Hannah Arendt Center Conference 2024: Tribalism and Cosmopolitanism, 1st Morning

 

On October 17 and 18 the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College held its annual conference. This year's topic was Tribalism and Cosmopolitanism: How Can We Imagine a Pluralist Politics? 

Hannah Arendt Center Founder and Academic Director Roger Berkowitz introduced the topic of the conference. He began with his own tribal connections: his family, his Jewish faith, and other close-knit groups. As a cosmopolitan he has "passport stamps from many countries" where he has friends and family and colleagues in addition to writing books and articles and being part of intellectual communities: a cosmopolitan with many tribes.

He then talked about the conflict between those committed to a cosmopolitan view of the world and those who see humans through a tribal lens.  I would try to summarize, but the opening speech of the conference is the latest episode of the Reading Hannah Arendt podcast so anyone so inclined can listen to the Roger's opening remarks.

The first speaker was Sebastian Junger, like Berkowitz, embodies the title of the conference.  

As a cosmopolitan, he has written seven books, earning #1 on the New York Times Bestseller list, and numerous articles earning a National Magazine Award and a Peabody Award and a Peabody Award.  His documentary film Restrepo (with co-director Tim Hetherington) won a Grand Jury Prize at Sundance and was nominated for an Academy Award.

But the central subject of his writing is tribalism. His book Tribe explores the lure of tribalism and its place in modern life. Junger said the definition of a tribe is "What happens to you happens to me."  The willingness to die for fellow tribe member is another mark of a tribe.   

War and the film Restrepo show the life of an Army company defending the most exposed outpost in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan. Soldiers form a tribe. In Restrepo one of the soldiers says that guys who hate each other's guts would risk their lives for each other. 

I saw Restrepo just after returning from a year's deployment to Iraq in 2010.  I have not seen a better or more candid documentary of war, any war, than Restrepo. 

Just after the conference I read Junger's book The Perfect Storm the story of the commercial fishing boat Andrea Gail lost with all hands in a terrible storm in 1991.  Junger describes the tribe of the people who fish for a living and the dangers they face.  We also see the rescue services of the Coast Guard and the Air National Guard saving the lives of doomed boats in the terrible storm. We also learn about the rescuers lost and terribly injured during the rescues. The end of the book follows those dealing with the loss of loved ones in that terrible storm.  War and disaster always have this long tail of family and communal suffering. Junger shows us the many struggles of thos left behind.

I will have to leave the rest of the conference for another post.  This post is already very long and long after the event.

The Perfect Storm by Sebastian Junger: The story of a terrible storm and tragedy at sea.

 

The Perfect Storm: A True Story of Men Against the Sea by Sebastian Junger is a real page-turner story about a Gloucester-based fishing boat, the Andrea Gail, that disappeared in a historic storm in late October in 1991. There were no survivors. There was no wreckage except a few fuel drums found on the sea long after the Andrea Gail disappeared.  

Junger tells the story of the disaster from the recollections of the crew members of ships that survived the storm, from viewpoint the survivors of an ill-fated rescue attempt of another boat in the same storm, and from the perspective of the families of the survivors.  

The book opens introducing the members of the crew of the Andrea Gail and their families and friends.  Junger shows us the life of a fisherman. Swordfish boats like the Andrea Gail could make a lot of money for their crews and money was the reason most of the men took the risk of fishing.  

We learn how dangerous fishing for swordfish can be. The line used to catch the fish goes out with thousands of hooks, baited just before they enter the water.  These hooks can snag and drag a fisherman right off the boat and into the sea when the line run over the side, and is equally dangerous when the line is pulled back on board--with or without many big, angry swordfish on the line.

Junger explains the physics of flipping and sinking a boat in a storm. He also explains how differences in the placement of pilot house and other factors could affect the way the ship weathers storms.  In addition to the physics of boats, we learn about the formation of waves and the storms that toss the waves higher and higher.

As the Perfect Storm develops in the area where the Andrea Gail is lost, Junger shows how search and rescue works along the US and Canadian coasts.  The US Guard works with Air National Guard and Navy units to rescue crew members of boats in distress.  I learned a lot about how the services coordinate their different capabilities depending on the distance and scale of the disaster.  The US and Canada coordinate with each other in the disasters that involve the international waters of both countries.

