No description available.

This thesis seeks to show how the reassessment of Arendt's thought for contemporary international political theory must be grounded in her first major published work, The Origins of Totalitarianism, and, more specifically, in the concept of the political she outlines therein. The thesis begins by examining how Arendt interprets the political sui generis. It shows how this concept, which influences much of her scholarship from the 1950s onwards and serves as a critical measure against which she assesses modern-day events, is disclosed for the first time in Part II of Origins through her engagement with particular topics and phenomena related to European colonial imperialism. Using this somewhat neglected text as a point of departure, the main body of the thesis examines Arendt's thoughts on three ‘anti-political' impulses of the contemporary world that have clear international ramifications: sovereignty, nationalism and imperialism. The work is divided into three corresponding sections. Each contains a chapter providing an interpretive study of Arendt's text on the subject, followed by a chapter applying the key themes, insights and dangers previously highlighted to some of the most intractable global situations today such as the international human rights regime, atomic weaponry and war, biopolitical control, genocide studies and neoliberal globalisation. In so doing, the thesis does not aim to ‘find' in Arendt's work determinate answers to the crises of our time, but rather to use her perceptions as critical inspiration to think about them differently.

Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2016-02-18T11:05:54Z No. of bitstreams: 1 marceloalmeidasilva.pdf: 14112106 bytes, checksum: 43a951c1d551c9d0444e36b959528a8f (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2016-02-26T13:25:26Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 marceloalmeidasilva.pdf: 14112106 bytes, checksum: 43a951c1d551c9d0444e36b959528a8f (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-02-26T13:25:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 marceloalmeidasilva.pdf: 14112106 bytes, checksum: 43a951c1d551c9d0444e36b959528a8f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-02-24 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / CNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / As páginas que se seguem têm como objetivo analisar e compreender como os chargistas cariocas formaram representações e mergulharam em críticas os movimentos totalitários, mais especificamente o nazismo, através de charges publicadas na revista periódica Careta, durante o período da Segunda Guerra Mundial, que durou de 1939 a 1945. As charges circularam no Rio de Janeiro, capital do país na época, num período em que o Brasil vivenciava, desde 1937, a ditadura do Estado Novo comandada por Getúlio Vargas. / The following pages are designed to analyze and understand how the locals cartoonists built representations and dived in critical totalitarian movements, specifically Nazi movement through cartoons published in the periodical Grimace, during the Second World War, which lasted from 1939 to 1945. The cartoons circulated in Rio de Janeiro, capital of the country at the time, a period when Brazil was experiencing, since 1937, the Estado Novo dictatorship led by Getúlio Vargas.

In Latin America, the regimes of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner are indiscriminately posited as representative cases reflecting similarities and differences of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. This work tests the more general typology by studying the contrasting institutions, processes, and styles of the Castro and Stroessner autocracies, habitually labeled totalitarian and authoritarian, respectively. Totalitarianism emerged as an analytic concept as social scientists attempted to understand characteristics of the Hitler and Stalin regimes distinctive from other forms of dictatorship. While authoritarian regimes are generally based on history and tradition, leaving intact existing arrangements regarding wealth, status, church, family, and traditional social behavior, totalitarian regimes aim to revolutionize and politicize society, culture, and personality. They claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the citizenry and obliterate the boundaries between public and private. Despite the corpus applicable to totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and Latin America, few studies exist melding all three topics in a comparative context. Paraguay has long remained outside the mainstream of serious study by political scientists, yet Stroessner's 34-year dictatorship was one of the world's most durable. This research contributes to a better understanding of a nation and regime begging scholarly attention. Stroessner's downfall leaves Castro's Cuba the Western Hemisphere's oldest non-democracy and provokes analysis revealing organizational resemblances common to both regimes. Divergences relate more fully to sui generis social forces, forms of government, and geopolitics. The work analyzes the differences and similarities between Cuba and Paraguay, linking them to the larger typologies by focusing on four distinguishing variables comprising the totalitarian syndrome: (1) the supreme leader; (2) the nature and ideology of the single, official party; (3) the forms and uses of political force in the state control apparatus; and (4) the scope and degree of societal mobilization and mass legitimacy engendered by the regime. The work concludes by considering the policy relevance and utility of these heuristic paradigms.

