Understanding Hannah Arendt:
The Timeless Relevance of Her Political Philosophy
Professor Suh, in what context did you first encounter Hannah Arendt? What prompted or challenged you to undertake such a rigorous study of Arendt's thought and work?
I was deeply captivated by Arendt's political thought after being introduced to The Human Condition in a lecture as part of the Contemporary Political Philosophy seminars offered during my doctoral programme in 1996 and ultimately came to choose Hannah Arendt as the topic of my doctoral dissertation. Thirty years have since passed. As a devoted Arendtian, I have remained immersed in Arendt's studies. My book, The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt, is in a way the culmination of my research of the past three decades.
To introduce Arendt to readers not familiar with her writing, I believe I should first share an anecdote about two of her mentors. In 1927, Arendt's first professor, Martin Heidegger, published his masterpiece, Being and Time. After reading it, Karl Jaspers, another of Arendt's professors, reportedly remarked to his student: "This book lacks God, the world, and communication." It is important to note here that Arendt's political philosophy, presumably as a result of this teaching, focused on the world (the public sphere) and communication (speech and action). Another important point is that Arendt's definition of politics as communication with the world and the individual gets to the heart of modern deliberative democracy. Furthermore, in my opinion, Arendt surpassed her teacher Heidegger by formulating a new political philosophy.
You teach a course titled Arendt's Political Aesthetics and hold seminars that explore key Arendtian themes, such as political action and civil disobedience. I would be curious to know how students respond to Arendt's key arguments in these lectures. Could you share any particularly controversial or inspiring issues that you may have encountered in your lectures? Also, what is your overall impression of Korean readers? Which of Arendt's concepts resonate most with Korean readers, and which concepts or arguments are they somewhat unfamiliar with?
After the recent news that I had been awarded an academic prize was announced, I received the following text messages from two of my students who had taken my course Arendt's Political Aesthetics as undergraduates. One wrote, ‘Professor, my sincere congratulations to you for winning the 2025 Korean Political Science Association Academic Award. Upon entering the Department of Humanities, your course on Arendt's Political Aesthetics was the most memorable lecture I ever took’. Another alumnus wrote, ‘Professor, I sincerely congratulate you on winning the 2025 Academic Award. Your Hannah Arendt's Political Aesthetics course was by far the best undergraduate course I have taken’. It is receiving messages like these that makes me feel a sense of accomplishment in teaching Arendt's political philosophy. As part of the graduate school's Civic Political Philosophy Seminars, I lecture on the operating principles of modern democracy and citizens’ rights and duties, focusing on Arendt's books On Revolution and Crises of the Republic. Graduate students are often delighted to be newly introduced to the field of ‘civic political philosophy’ through Arendt.
Among Arendt's concepts, the one that resonates most with Korean readers is undoubtedly ‘the banality of evil’. The popularity of this phrase will probably have led to the Korean edition of Eichmann in Jerusalem selling rather well. Unfortunately, however, how many readers actually finished the book is unclear.
Perhaps the concept or argument relatively unfamiliar to Korean readers will be Arendt's ‘politics as communicative activity’ or ‘political action as communicative action’. As Arendt pointed out, in modern society the governance of the modern administrative state, that is, the administration, is often mistaken for politics, rather than the politics of ancient Greece. This is probably not entirely unrelated to the fact that Korean university political science professors who studied 20th-century American behaviouralism have come to discern ‘quantitative’ politics, based on instrumentalism and consequentialism, as the only form of politics.
Our 21st century is described using terms such as Postmodernity, late modernity, Post-industrial society, De-instrumentalism, the Aesthetic turn, and a Reflective attitude. Arendt's ‘qualitative’ political paradigm is tied closely to these terms. The problem is that these terms are still unfamiliar to the general public in Korea.
With the current spread of authoritarian tendencies around the world, Arendt's theories are being discussed in detail in Germany in exhibitions, publications, and roundtable discussions. Korea has also had a turbulent year politically. How relevant are Arendt's theories to contemporary Korean society? What insights can be gained from Arendt's thinking for the problems facing Korea? And why do Arendt's theories continue to attract so much attention worldwide?