In the aftermath of the storm, the families grieve and struggle with the loss of the crew of the Andrea Gail as well as the Air Force pararescue swimmer lost when a rescue helicopter went down.  

Although I've never been out to sea further than a fishing boat near Boston harbor, I am fascinated with sailing ships.  I've read all of Patrick O'Brian's Master and Commander novels and Ian Toll's histories of the war in the Pacific theater of World War II. The Perfect Storm gave me a new perspective on just how dangerous life on the sea can be, even without the ships involved firing cannons at each other.

For anyone interested in the life of the crews of fishing boats, or of fishing towns like Gloucester, Mass., or the physics of waves, ships and the weather, this book has excellent explanations wrapped in a compelling story. 

------

In 2012 Victoria Hislop of The Independent (UK) began her review of the book with the same enthusiasm I felt: 

I learned two things while I was reading this book. First, that true stories can be more exciting and extraordinary than fictional ones. And second, that the best books are the ones where you are glued to your seat. This is how it was with The Perfect Storm.

 -----

A passage on drowning that made my own terror of death in the water vivid, while explaining precisely how our bodies react as death approaches:

"The instinct not to breathe underwater is so strong that it overcomes the agony of running out of air. No matter how desperate the drowning person is, he doesn't inhale until he's on the verge of losing consciousness. At that point there's so much carbon dioxide in the blood, and so little oxygen, that chemical sensors in the brain trigger an involuntary breath whether he's underwater or not. That is called the "break point"; laboratory experiments have shown the break point to come after eighty-seven seconds. It's a sort of neurological optimism, as if the body were saying, Holding our breath is killing us, and breathing in might not kill us, so we might as well breathe in...Until the break point, a drowning person is said to be undergoing "voluntary apnea," choosing not to breathe. Lack of oxygen to the brain causes a sensation of darkness closing in from all sides, as in a camera aperture stopping down. The panic of a drowning person is mixed with an odd incredulity that this is actually happening. Having never done it before, the body--and the mind--do not know how to die gracefully. The process is filled with desperation and awkwardness. 'So this is drowning,' a drowning person might think. 'So this is how my life finally ends.'"

Veterans for Trump: The Death of Honor

Canvassing in York County today I said hello to a veteran wearing a cap with Vietnam service and campaign ribbons.  Since my canvassing list was only democrats, I assumed he was a Republican. I said hello because we were the only two people outside for as far as I could see on the very straight street.

We talked civilly for a few minutes. He told me he enlisted in the Army reserve in 1970, served six years in the United States and left the military.  "I should've stayed," he said.  I told him I enlisted in 1972 and served until 1985, getting out and re-enlisting twice, then re-enlisted once more in 2007 and went to Iraq.  

I told him I never got closer to Vietnam than Utah during the war.  He made clear he was a Vietnam-era veteran.  

Shortly after he asked if I lived in the neighborhood. I said no. I live in Lancaster and was canvassing for Janelle Stelson for Congress. He said, "Don't try to tell me to vote for a democrat! I'll never vote for a democrat."

I told him I was only going to democrats and just said hello because we were both veterans.  He then went from smoldering anger (I assume a usual state given his demeanor.) to lecture mode.  "Stelson doesn't live here. Perry does. I'm voting for Perry. And Harris let in all those migrants. The country is overrun."

I waved and wished him a nice day.  "We won't have a country if Harris wins. Too woke!" he said to my back.  

When I told another veteran about the encounter he knew right away what was wrong.  Both of us served during the Vietnam War but not in the war. We are careful to say that.  The grumpy veteran's hat said something very different. It says Vietnam service.  Of course, inflating one's service record is as common as fisherman talking about "the one that got away." When I was first in the military, lying was stunning.

For me, another effect of Trump was to make draft dodging and this sort of mendacity normal. Fifty years ago, that veteran would have been ashamed to claim war service. Honor would have prevented him.  

Dishonor is the default when a bragging coward like Trump is the head of a party.  