漢娜鄂蘭是二十世紀極具代表性的哲學家，同時也是一位十分傑出的共和主義理論家，她的政治哲學寫作時期恰好是二次世界大戰結束後，極權主義垮台，冷戰方興未艾，在這段政治局勢高度緊張的時間裡，鄂蘭通過批判和反思來尋求解決現代政治問題的根本途徑，其方法為對於極權主義進行分析和理解，並提出本於共和主義的政治實踐圖像。 此一理論具體地呈現在《論革命》一書中，鄂蘭在書中透過對於法國大革命和美國革命的重新詮釋以及批判反思來探討革命理論及其共和主義理想，並且藉著對法國大革命的批判重新反思傳統政治哲學的缺陷，同時也藉著對於美國革命的詮釋和讚揚來重申共和主義精神。本論文的主旨即在通過對於《論革命》的重新閱讀來瞭解鄂蘭的新共和主義理論，此一理論面向表現為「權力」和「權威」要素。 藉由耙梳鄂蘭從早期在手稿中形成的相關論點，連接到《論革命》中的理論思考，本論文企圖呈現歷來較少受到關注的鄂蘭理論面向。反思現代政治問題，鄂蘭認為其癥結在於對於政治的錯誤理解以及匱乏的想像，而唯有透過重新梳理古典政治傳統的資源加以去蕪存菁，並融合於現代政治世界，才能對二十世紀的政治問題提供一個較為完善的回答。透過對《論革命》的重新耙梳和理解，我們也在鄂蘭的政治書寫中檢視和借鏡哲學傳統的珍貴資源。 / Hannah Arendt is one of the most significant philosophers in the twentieth century, and a remarkable republican. Her writing of political philosophy happened to begin right after the end of World-War II when the Totalitarian just collapsed and the cold war started. In that political situation with high tensions, Arendt tried to find a fundamental approach to solving the modern political problems through criticism and introspection. She was devoted to analyzing and understanding the sources and the structure of Totalitarianism. Her theories were fully elaborated in On Revolution. In this book, Arendt explored the revolution theory and its republican ideal by reinterpreting the meaning of French Revolution and the American Revolution. With her reviews of the French Revolution, Arendt re-examined the defects of traditional political philosophy; meanwhile, through the re-evaluation of the American Revolution, she reclaimed the republicanism. Therefore, the purpose of the paper aims to understand the Neo-Republicanism theory by rereading Arendt’s On Revolution, with a focus on power and authority. This paper tends to analyze Arendt’s theories less discussed before by the method of combing the arguments in Gauss Manuscript and connecting them to the issues developed in On Revolution. In terms of the modern political problems, Arendt believed that it was for the misunderstanding of politics and the lack of imagination. Only through rearranging the sources of traditional philosophical thoughts and integrating its essence with the modern world can a philosopher provide a better answer to political problems. Keywords：Totalitarianism、Revolution、Power、Authority

Christopher Dawson (1889-1970) was a British historian of culture and a pioneer during the 1920s in linking history with the social sciences. Much existent writing on him today simply tries to summarize his views on the historical process or on specific time-periods. There is a fundamental lack of real historical perspective on Dawson, linking him to his own intellectual environment. This thesis attempts to remedy that lack. It demonstrates that the most important years in which to understand Dawson’s development were roughly those of the interwar period (1918-1939). During those years he wrote scholarly books as well as social and political commentaries. This thesis uses Dawson’s life and writings as a window into his world—hence it is a “study in British intellectual history between the world wars.” A number of contexts will be examined through relevant archival and published source material: textual, social, cultural, and biographical, all in order to account for the numerous ideas and events that raised questions in Dawson’s mind to which he then responded in his writings. Chapter one studies Dawson’s reputation from the interwar years up until today in order to highlight his broad visibility, the diverse images through which his work was viewed, and the central themes he engaged with and which are the subjects of the following chapters. Those themes are: (1) Dawson’s entry into British sociology during the 1920s; (2) his response to the question of human progress in Britain after the Great War; (3) his response to historiographical problems surrounding religious history, nationalism, and empiricism; (4) the various ideas of religion present in interwar Britain and the wider Western world by which Dawson informed his thinking not only about religion but also about (5) those “political religions” (as he saw them) taking shape in the totalitarian regimes during the interwar years. The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to general knowledge of interwar British history, aid more historically sensitive readings of Dawson’s work today, and reveal something of Dawson’s “cultural mind”: the fundamental interdisciplinary and catholic ways of historical thinking by which he viewed the past and the present and which were his most important contributions to the discipline of history.

