Mr. Rosenbaum criticizes Hannah Arendt's understanding of how evil can propagate itself through ordinary individuals. To do so, he has to work from a definition of evil. His discussion implies a definition. Quoting:
To my mind, the use of the phrase banality of evil is an almost infallible sign of shallow thinkers attempting to seem intellectually sophisticated. Come on, people: It's a bankrupt phrase, a subprime phrase, a Dr. Phil-level phrase masquerading as a profound contrarianism. Oooh, so daring! Evil comes not only in the form of mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash types, but in the form of paper pushers who followed evil orders. And when applied—as she originally did to Adolf Eichmann, Hitler's eager executioner, responsible for the logistics of the Final Solution—the phrase was utterly fraudulent.
Adolf Eichmann was, of course, in no way a banal bureaucrat: He just portrayed himself as one while on trial for his life. Eichmann was a vicious and loathsome Jew-hater and -hunter who, among other things, personally intervened after the war was effectively lost, to insist on and ensure the mass murder of the last intact Jewish group in Europe, those of Hungary. So the phrase was wrong in its origin, as applied to Eichmann, and wrong in almost all subsequent cases when applied generally. Wrong and self-contradictory, linguistically, philosophically, and metaphorically. Either one knows what one is doing is evil or one does not. If one knows and does it anyway, one is evil, not some special subcategory of evil. If one doesn't know, one is ignorant, and not evil. But genuine ignorance is rare when evil is going on.
[End quote]
People are evil because they do evil, writes the author. The most obvious are "mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash types". Another type, the bureaucrat, may seem an ordinary person, but actions define evil and evil is not banal, so anyone who does evil cannot be banal. The only possible way to be banal and do evil is to be ignorant of the significance of one's actions, and that's very unlikely.
Analysis of this sort leaves out any possibility of glamour. In this blinkered view, Hitler radiated evil and promised only evil. That he might have sounded reasonable or encouraged hope in ordinary people is impossible. Spears must have been lieing when he wrote of hearing Hitler for the first time, at a university. The audience came prepared to mock an ill-educated man. Hitler triangulated for a while, until he figured out his audience, then said exactly the right things to make that audience appreciate and admire him.
Some evil people understand ordinary people well enough to manipulate them. How could a simple thug like Stalin or Mao cause idolatry? By saying and doing the right things to obtain the desired response from those who want to believe. Because there's no solid argument, no proof the speaker can deliver, call the effect glamour.
Anyone who considers publicly active evil people Snidely Whiplash types is missing something. Obtaining obedience which can be used for evil objectives is far worse. And that obedience can be gained by heartening and uplifting people.
Effective evil can also come from someone entirely lacking in glamour. That, to me, is what Arendt meant by banality in connection with Eichmann. His actions were evil, but he was not ... interesting. He was one of the ordinary people. Perhaps inspired to efficiency and effectiveness in doing evil.
Himmler gave a speech to his SS followers in which he sympathized with their reluctance to do harsh things. Anyone would have qualms. But, he urged, some things needed doing, the policy of leaders, and it was necessary to overcome what the real world knows as conscience as an impediment to making necessary things happen.
Ordinary people can be led to cruelty depending on the circumstances. Imagine an environment controlled by people fervently believed who exalt cruelty. I would have believed there were limits to what people can be led to do, but the examples of Hitler and Stalin and Mao all show that glamour can overcome conscience. Especially in people who proved to have innate weak consciences.
Banal people can be induced to do evil. Evil beyond that possible to the few with glamour or with uncontollable fanaticism. Far worse than banal people could have imagined by themselves.
More than once people at Nuremburg commented on what a bunch of tired, mediocre thugs the accused proved to be. The glamour they accepted and reflected was gone. Some of the writers seemed almost pleased when Goering threw off his drug addiction and became competent and incisive again. They wanted to see and destroy glamour, probably. But someone cared enough to bring him poison in prison, which he took on the day he was to be hanged.
One of the advantages to democracy is the limits on glamour. It's mistrusted, and for good reason. Snidely Whiplash, absent glamour, could do little harm by comparison.
