Nueva Revista de Teoría del Derecho

Nueva Revista de Teoría del Derecho (Universidad de Palermo). Convocatoria para presentar artículos aquí. (Gracias al muy queridísimo amigo y colega Lucas Arrimada por compartirlo en Ante la Ley).


The Friendship of Mary McCarthy and Hannah Arendt (The New Yorker)

The Friendship of Mary McCarthy and Hannah Arendt : The New Yorker: "THE FORMIDABLE FRIENDSHIP OF MARY MCCARTHY AND HANNAH ARENDT
MICHELLE DEAN (The New Yorker)

In the new film “Hannah Arendt,” the political theorist’s friendship with the novelist and critic Mary McCarthy gets its first cinematic treatment. The results are not good. McCarthy, played by Janet McTeer, is blowsily silly—and though she could be wicked and subversively funny, McCarthy was far from silly. Nearly every exchange between the two women is about men and love. It is symptomatic of a trend, I think. We are in a moment of unprecedented popular interest in the matter of female friendship, and this has been greeted as a triumph for feminism. But what we get, for all that, is rather flat portraiture: women giggling about crushes before finding real fulfillment in heterosexual romance and the grail of marriage. It’s a shame, because many women hunger for models of intellectual self-confidence, and female friendships can be rich soil for them. McCarthy and Arendt’s “love affair”—as their friends described it—was a union of ferocious minds, but it was hardly unusual. Women talk about ideas among themselves all the time. It would be nice if the culture could catch up.
To give just a sample of the subjects McCarthy and Arendt talked and wrote to each other about: George Eliot, Cartesianism, Eldridge Cleaver, Kant, G. Gordon Liddy, and Sartre. Both women were members of the Partisan Reviewcrowd, who spent much of their time talking about Stalin and Trotsky. It was at a party at an editor’s house that the friendship hit a snag. McCarthy said she felt almost sorry for Hitler; that he seemed to want the citizens of occupied France tolike him struck her as ridiculous. It took four years for Arendt, who’d only narrowly evaded Nazi clutches, to forgive the remark. To her, pity for Hitler was not just absurd but offensive. A truce was struck on the Astor Place subway platform, where Arendt approached McCarthy after a meeting and said, “Let’s end this nonsense. We think so much alike.”
“We think so much alike.” In this magazine, in 1995, Claudia Roth Pierpont called the statement a “richly productive lie.” These days, McCarthy is not recalled as a thinker at all. She’s been portrayed as the woman who insulted Lillian Hellman, on “The Dick Cavett Show”; for people who watch “Mad Men,” she’s the author of the novel (“The Group”) that Betty Draper was reading in the bath. (Larissa MacFarquhar once referred to McCarthy’s novels as “strange failures.”) A recent article in the Times claimed that she was all style. She’s remembered (when she’s remembered at all) as a woman whose talent for insult ultimately did not amount to much, literarily speaking. McCarthy made herself a target of sexist condescension, the thinking goes, by writing primarily of inconsequential things, by being “minor” in her choice of subject. Even those who defend her style as elegant and forceful concede that what she actually said and wrote was, at best, of secondary importance.
Many of McCarthy’s contemporaries suggested, or said flat out, that they didn’t know what Arendt saw in her. But Arendt didn’t find her friend’s intellect so obviously minor. She sent McCarthy manuscripts to consider and edit; their letters are laced not only with gossip and household reports but with arguments about what constitutes fiction, about the reach of Fascism, about individual morality and common sense. In other words, Arendt thought there was more to McCarthy than pure cocktail-party style. And Arendt, as they say, was no dummy.
* * *
The friendship had an element of social strategy to it. It seems no accident, for example, that the subway-platform reconciliation was cemented when Arendt read McCarthy’s novel “The Oasis.” (The novel has long been out of print, but Melville House will reissue it on June 11th.) The book, typical of McCarthy, is a lightly veiled parody of the circles she and Arendt frequented. In it, a group of urban intellectuals starts a utopian colony in New England, which is promptly torn apart by the kind of esoteric infighting that seems to happen when people are united by little but ideology. (In “The Oasis,” the opposing camps are called Purists and Realists.) Frances Kiernan, one of McCarthy’s biographers, has noted that the novel is a bit like “Animal Farm.”
As usual, though, not everyone found McCarthy’s ridicule funny. Some of her friends were good sports about the fun she had at their expense—Dwight Macdonald, in particular, was unruffled. But Philip Rahv, who had been McCarthy’s lover before she married Edmund Wilson, threatened to sue to stop publication (he later backed off). Diana Trilling, the wife of Lionel and another of the small number of women admitted to the circle, went around calling McCarthy a “thug.”
But Arendt liked the book. She said that it was “pure delight…a veritable little masterpiece.” Arendt was not a literary critic, and her opinion might not be convincing to those who find the novel deficient as a work of art. But it can’t be an accident that she was amused by the satire, that she saw herself as standing enough apart from this crowd to make fun of them. And, indeed, Arendt had had her clashes with men, too. As David Laskin’s “Partisans,” a history of New York intellectuals, observed, though she was welcomed as refreshingly “European,” many men thought Arendt was imperious; she was not much concerned with coddling her co-interlocutors. Even to ostensible friends, like Alfred Kazin, she conducted herself in conversation “as if she were standing up alone in a foreign land and in a foreign tongue against powerful forces of error.”
Some referred to her as “Hannah Arrogance.” Others tried to make her out as the silly female they thought McCarthy to be, including Delmore Schwartz, who called Arendt “that Weimar Republic flapper.” Saul Bellow, in particular, was caustic; he told Kiernan that Arendt “looked like George Arliss playing Disraeli.” (Actually, Arendt was considered a great beauty in her youth.) His hostility hardly went unnoticed—“I have the impression he avoids me, and let it go at that,” Arendt remarked after trying to see Bellow in Chicago.
