the culture, not enough democracy in the society.” to which it may be argued that political theorist, Hannah Arendt, would promptly agree. As argued in Arendt’s Human Condition, we as human beings exist in the world and engage in three interests, which she recognizes as labor, work, and action. Where these interests come in parallel with the words of Lebowitz is within their prioritization. When mankind fixates on the fruits of our culture, rather than society’s, we find ourselves straying from what it means to be solely human. Not only is it imperative to recognize the problem as Lebowitz has done, but to strive to resuscitate the ideals of the past while asking ourselves what we can do to get there.
We ought to understand what is meant by these three terms. Labor, as Arendt claims, is rooted in the need to sustain life, which takes the form of human reproduction. Work, which is typically synonymous with labor, takes on a new meaning in the Arendtian sense. She has come to define the term as the mode for the creation of artificial things, non-living creations, things that hold a transient place on earth. These two terms are classified within Arendt’s private realm of necessity. This realm is one in which we must gain mastery over in order to retain our existence. The mastery of work and labor draws similarities to what a culture is composed of; survival techniques, artifacts, rituals, and objects. Yet, there is another realm, one that she holds to higher status, where action finds its belonging. The public realm of freedom, which Arendt asserts is free from the needs required of labor and work, is a space in which people are viewed as equals coupled with a sense of individuality and uniqueness. In this realm, people engage with one another and share the value of their ideas, thoughts, and words. It is only a society (a body made up of individuals) that can provide the grounds for action to even exist. People’s uniqueness is understood when in contrast to society, yet simultaneously holds an equal status as being an involved member in society. No object, ritual, or mode of survival will allow for this thoughtful exchange of discourse and engagement to occur. A society that partakes in action is a society that, in its purest form, embraces what it means to be political.
What happens when society no longer values action at a higher standard than that of work and labor? We see action equated to our animalistic tendencies of the private realm. Action loses all significance when its value is reduced to that of a natural instinct. She argues that the last time we truly had meaningful and pure action was during the peak of the Greeks and Romans. “With the disappearance of the ancient city-state—Augustine seems to have been the last to know at least what it once meant to be a citizen—the term vita activa lost its specifically political meaning and denoted all kinds of active engagement in the things of this world. To be sure, it does not follow that work and labor had risen in the hierarchy of human activities and were now equal in dignity with a life devoted to politics. It was, rather, the other way round: action was now also reckoned among the necessities of earthly life, so that contemplation (the bios theoretikos, translated into the vita contemplativa) was left as the only truly free way of life” (Arendt 14). Even amongst the ancient times we saw the loss of what it meant to engage one another politically. Our view on politics has drifted towards becoming a feature of the culture, instead of a collective good only producible by the society. When we devalue action, individual uniqueness and the sense of equality no longer prevail. The private realm breeds conformity and power imbalances that ebb and flow.
The danger of this devolution arises from the fleeting nature of labor and work. Arendt takes the stance that labor has an ending, we as humans will not live forever, therefore labor is only temporary. The same premise applies to work, the objects produced by human work only retain a short stay here in the world. Notably, objects that are built for immediate consumption wear down rapidly and lack any purposeful value. “Considered in their worldliness, they are the least worldly and at the same time the most natural of all things. Although they are man-made, they come and go, are produced and consumed, in accordance with the ever-recurrent cyclical movement of nature” (Arendt 96). Laboring and working are natural happenings, but their significance pales in comparison with the ability to act. People’s lives, their contributions, the craftsmanship; all will be forgotten and left to the ash heap of history. No matter how much societies tend to forget history, society will continue on, it will remain persistent in attempting to refine its own culture. To be remembered and commemorated is displayed when we act and speak. Arendt goes on to provide an example of someone whose actions will never be forgotten, Homer. “The second function of the polis, again closely connected with the hazards of action as experienced before its coming into being, was to offer a remedy for the futility of action and speech; for the chances that a deed deserving fame would not be forgotten, that it actually would become “immortal,” were not very good. Homer was not only a shining example of the poet’s political function, and therefore the “educator of all Hellas”; the very fact that so great an enterprise as the Trojan War could have been forgotten without a poet to immortalize it several hundred years later offered only too good an example of what could happen to human greatness if it had nothing but poets to rely on for its permanence” (Arendt 197). The grand epics authored by Homer over 3,000 years ago are still being read, taught, and studied across the world to this day. Much would be lost without creative geniuses who were able to eloquently preserve the dire lessons of their time. History favors those who rise to the challenge, who choose to speak, act, and remember. Oftentimes, it is the individuals who choose to do so. These historic icons have typically freed themselves of the private realm and harnessed the public realm. Though, this responsibility to act shouldn’t fall at the feet of only a few. It is the collective, the societies, that must be the ones to act. Not only in the sense of written word, like Homer, but in far more complex ways. Not every individual will be a Homer, but that doesn’t mean we should not strive to be.