In 2016 I saw draft dodgers become defiant now that they had a coward who bragged about draft dodging as their leader. 

Canvassing Empty Streets and Sidewalks: No One is Outside

 

In six weeks of canvassing, I have knocked on a thousand doors in cities and suburbs across south central Pennsylvania.  I walked empty streets and sidewalks between those houses.  

Empty.

It was not the weather. I canvas in the daytime. Generally the temperature was between high 60s and mid 70s. Wonderful weather.  

No kids. No walkers. No runners. No bicyclists. Just the occasional driver with windows closed of course.  

Is it social media?  I can't tell, but it seems like a good explanation.  I spend two or three hours in neighborhood.  If anyone was going to walk, run, ride, play games, sit on the porch or something else outside the house, I am likely to have seen them.  

Some of the houses I canvas have kids in the family. They peek out of the windows when I ring the bell or cling to mom's leg while she talks to me. But I have not seen kids outside.  

A couple of times as I walked down sunlit empty streets I thought "The Last of Us" and other dystopian stories.  Whole neighborhoods with no sign of life. 

My Exceptional Neighborhood

By contrast, my own neighborhood in Lancaster city has walkers, runners, cyclists, people that sit outside, kids, dog walkers and other signs of live community. If there is a social media plague keeping everyone inside, I'm glad I live in a place with social media antibodies.  

I'll be knocking on doors until the election; I will definitely write if I find a neighborhood besides my own with signs of life. 

A Very Complex Story: The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People by Walter Russell Mead

This book is a history of the relationship between Israel and the United States.  Like so many relationships, the partners look back and rewrite their history as the years recede.  And the more they love each other, they more they tend to rewrite history into rose-tinted myth.  

I knew very well how badly America (and most of the world) acted toward Jews during the Nazi era and the Holocaust. So when I read about America's support for Israel from the first moment after Israel declared itself independent, I was ready to fill in continuous support from 1948 to now.

I was wrong.  

Walter Russell Mead showed me the actual, bumpy complex history of America's support (and not) for Israel.  

Yes. President Harry Truman recognized Israel from the moment of its founding, but he did it on condition that he get to recognize Israel before anyone else: 11 minutes after the announcement.

To his credit, Truman believed the Jews had a right to a country of their own.

But. 

Truman also set up an arms embargo on the new nation of Israel.  If the arms embargo had succeeded the Holocaust would have been repeated as six Arab armies invaded Israel. Truman's state department was more concerned about their relationship with the Arab nations than the survival of Israel.

When America let Israel  twist in the wind, a very ironic triangular relationship developed that saved Israel and led to Israel's victory over the invaders.  

Along with the US, the Soviet Union recognized Israel.  The relationship only lasted until 1953, but it was long enough to allow Israel to exist.  

In 1948, the Soviet Union needed hard currency. In February the Soviet Union took over Czechoslovakia in a Coup.  The small country was home to the Skoda works. Skoda made weapons for the Nazi army under Nazi occupation.  They had a massive inventory of German weapons.  

Also in 1948, Israel declared independence in May and future Israel Prime Minister Golda Meir began crisscrossing America raising money for the fledgling state of Israel.  That money could have bought  tons of surplus America weapons consigned to destruction, but the embargo prevented that purchase.

Instead, the money flowed back to Israel and from there to Skoda and to the Soviet Union.  When Israeli representatives visited the Skoda factory, they were delighted to find tons of weapons at bargain prices. It was also made clear that the Soviet Union was ready to circumvent the American arms embargo--for cash.

American money paid for surplus German weapons which were then smuggled by Soviets around an American embargo. Those weapons allowed Israel to defeat six Arab armies and exist as a nation.  

America continued to ignore Israel until 1967.  After the huge victory in the Six Day War, Israel suddenly looked like a regional power and America became friendly.  The new warmth was timely because the French, Israel's principle arms supplier in the 1950s and early 60s, were backing away from Israel because of internal politics.  

With the Soviets openly arming the Arabs, America started selling arms to Israel.  The relationship between the US and Israel became closer after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.  But the first actual treaty between the two countries was made by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, almost 40 years after Israeli independence.  