As much as McCarthy and Arendt are retroactively lodged within this circle of men who explain things (the “boys,” in the vernacular of the women’s correspondence), they both understood a more complex reality. They saw that the men’s admiration for them, such as it was, was laced with hostility. To be fair, they didn’t have much good to say about most of the men, either. Of Bellow, for example, McCarthy wrote to Arendt:
I hear that Saul is in poor shape again, attacking what he calls the American Establishment, meaning his critics. He gave a lecture in London and the audience was asked to stay in its seats for ten minutes (or five?) after the lecture was over, so that no one would approach him for his autograph on the way to his getaway car.
Of Kazin, who’d written an attack on McCarthy, Arendt wrote:
These people get worse as they get older, and in this case it is just a matter of envy. Envy is a monster.
For Arendt and McCarthy, their alignment, and their shared position as outsiders, became clear in 1963, when “Eichmann in Jerusalem” (Arendt’s report on Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, which appeared as a five-part series in this magazine) and “The Group” (McCarthy’s novel about eight Vassar graduates making mistakes in New York) were published. The two very different books caused very similar levels of fuss in the literary and intellectual worlds. Both women felt betrayed by hostile reviews in publications run by people they considered friends—Arendt was mauled by Lionel Abel in the Partisan Review, and McCarthy was parodied by Elizabeth Hardwick (using the pen name Xaiver Prynne) in the New York Review of Books, then pilloried again in that publication, by Norman Mailer. They sent each other palliative letters. “That the ‘boys’ have tried to turn against you seems to me only natural,” Arendt wrote, “and I think it has more to do with ‘The Group’ being a best-seller than with any political matters.” McCarthy responded, “It occurs to me that a desire to make a sensation has taken precedence in New York over everything else. The literary and intellectual world is turning into a series of Happenings, like the one at the Edinburgh Theatre Conference where a naked girl was introduced into the auditorium.”
The two women were certainly not the first to enjoy this kind of close intellectual bond. But the particular shape theirs took, that of a bulwark against their naysayers, is worth considering, particularly when so many women still struggle to assert critical authority, to make men listen to their claims about the workplace, art, literature, and politics.
* * *
It would be a mistake to think of Arendt and McCarthy’s alliance as the result of some shared sense of “sisterhood,” in the parlance of the second wave. Neither was particularly sympathetic with what they called “women’s lib.” A graduate supervisor of mine, Jennifer Nedelsky, of the University of Toronto, was a student of Arendt’s in the nineteen-seventies. She remembers riding in an elevator to a seminar with Arendt. On Nedelsky’s coat was a button for the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union. Arendt noticed it, pointed, and, drawing her finger around in slow, disdainful circles, said to Nedelsky, “This is not zerious.”
McCarthy was slightly less disdainful, though she said that Arendt’s views influenced her, and that she was not a feminist. In a 1986 lecture, she admitted, “There are so many kinds of feminists. I’m sort of sympathetic with the wrong kind. That is, with Betty Friedan, and so on. I happen to like her.” (In a letter, she called Germaine Greer “an absurd Australian giantess.” And she periodically conceded to having felt under siege by men, although she insisted that she didn’t feel unfairly targeted as a woman.) It seems clear that McCarthy and Arendt thought of whatever sisterhood they had as a personal affinity, not a political affiliation.
In any event, there is proof that personal affinity triumphed over strategic alliances. Arendt and McCarthy didn’t much like the other women they’d run into in their social world. Diana Trilling complained that they were rude to her, primarily because they classified her as one of “the wives.” Indeed, McCarthy wrote to Arendt that Trilling, who had written to theN.Y.R.B. criticizing McCarthy’s report on Vietnam, “is such a fool, if she didn’t occupy her absurd place in the New York establishment, they would have thrown her letter in the wastebasket.”
And then there was Susan Sontag. When she appeared on the scene, in the early nineteen-sixties, Sontag was immediately enamored of Arendt, who read Sontag’s first novel and enjoyed it. But, later, something soured. “And what about her?” McCarthy teased Arendt in a 1967 letter. “When I last watched her with you at the Lowells’, it was clear that she was going to seek to conquer you. Or that she had fallen in love with you—the same thing. Anyway, did she?” According to Renata Adler, Arendt never cared for Sontag, though history doesn’t record why, not yet.
But you can make too much of Arendt and McCarthy’s feeling no special obligation toward other women. The problem with sisterhood—the idea of a sunny alliance on the basis of a shared feminine fate—has always been that it deprives women of all individual taste, history, and temperament. In short, it can insist that women not be human beings. And if you are like Arendt and McCarthy, if you like to write and argue and criticize, the only basis for the importance of your general claims—those beyond your particular experience—is the fact that you are human, like everybody else. And humans, after all, need friends to act as sounding boards for ideas as much as for gossip. The trick, as Arendt and McCarthy knew, is simply finding the right person for it.
Michelle Dean is a writer and journalist at work on a book about female intellectuals.
Top: Mary McCarthy in Paris in 1971. Photograph by Enrico Sarsini/Time & Life Pictures/Getty. Portrait of Hannah Arendt, 1944. By Fred Stein Archive/Archive Photos/Getty


