Amy Eaglestone is a political scientist and democracy practitioner. She is currently finishing her PhD at the University of Birmingham and is a visiting fellow at Leiden University. She is an assistant editor at the Review of Democracy.
Can we look to the past to save modern day democracies from the perils of growing authoritarianism? Amy Eaglestone reviews Lyndsey Stonebridge’s We are Free to Change the World, a story of what we can learn from the life and works of Hannah Arendt about addressing authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics.
The intellectually stimulating yet accessibly written We Are Free to Change the World by Lyndsey Stonebridge tells the story of Hannah Arendt’s life, work and political thought through a lens of modern political discontentment.
In the book, Stonebridge draws out how, by following Arendt, we can respond to the challenges posed by the populist authoritarianism of our current political leaders, namely by encouraging independent thinking that is framed by human experience.
While the title might suggest that the reader will be provided with a concise list of actions to take, this is not the case. Instead, in line with Arendt’s own philosophy, the reader is compelled to critically reflect on how lessons from Arendt’s work apply to modern day threats to democracy.
The author, Lynsey Stonebridge, currently professor of humanities and human rights at the University of Birmingham, underscores this exercise by arguing that Arendt’s work can provide insights into possible solutions as the German philosopher “understood, as few political thinkers have done since, what we have to lose when we allow our politics to become inhuman” (p.16). In ten compact chapters, the author intertwines the stories of Arendt’s life as a Jew from Germany, a refugee, and a female academic with the development of her political thought. The book covers the many philosophers and political theorists that influenced Arendt as well as all of Arendt’s major works and many of her shorter essays.
As Stonebridge attempts to explain how Arendt’s experiences shaped her thinking, a story also unfolds of how Arendt’s ideas can be applied to our own recent experiences with the “politics of the absurd and grotesque” (p.13).
By using a series of comparisons between Arendt’s examples focusing on the atrocities of Nazi Germany but also other threats to democracy created by McCarthyism, and the current affairs of primarily US-American politics, Stonebridge argues that many of the elements that produced authoritarianism then are alive and well in political systems today. She highlights outsized propaganda, the creation of bogus enemies, acts of terror, continuous surveillance, and (self-)censorship, among others. As Stonebridge pinpoints, these are precisely those parts of the system that Arendt believed feed into increasingly exclusionary politics that is dominated from the shadows by a far-reaching government and big business.
“Who writes the plots of totalitarianism, Hannah? she asked. Nobody, was Arendt’s answer. This is why totalitarianism was profoundly anti-political: in the end, there were no opinions, no debates, no agency, no…people.” (p.219)
To build the argument, Stonebridge turns to Arendt’s central thesis that thinking is the “first defense [..] against tyranny” (p.19). More specifically, the author shows how Arendt meant more political thinking about what we are doing, about human frailty, and about what is right and wrong. Arendt also said we need individual thinkers enveloped by plurality to achieve this type of thinking. Stonebridge builds her argument around this position. She explains how Arendt, took from the original Greek philosophers the idea of Polis and combined it with her own concept of the human condition, and developed the idea that the articulation of a plurality of human experiences would ground political thinking in a sense of shared reality.
Thus, one of Stonebridge’s claims is that, according to Arendt, individual thinking will become possible if we follow the guiding principles for plurality of forgiving and promising. By forgiving others “to give one another the freedom to act without fear” (p.267) and by promising things for the future that affirms our vulnerability, we are able to be part of a society.
According to Stonebridge, Arendt’s belief that the combination of individual thinking and plurality should lead to the independent political thinking needed to maintain political freedom is applicable both then and now.
“Real freedom – and I have come to think this is Arendt’s central political insight – requires the presence of others so that we can test our sense of reality against their views and lives, make judgement, probe and learn” (p.300)
Stonebridge shows that Arendt also believed that political freedom requires action, not just thought. Consequently, Arendt advocated for active participatory public life, where a mutually respectful conflict drives politics out from the darkness. Stonebridge does not present a blatant call to action of her own here. Her presentation of Arendt’s ideas does suggest though the need for political participation, civil disobedience and genuine revolution.
In this context, Stonebridge makes an important clarification: genuine revolution is the one that demands rights and freedoms, not the destructive outrage as was seen during the storming of the Capitol in January 2021. However, the emphasis in this book remains the need for the right to free political thinking. As a result, the author suggests that by demanding political freedom, our political leaders will be forced to provide conditions that encourage genuine independent political thought and human connection, which will in turn lead to improvements in the current political culture and climate.
“Freedom of speech is not a demand of these revolutions; it is their essence” (p.299)
The strength of Stonebridge’s argument lies in her detailed build-up of Arendt’s ideas. The author consistently ties the development of her story with her conclusions concerning Arendt’s central belief in freedom and equality.
From the first chapter, Stonebridge explains that, according to Arendt, freedom is about having a free mind, moving away from dogma and looking around for human experience. The author later explains how Arendt believed this gives meaning and enables us to make moral judgments.
Freedom of movement and speech for all were central elements of this idea, as Stonebridge eventually concludes that to be truly free, we cannot limit other people’s freedom in the pursuit of our own.
The notable weakness of the book is how tough it can be to follow. Besides the various stories of Arendt life, times and work, Stonebridge adds her own experiences retracing Arendt’s steps through Europe. From a reader’s perspective, it feels as if this was a significant part of the authors’ journey, but not necessarily an essential contribution to the story she aims to convey. At times, the author uses her contemporary experiences to further illustrate those of Arendt, such as when Stonebridge goes into detail about their similar experiences viewing ancient Greek statues and tableaus. In other instances, the author uses her experiences to shed light on current trends, such as the reasons behind political murals in Beirut. Though these additions are interesting, they only add to the sheer amount of detail and intricacy that sometimes makes the book feel overwhelming. In addition, it is sometimes difficult to know whether the thoughts presented were Arendt’s own or the author’s interpretation – a point Stonebridge herself highlights in a disclaimer at the beginning, but that is augmented by blending of author and subject experiences. Yet, both the amount of detail, and lack of clarity, do not necessarily impede the reader’s understanding – the story flows in such a way that it is mostly easy to follow, even if it occasionally leads to moments of confusion.
Stonebridge meticulously reconstructs the development of Arendt’s thinking from the very beginning, which ultimately strengthens her closing arguments. Moreover, she is also critical of Arendt and discusses the criticisms of others too. For instance, when comparing the civil rights movement in the United States to Jews in Europe, Arendt was criticized for failing to see the distinct differences in human experience – which was, ironically, a concept that she herself advocated for. Additionally, after covering the trial in Jerusalem of Nazi perpetrator Adolf Eichmann, Arendt faced criticism for responding with insensitivity to the Holocaust when she highlighted what she referred to as “the banality of evil.” Stonebridge critically reflects on Arendt’s shortcomings by placing them in context and explaining how Arendt was able to make these mistakes. These nuances thus ultimately support the arguments favoring Arendt’s ideas.
We are Free to Change the World: Hannah Arendt’s Lessons in Love and Disobedience is an intellectual feat and also serves as an homage to Arendt.
Only a true enthusiast would produce such a meticulously researched and detailed account; the level of detail makes the book particularly suitable for those who have never encountered Arendt’s work but have a strong interest in politics and political thought.
Stonebridge’s book provides a fascinating insight into her life and work, but also sheds light on how Arendt might approach today’s political challenges. Ultimately, the book’s message is that bringing politics back into the light requires persistence and courage, which can emerge from any corner of society.