It is understandable that Arendt's ideas have been the subject of intense debate in Germany recently. In fact, I often watch international news channels such as BBC, CNN, and France 24. I am also quite familiar with the situation in Germany and have heard that both far-right and far-left parties achieved significant results in the last elections. However, in my view, there is no cause for excessive concern. Arendt would have said that a particularly desirable political situation would be one in which everyone everywhere could express their own distinctiveness and uniqueness with their own opinions. In my opinion, a wide variety of opinions in public discourse helps us to think about right and wrong and, based on that, to decide what is “more beautiful and less ugly.”
Let us briefly look back at the imposition of martial law by former President Yoon Suk-yeol on December 3, 2024. The passive manner in which the young soldiers and police officers deployed to the National Assembly that night to perform their duty can be seen as a demonstration of the ‘political significance of thought’, which Arendt sought to preach in her new political philosophy. At the time, our young soldiers and police officers had received orders to arrest members of the National Assembly while completely unaware of the circumstances. However, many of them, along with some mid-level officials, did not actively follow their superiors' orders, stalling for time. Why did they do this? It is likely that they had recalled the historical events in Gwangju in 1980 and were reflecting on the unfortunate lesson it taught. Here, the ‘Gwangju 1980 incident’ can be seen as an ‘Arendtian Archimedean point,’ a concept I newly conceptualized in The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt. We can deliberate on this concept by borrowing Dana R. Villa's term, ‘groundless ground’.
On the night of December 3, 2024, the numerous troops and police deployed under martial law to the National Assembly, unlike Adolf Eichmann, were able to break through the ‘banality of evil’ and avert the moment of catastrophe that had befallen them. Arendt's explanation, which can be related to this, is as follows: "Thinking deals with the invisible, with representations of the absent. Judging, on the other hand, is always concerned with the particular and the tangible. Yet, [thinking and judging] are interconnected in the same way that consciousness and conscience are interconnected... This capacity for judgement may, at least for me myself, prevent great disasters in those rare moments of decision [in our lives]." (from ‘Responsibility and Judgement’, Hannah Arendt, translated by You-Kyung Suh, p. 341)
As already mentioned, there are no limits to the “possible interpretations” and “significance” of Arendt's political philosophy. It can therefore be assumed that interest in her thinking will continue to grow worldwide and across all academic disciplines. The reasons for this are obvious: Arendt attempted a paradigm shift that completely redefined our principles of life. After an incubation period in the late 20th century, the effects of this change quickly became apparent in the 21st century.
Arendt emphasized that diversity of opinion and the ability to communicate are fundamental conditions for judgement. She also demanded political rights, freedom, and equality guaranteed to all people—values that are increasingly important today, especially in an era where press freedom is under threat, language is becoming increasingly coarse, and polarization through social media is growing. How can Arendt's concepts of plurality and communication be applied in Korean society, where the influence of digital public opinion is increasing?
The ideals theorized by Arendt, the ideal political realm or the Arendtian polis, is a public space of deliberation where the diverse opinions of politically equal citizens are communicated and scrutinized. This space embodies a political equality, in which citizens are guaranteed the opportunity to speak as a political right, where they exercise their freedom through their speech, and where other participants are guaranteed the opportunity to speak as well. However, this ‘ideal’ public sphere does not seem to exist anywhere in society.
If so, what we need to do, more than anything else, is to reflect deeply on the meaning of human plurality, the condition of human existence, emphasized by Arendt. As French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy put it, every human being, anytime and anywhere, lives in the form of ‘being-singular-plural’. This means living in a way where ‘each singularity is inseparable from ‘its being-with-many’’ (Nancy 2000, 32). Furthermore, according to Arendt's book, The Human Condition, this means that each of us ‘lives as a unique being, distinct from our equals’. It is as if Arendt is urging us Koreans today to never forget this fact.
Interview: Leslie Klatte
Proofreading (KOR): Young-rong Choo
English Translation: STAR Korea AG
German Translation: Kathrin Hadeler