An "absent other"

A mi hermana Chloé, mi “absent other” en la distancia.

April 22, 2011

Dear John,

A couple of days ago, I had the starting revelation about the effect our correspondence has had on me. We have been at it for close to three years now, and in that time you have become what I would call an “absent other”, a kind of adult cousin to the imaginary friends little children invent for themselves. I discovered that I often walk around talking to you in my head, wishing you were with me so I could point out the strange-looking person who just walked past me on the sidewalk, remark on the odd scrap of conversation I just overheard, or take you into the little sandwich shop where I often buy my lunch so you could listen to the talk that goes on in there with me. I love that place, a wholly unpretentious nothing of a place, with its heterogeneous clientele of cops and firemen, hospital workers from across the street, mothers with their children, students, truck drivers, secretaries, and what makes the place special is the men who work behind the counter, good-spirited young guys with the proletarian Brooklyn voices, who seem to know everyone who comes in there (“I talked to your mother yesterday,” “I hear your son is doing well on his Little League team,” “Welcome back. How was your trip?”), as if I were living in a small provincial town and not in a gigantic metropolis, and I know you would appreciate the spirit inside that shop and understand (if you don’t already) what I find so interesting about living in New York. So there you are, John, inside my head as I talk to you, and nothing like this has ever happen to me –probably because I have never corresponded with anyone so regularly—and the effect, I can assure you, is an entirely pleasant one.”

Until my return. With best thoughts,


(Paul Auster a J.M. Coetzee en Here and Now: Letters 2008-2011)


Una propuesta: Estado, democracia y los hippies en Arendt

En el verano de 1970, el escritor alemán Adelbert Reif, entrevistó a Hannah Arendt. La entrevista, traducida al inglés por Denver Lindley, giró en torno a controversias en ese entonces contemporáneas, como los movimientos estudiantiles en Estados Unidos y en Francia, la oposición a la Guerra de Vietnam, el concepto ‘revolución’ y otros temas políticos. La entrevista fue publicada en 1971 en la NYRB.

En otro momento comentaré algunos asuntos interesantes respecto a cómo Arendt veía los movimientos estudiantiles y las universidades en términos políticos y su distinción entre asuntos ‘internos’ y ‘externos’ respecto a las universidades. En esta entrada, sin embargo, me interesa destacar dos cosas que surgen al final de la entrevista: (1) la propuesta de Arendt –de orden institucional-- sobre la democracia y lo que hoy día se conoce como democracia participativa y deliberativa; y (2) un comentario puntual sobre la diferencia de su propuesta (que nace bajo la premisa del espacio de la polis como el espacio de ‘lo político’) con lo que fueron los movimientos hippies en Estados Unidos y sus motivaciones. (Pongo el comentario en negrillas).