At the individual level, producing immortal things such as art, literature, and history are all ways in which we can act. For society, it must extend well beyond just things. Yet, Arendt never quite laid out how a society must go about their conduct in accordance to action. One example that she regarded as akin to embodying a display of action was, again, during the time of the ancients. “The polis was supposed to multiply the occasions to win “immortal fame,” that is, to multiply the chances for everybody to distinguish himself, to show in deed and word who he was in his unique distinctness. One, if not the chief, reason for the incredible development of gift and genius in Athens, as well as for the hardly less surprising swift decline of the city-state, was precisely that from beginning to end its foremost aim was to make the extraordinary an ordinary occurrence of everyday life” (Arendt 196-7). The Greeks as a society understood the importance of being a good citizen, but also how acting in-step as a good society must take precedence. This was a society that collectively exchanged ideas, compared thoughts, and where debate ran rampant. Furthermore, this was a group that modeled and documented the first instances of assembly democracy (Schiller 1). This concept of assembly democracy, commonly referred to as direct democracy, is a quintessential example for Arendt. The masses presenting themselves in public, engaging in debate amongst peers, setting forth initiatives by those. Although perfectly seeming, this was an aberration then and now. The reality is that pure direct democracy is hard to achieve and put in practice, seeing it is free from structure, often giving way for chaos. Arendt asserted that “In all these cases, it is the freedom (and in some instances so-called freedom) of society which requires and justifies the restraint of political authority. Freedom is located in the realm of the social, and force or violence becomes the monopoly of government” (Arendt 31). Direct democracy is difficult to maintain. We start to construct rules and governing institutions over the society for the sake of efficiency. When this occurs, freedom, equality, and uniqueness finds itself being suppressed by these limitations. Someone must take it upon themselves to enact the rules, yet each individual has a different expectation on how to model the rules. Factions begin to occur, certain topical issues take precedent, and power imbalances form. Establishing a political culture is far more easier and desirable to craft than attempting to erect a political society, that’s the hard truth of our political landscape.
Seeing that we exist in a world where culture and society cannot be stratified and overlooked, it’s crucial to understand political institutions will never dissipate, instead they can serve as the foot-soldiers on behalf of action. One organization that is leading the charge in this respect, shockingly, finds its roots here in our own community. It is called the Center for Public Deliberation (CPD) and is operated out of Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. The CPD is committed, through the process of deliberation, to amplify the voices of citizens within their respective communities. The Center’s Student Associate Workbook best defines deliberative politics as “an approach to politics in which citizens, not just experts or politicians, are deeply involved in public decision making. Often working with facilitators or process experts who utilize a variety of deliberative techniques, citizens come together and consider relevant facts and values from multiple points of view; listen to one another in order to think critically about the various options before them; consider the underlying tensions, tough choices, and varied consequences inherent to addressing public problems; are willing to refine and adapt their opinions and interests; and ultimately seek to come to some conclusion for action based on a reasoned public judgment” (The Center for Public Deliberation 4). The Center for Public Deliberation embraces many of the Arendtian ideals for action within a society. Seeing that facilitators are trained in retaining an impartial stance on issues, it alleviates concerns of power imbalances and agendas, and any sense of one person delegating and another subjected. The Center forms spaces rooted in respect amongst equals, where citizens gather, speak to their values, and are engaged as humans above all else. The problem with today’s political landscape is the fixation on cultural niches, instead of exposing what a society has the ability to amount to. The Center for Public Deliberation accomplishes both. It maximizes the strength of a democratic society in order to identify the ways we can best improve our culture. Many critics argue that mass movements, where people rush to the streets and take on activist causes are far more successful at achieving results. In certain respects, that may be appropriate, but mass demonstrations are often far and few. Many last only temporarily, some lose ambition, or even worse, go on to consume and destroy the culture and society that gave rise to them. It’s key to recognize that only deliberation that will consistently serve the values of action espoused by Arendt.
It could be argued that the Center for Public Deliberation does not fit neatly into Arendt’s worldview, seeing that we have created guardrails in order to bring about action. These guardrails, or limitations, constrict our ability to act. Arendt wrote “Man, in so far as he is homo faber, instrumentalizes, and his instrumentalization implies a degradation of all things into means, their loss of intrinsic and independent value,” (Arendt 156). This term, homo faber, essentially hits at the premise that when we start to establish rules, regulations, ways to conduct ourselves, we are only creating the existence of something that is momentary and stunts action. Although this is the perspective of Hannah Arendt and does hold significant validity, it doesn’t mandate that we ought to adhere. We can absolutely recognize the excellence that institutions like the Center for Public Deliberation can offer our society, even if they are coupled with the limitations noted by Arendt.
For far too long we have neglected the significance of action. We as humans are no longer fascinated by the capabilities of society and have fixated on the cultural easing of work and labor. Harnessing the culture is tremendous, but it must not come at the denigration of a society’s ability to act. We can have both, there is a third way. The deliberation process can rectify democracy within society, although imperfect, it is the closest we can get to embodying the ideals of Hannah Arendt. As for Fran Lebowitz, it is fair to claim her and Arendt would make great friends seeing that Lebowitz understands “great people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, and small people talk about wine” (Lebowitz 16).
References
Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition: Second Edition. University of Chicago Press, 2018.
Lebowitz, Fran. Social studies. Random House, 1981. Accessed 23 February 2024.
Schiller, Theo. “Direct democracy | Definition, History, & Facts.” Britannica, 2 February 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/direct-democracy. Accessed 23 February 2024.
Scorsese, Martin, director. Public Speaking. Rialto Pictures, 2010.
The Center for Public Deliberation. Student Associate Workbook. The Center for Public Deliberation, August 2023, p. 4.
Written for Contemporary Political Theories, taught by Bradley MacDonald, Colorado State University, February 23, 2024.