Hanna Arendt (1906-1975) and Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) were two political thinkers which can be placed in the Totalitarianism-theory discourse. In 1951, Voegelin was commissioned to review Hannah Arendt´s recently published book The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Arendt was given the right to reply. Voegelin also wrote a letter to Arendt in German which she responded to. With their dialogue as a starting point, aspects of the theoretical content of the philosophical and political thinking in Voegelin and Arendt was analyzed. The main conclusion is that their theories complement each other and that they can be better understood in light of each other. A deeper understanding of Arendt´s and Voegelin´s ideas has been achieved using the anthropological concept liminality. It is an aid to understanding the dissolution of an order and the transition towards a new order. All kinds of changes in paradigm can be studied from the perspective of liminality. The political situation in Europe in the 30ths was a liminality of the thinking of Voegelin and Arendt. Therefore, their ”conservatism” can be interpreted as a ”plasticity” of ideologies-discourse according to the specific liminality, and their ideas as both radical and conservative due to the political situation in the liminality. Conducting a reflexive approach towards their ideas has clarified their explicit divergence as both divergence and convergence. Their supposed divergence is sometimes explained by their different theoretical perspectives. Despite a disagreement with sine ira et studio in dialogue, their views correspond to each other, since both affirm a historical approach to political phenomena which is evaluative but not judicial in the sense that empiri judge evaluative statements. Arendt rejected the idea of totalitarianism as a utilitarian-scientific project, but could not deny the empiri of nazism and bolshevism using utilitarian-scientific (”everything is possible”) propaganda language. Nor did Voegelin see a direct causality from 16th century scientism to totalitarianism, but concluded that scientism was a discourse for the totalitarian ideologies in which mankind had immanentized God into the concept ”everything is possible”. None of them accepted a metaphysical and essential concept of the human nature. Arendt`s foundation for human Being was a plurality of mankind while Voegelin founded it in a consciousness which transcend to the world. Regarding political religion Arendt reject totalitarianism as a secular religion, although she observes the religious elements while Voegelin adopt a political religion theory. The divergence is accomplished by their different theories in the concept religion. They both observe same phenomena, but Voegelin theorized totalitarianism in a way Arendt would call speculative. It is further suggested that the concept pneumopathology can be used as a model for approaching the phenomena totalitarianism.

La divulgation dans les médias de masse des atrocités commises dans les camps de concentration nazis et soviétiques n’a pas ébranlé que les milieux politiques. Plusieurs chercheurs en sciences humaines (on pense immédiatement à l’expérience de Milgram) et en philosophie ont cherché à comprendre le fonctionnement des régimes totalitaires. Hannah Arendt, en plus d’avoir contribué à la popularisation du concept de totalitarisme, a été l’une des premières à en rechercher les origines. Bien qu’il n’ait jamais abordé de front la question du nazisme et du stalinisme, Michel Foucault a, lui aussi, ancré ses recherches sur le pouvoir dans une démarche généalogique. Plus précisément, c’est lors de ses travaux sur la gouvernementalité et la biopolitique qu’il a étudié les rationalités gouvernementales, leurs technologies et leur effet subjectivant. Les objectifs de cette recherche sont de présenter un exposé critique de ces deux approches des phénomènes de pouvoir en Occident et de produire une étude comparative du phénomène totalitaire. / The revelation to light of the atrocities committed in Nazi and Soviet concentration camps has not only shaken the political circles. Several researchers in the humanities (one thinks immediately of the Milgram experiment) and philosophy have sought to understand the functioning of totalitarian regimes. Hannah Arendt, in addition to having contributed to the popularization of the concept of totalitarianism, was one of the first to look for the origins. Although he never tackled head on the issue of Nazism and Stalinism, Michel Foucault, too, grounded his research on power in a genealogical approach. Specifically, it was during his work on governmentality and biopolitics that he studied governmental rationalities, technologies and their subjectification effect. The objectives of this research are to present a critical discussion of these two approaches of the phenomena of power in the West and to produce a comparative study of the totalitarian phenomenon.

This paper explores the major historical interpretations of Hannah Arendt and analyzes her philosophy of history. Chapter One includes an introduction and a brief survey of the life of Hannah Arendt. Chapters Two and Three examine The Origins of Totalitarianism. The discussion concludes that Arendt's loose use of terms and some of her evidence can be called into question. Nevertheless, her work contains original insights about modern European political history. Chapter Four, a discussion of Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, emphasizes her portrait of Adolph Eichmann as a shallow, Nazi bureaucrat. Although the work is flawed with inaccuracies, her portrait of Eichmann as a prototypical bureaucratic killer is thought provoking. Chapter Five, an analysis of Arendt's philosophy of history, concludes that Arendt understood the pitfalls of theories of historical causality.

In my diploma thesis I came to the conclusion that the frequency of mentions about Edvard Beneš fluctuated in the monitored media. From the examined periods, Rudé právo, Lidová demokracie and Svobodné slovo most often wrote about him in 1968 (a total of 37 mentions), in 1958 there were 32 mentions and in 1978 and 1988 there were 25 mentions. On the contrary, in sum of all the examined periods, there were only a few mentions in some years - for example, in 1983 there were 4 mentions, in 1948 there were 8 mentions and in 1973 there were 10 mentions. Rudé právo most often wrote about Edvard Beneš (96 references in all), in Svobodné slovo 47 and in Lidová demokracie 37. This can be explained by the fact that during the Communist regime Rudé právo had more pages than the other two newspapers and it also paid more attention to politics. In the researched media, Edvard Beneš was most often mentioned in connection with the February coup d'état anniversaries. In the qualitative analysis, I came to the conclusion that the studied newspapers mostly wrote about Edvard Beneš neutrally (57 percent of all mentions), negative references were 35 percent, and 8 percent were positive. During the 1950s, the analysed media was mostly critical to Edvard Beneš. However, in 1963 I noticed 50 percent of neutral references....