The book is full of insights about the relationship between the US and Israel which I did not get from the many histories of Israel I have read.

It's an interesting book for anyone who wants to know about the complex history of the US/Israel relationship.  

Signs of the Times: As I Canvass for Candidates I See the Parties in their Signs

 

Recently, I was canvassing on a lovely day in a suburban Philadelphia district divided very closely between left and right. The houses I visited were all in a township that has a "No Solicitation" law. Violations can result in a fine of $375-$1,000. 

A few of the "No Solicitation" houses had a black box near that door that announced "You are under video surveillance" as I approached. One woman opened the door to ask, "Did you not understand the no solicitation sign?"  I replied that the law does not cover free speech including political speech. She shut the door.

It did not affect my canvassing because political and religious solicitation is exempt. 

I passed many houses with signs for democratic candidates and others with signs for republican candidates.

The only houses I passed with "No Solicitation" signs posted on the door that were identifiable as one party or the other were Republican. 

Last week I walked past two houses in Lancaster side by side on a city street. Both houses had two signs out front. The first house had a "Harris-Walz" sign and another that said "Love Thy Neighbor." The second had a "Trump-Vance” sign and another that said "No Trespassing."

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy: Beauty and Deep Irony Unlocked by Hannah Arendt

Irony can be lovely in literature. The current living master of irony in my reading is Kazuo Ishiguro especially in his book The Remains of the Day. Another sad and beautiful master of irony is Walter Miller Jr. in his book A Canticle for Liebowitz. Miller and Ishiguro intend irony.

Leo Tolstoy did not, but there is more irony at the center of War and Peace than in the biggest Soviet-era Russian steel mill.  The deep love stories that swirl through this beautiful book are set in tragedy a time of war. The story begins in the gossip and whirl of upper class city life and ends with country family life.  

At intervals throughout the book, Tolstoy interrupts the narrative to tell us with increasing stridency that great people, and all people, have no real influence on life and history.  The collective spirit of the people, and chance, and fate, and the will of God guide events.  The great people believe they are in charge, but they are merely corks bobbing on a river flowing where God and nature intend.  

While he is telling us great people have no influence, Tolstoy fills hundreds of pages of this 1,500-page book with the actions of Napoleon, Marshall Kutuzov, Emperor Alexander, as well as mayors, generals and other leaders.  To learn how great people have no influence, we learn a lot about what they do.  

My current reading of War and Peace was on a Kindle in the translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky.  In the late 80s I read the Constance Garnett standard translation.  In 2000, I read the Almyer and Louise Maude translation.    

Since 2000, I have gone to war and after returning from that war read all of the works of Hannah Arendt.  The year in Iraq showed me how deeply Tolstoy was affected by his service in the War in Crimea and how he turned that experience into art.  Reading Arendt showed me why I disagreed so completely with the philosophy that fills hundreds of pages of Tolstoy's longest novel.  

Central to Hannah Arendt's view of the human condition is natality.  She says that each person when born has the potential to influence the world.  Each new life is a new beginning.  Further, in her book titled The Human Condition Arendt divides human activity into Labor, Work and Action.  Labor is work done that leaves no trace--factory work, cleaning, cooking.  Work is creating things that endure--furniture, works of art, jewelry.  Action is influencing others.  

When we act, we influence others who have wills and ideas of their own, so we never know what will come of our words.  Leaders persuade people to act but the message strikes each individual in a different way. So what seems a mass from the outside is really individuals, each moved in their own way by the message. In fact some may hear the message and become opponents while others follow. 

Natality, in Arendt's description, brings unique possibilities into the world in the life of every individual.  After reading Arendt, reading Tolstoy's philosophy gave me the same feeling I have when reading Sam Harris and other determinists.  I understand why they believe what they do, but cannot agree.  Natality gives me billions of reasons to know that something new could come into the world begin by one person and change the world, for good or ill.   

In the first epilogue of War and Peace Tolstoy says his book is not a novel.  It's his book, so he can say whatever he wants.  But the story itself is wonderful on its own terms.  The philosophy underneath it does not affect the intricate beauty of the story Tolstoy tells.  If I read it again, I will skip the philosophy and enjoy the story.