Esto último lo comento en tanto hoy día parece interesante analizar una serie de movimientos que yo llamaría de ‘retirada’, que enfocan su resistencia al mercado y la política (en su precariedad actual) en alternativas que tienen su base en cierta idea de ‘autogestión’ (énfasis aquí en el prefijo 'auto'). Estas propuestas, que son ciudadanas y que surgen de sectores medios, son de corte más individual y, por lo tanto, una podría analizar cómo despolitizan ciertos temas (e.g. proyectos de agricultura a escala familiar, como huertos caseros, consumo ecológico o ‘saludable’, por nombrar algunos). Si bien estos proyectos se justifican frente a la homogeneización y masificación imperante, los mismos, como muchos han señalado, dependen de posibilidades e iniciativas individuales y parecen renunciar a un cuestionamiento más estructural o sistémico, renunciar o abandonar ‘lo político’, en el sentido arendtiano. Otra alternativa sería ver estas iniciativas en el largo plazo y pensar cómo una vuelta o regreso a lo micro podría –si de alguna manera- poner en jaque el estado de cosas actual. Esto requeriría otra entrada, pero el comentario de Arendt en esta entrevista sobre los hippies arroja alguna luz para un buen debate sobre esto.

Sólo una precisión más: la propuesta aquí resumida por Arendt -valga enfatizar que es una entrevista- hay que entenderla en relación con sus escritos, en los que desarrolla abordajes muy particulares sobre los conceptos revolución, lo político, la libertad, el pluralismo y la acción. En On Revolution, Arendt explicita mucho más abarcadoramente lo que aquí expone. Llama la atención cómo otros teóricos más contemporáneos han desarrollado parte de lo que aquí ella expone como su propuesta institucional (e.g. Habermas). ¡Salud!

“When I said that none of the revolutions, each of which overthrew one form of government and replaced it with another, had been able to shake the state concept and its sovereignty, I had in mind something that I tried to elaborate a bit in my book On Revolution. Since the revolutions of the eighteenth century, every large upheaval has actually developed the rudiments of an entirely new form of government which emerged independtly of all preceding revolutionary theories directly out of the course of the revolution itself, that is, out of the experiences of action and out of the resulting will of the actors to participate in the further development of public affairs.

This new form of government is the council system which, as we know, has perished every time and everywhere, destroyed either directly by the bureaucracy of the nation states or by the party machines. Whether this system is a pure utopia –in any case it would be a people’s utopia, not the utopia of the theoreticians and ideologies—I cannot say. It seems to me, however, the single alternative that has ever appear in history, and has reappeared time and again. Spontaneous organization of council systems occurred in all revolutions, in the French Revolution, with Jefferson in the American Revolution, in the Parisian commune, in the Russian revolutions, in the wake of the revolutions in Germany and Austria at the end of World War I, finally in the Hungarian Revolution. What is more, they never came into being as a result of a conscious revolutionary tradition or theory but entirely spontaneously, each time as though there had never been anything of the sort before. Hence the council system seems to correspond to and to spring from the very experiences of political action.

In this direction, I think, there must be something to be found, a completely different principle of organization, which begins from below, continues upward, and finally leads to a parliament. But we can’t talk about that now. And it is not necessary since important studies on this subject have been published in recent years in France and Germany, so that anyone seriously interested can inform himself.

To prevent a misunderstanding that might easily occur today: The communes of hippies and dropouts have nothing to do with this. On the contrary, a renunciation of the whole of public life, of politics in general, is at their foundation; they are refuges for people who have suffered political shipwreck –and as such they are completely justified on personal grounds. I find the forms of these communes very often grotesque – in Germany as well as in America –but I understand them very well and have nothing against them. Politically they are meaningless.

The councils desire the exact opposite, even if they begin very small –as neighbourhood councils, professional councils, councils within factories, apartment houses, etc. There are indeed councils of the most various kinds, by no means only workers’ councils; workers’ councils are a special case in this field.

The councils say: We want to participate, we want to debate, we want to make our voices heard in public, and we want to have a possibility to determine the political course of our country. Since the country is too big for all of us to come together and determine our fate, we need a number of public spaces within it. The booth in which we deposit our ballots is unquestionably too small, for this booth has only room for one. The parties are completely unsuitable; there we are, most of us, nothing but the manipulated electorate. But if only ten of us are sitting around a table, then each expresses his opinion, each hears the opinions of others, then a rational formation of opinion can take place through the exchange of opinions. There too it will become clear which one of us is best suited to present our view before the next higher council, where in turn our view will be clarified the influence of other views, revised of proved wrong.

By no means every resident of a country needs to be a member in such councils. Not everyone wants to or has to concern himself with public affairs. In this fashion a self-selective process is possible that would draw together a true political elite in a country. Anyone who is not interested in public affairs will simply have to be satisfied with their being decided without him. But each person must be given the opportunity.

In this direction I see the possibility of forming a new concept of the state. A council of this sort, to which the principle of sovereignty would be wholly alien, would be admirably suited to federations of the most various kinds, especially because in it power would be constituted horizontally and not vertically. But if you ask me now what prospect it has of being realized, then I must say to you: very slight, if any at all. And yet, perhaps, after all –in the wake of the next revolution.”

poder, espacio y ambiente's Fan Box