Refounding Denied: Hannah Arendt on Limited Principles and the Lost Promise of Reconstruction

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Niklas Plaetzer
{"title":"Refounding Denied: Hannah Arendt on Limited Principles and the Lost Promise of Reconstruction","authors":"Niklas Plaetzer","doi":"10.1177/00905917231178867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that Hannah Arendt’s essay “Civil Disobedience” contains a critique of white constitutionalism. A close reading of Arendt’s comments on the failure of Reconstruction to durably found Black citizenship reveals that the anti-Blackness of her account does not consist in ignoring the racialization of constitutional order but, to the contrary, in a dismissal of Black politics due to the limitations of a white constitutional heritage. In “Civil Disobedience,” Arendt thus stood on the edge of an insight that she failed to develop more fully: Black movements had brought to light the limitations that racial domination places on the “augmentation” of America’s founding principles. For Arendt, the notion of the “principle” is meant to mediate the novelty of action with the durability of order. But to the extent that she views American institutions as defined by the “inherited crime” of slavery, feedback across temporal strata—between a principle in past, present, and future—is structurally blocked. The symbolic whiteness of citizenship undermines institutional durability, as it generates a crisis of constitutional authority for all. Tracing the sources behind Arendt’s pessimistic vision, the article demonstrates echoes between her account and the literature on which she relied: Tocqueville; Stanley Elkins; and, possibly, W. E. B. Du Bois. It concludes with a reading of Arendt’s commentary on Reconstruction as the attempt to recover a lost moment of foundation, an unredeemed promise of refounding.","PeriodicalId":47788,"journal":{"name":"Political Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00905917231178867","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues that Hannah Arendt’s essay “Civil Disobedience” contains a critique of white constitutionalism. A close reading of Arendt’s comments on the failure of Reconstruction to durably found Black citizenship reveals that the anti-Blackness of her account does not consist in ignoring the racialization of constitutional order but, to the contrary, in a dismissal of Black politics due to the limitations of a white constitutional heritage. In “Civil Disobedience,” Arendt thus stood on the edge of an insight that she failed to develop more fully: Black movements had brought to light the limitations that racial domination places on the “augmentation” of America’s founding principles. For Arendt, the notion of the “principle” is meant to mediate the novelty of action with the durability of order. But to the extent that she views American institutions as defined by the “inherited crime” of slavery, feedback across temporal strata—between a principle in past, present, and future—is structurally blocked. The symbolic whiteness of citizenship undermines institutional durability, as it generates a crisis of constitutional authority for all. Tracing the sources behind Arendt’s pessimistic vision, the article demonstrates echoes between her account and the literature on which she relied: Tocqueville; Stanley Elkins; and, possibly, W. E. B. Du Bois. It concludes with a reading of Arendt’s commentary on Reconstruction as the attempt to recover a lost moment of foundation, an unredeemed promise of refounding.
被否定的重建:汉娜·阿伦特论有限的原则和失去的重建承诺
本文认为汉娜·阿伦特的文章《公民不服从》包含了对白人宪政的批判。仔细阅读阿伦特关于重建未能持久地找到黑人公民身份的评论,可以发现她的叙述中的反黑人并不在于忽视宪法秩序的种族化,相反,由于白人宪法遗产的限制,她对黑人政治不屑一顾。因此,在《公民不服从》中,阿伦特站在了一个她未能更充分发展的洞察力的边缘:黑人运动揭示了种族统治对“强化”美国建国原则的限制。对阿伦特来说,“原则”的概念旨在调和行动的新颖性和秩序的持久性。但在某种程度上,她认为美国的制度是由奴隶制的“继承罪行”定义的,跨时间阶层的反馈——在过去、现在和未来的原则之间——在结构上受到了阻碍。公民身份的象征性白人破坏了制度的持久性,因为它给所有人带来了宪法权威的危机。文章追溯了阿伦特悲观愿景背后的根源,展示了她的叙述与她所依赖的文学之间的呼应:托克维尔;Stanley Elkins;可能还有杜波依斯。文章最后阅读了阿伦特对重建的评论,认为重建是试图恢复失去的基础时刻,是一种未兑现的重建承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Political Theory
Political Theory POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Political Theory is an international journal of political thought open to contributions from a wide range of methodological, philosophical, and ideological perspectives. Essays in contemporary and historical political thought, normative and cultural theory, history of ideas, and assessments of current work are welcome. The journal encourages essays that address pressing political and ethical issues or events.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信