Korean Society and the Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt
What new perspectives does your book The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt offer to the national and international debate on Arendt? And what is its core argument?
Hannah Arendt is fundamentally a very independent political thinker. In her 1964 ‘Gaus Interview’, she labelled herself a political theorist, but many now consider her one of the greatest political philosophers of the 20th century. My book bestows a new title on Arendt: ‘political aesthetician’. This is because she is a political philosopher who has opened a new academic horizon for ‘political aesthetics’, a sub-discipline of political philosophy.
To provide concrete evidence for this claim, Arendt announced at a conference in 1972 that she would write a new political philosophy. The book that contained part of this ‘new political philosophy’ she mentioned was The Life of the Mind. At that time Arendt explained the key features and goals of her new political philosophy: ‘Crucial for a new political philosophy will be an inquiry into the political significance of thought; that is, into the meaningfulness and the conditions of thinking for a being that never exists in the singular and whose essential plurality is far from explored when an I-thou relationship is added to the traditional understanding of human nature.’ (Source: Concern with Politics in Recent European Philosophical Thought, in Hannah Arendt, Essays in Understanding 1930-54, p. 445)
What I was hoping to express to Arendt scholars at home and abroad through The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt is the completed form of the ‘new political philosophy’ Arendt envisioned during her lifetime. Arendt passed away on December 4, 1975, leaving a piece of paper with only the word ‘Judging’ written on it, still in her typewriter. ‘Thinking, Willing, Judging’—that is, the final chapter of The Life of the Mind, originally planned as a trilogy. Part 3, titled ‘Judging’, remains unpublished. Simply put, the final form of her new political philosophy has remained cloaked in mystery until now. But I had resolved to unveil it someday, and I have finally achieved that goal with The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt.
I posit that Arendt's new political philosophy is, by its very nature, ‘political aesthetics’. I base this assertion on three points. First, if aesthetics is formally a subdiscipline of philosophy, then political aesthetics can be considered a subdiscipline of political philosophy. Second, if aesthetics deals with the ‘beauty’ and ‘ugliness’ of objects such as works of art, then political aesthetics can be explained as dealing with the beauty and ugliness of our ‘words and deeds’, that is ‘political action’. Third, a more direct basis comes from Immanuel Kant's Third Critique, The Critique of Judgement, which deals with aesthetics and teleology. There are clues that Arendt developed her own new political philosophy based on her theoretical insight into the political significance of ‘judgement’. Accordingly, The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt systematically explains the path by which Kantian aesthetics developed into Arendt's political aesthetics. To this end, The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt introduces new terms to the korean audience such as ‘Arendtianism’, ‘the Arendtian polis’, ‘the Arendtian Archimedean point’, ‘the phenomenology of thinking’, and ‘the reversed cogito’.
The core arguments of The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt can be broadly divided into two. Arendt's ‘new philosophy’ is, before all, a reversal of the Western separation of philosophy and politics or thought and action. This is a theoretical attempt to break with the Platonist tradition of philosophy. It can be seen as a theoretical prescription that can prevent the disasters that can arise when thought and action are separated, such as Eichmann's crimes against humanity. I demonstrate the persuasiveness of her prescription through Phenomenology of Thinking. My other argument is that Arendt's reinterpretation of ancient Athenian democracy from a German existentialist perspective enriches our understanding and explanation of participatory democracy, deliberative democracy, and democratic innovations in the present. This is because Arendt's political aesthetics calls for an aesthetic reflection on the meaning and methods of our political participation in the 21st century from the perspective of an existential political ontology.
The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt is scheduled for publication in English this year. As the researcher who wrote this book and the translator of Hannah Arendt's major works, you have been a mediator of Arendt's thought. What challenges did you face in translating Arendt's complex concepts and terms into Korean? Could you share any key concepts or terms that were particularly difficult to delineate during translation? And do you think the meaning of Arendt's thought might change when read within the Korean cultural and linguistic context?
One difficulty in defining the meaning of Arendt's complex concepts and terms in Korean is that many of her concepts often have more than one meaning. For example, the concept of the public realm, derived from theoretical insights from the Athenian polis, sometimes refers to the physical space of the human world, or the world, but also to the cognitive space of ‘the web of human networks’, or ‘the in-between space between men’. [1]
More controversial is the overlapping nature of ‘plurality’, the most fundamental concept in Arendt's political thought. This concept is often used interchangeably with ‘human plurality’, and I argue that it should be understood in at least three distinct senses: ‘plurality’, ‘plurality of perspective’, and ‘human plurality’. [2]
For reference, many Arendt scholars translate ‘plurality’ as meaning ‘plural’, which risks obscuring the profound meaning of Arendt's political philosophy. It is important to note that Arendt was not simply a philosopher, but a ‘political’ philosopher. As evidenced by political terms such as ‘majority rule’, ‘majority opinion’, and ‘majority and minority groups’, it is crucial to remember that the meaningful word in politics is ‘majority’, not plurality. [3]
To the question of whether the meaning of Arendt's thought could change in the Korean cultural and linguistic context, I would reply, no. Since 1948, Korea has experienced rapid Westernization as an ally of the West, particularly the United States. The so-called ‘Western-educated’ have played a prominent role as evangelists of Western culture across all fields: politics, economics, society, culture, and education. In this context, there are few difficulties in conveying the true meaning of Arendt's thought. However, as I just mentioned, there are clear differences among researchers and translators in accurately understanding and translating the context of Arendt's unique conceptual categories and arguments into Korean.
You stated that through your book, you hope to interpret Hannah Arendt's complex philosophy in a way that makes it accessible to a broader readership and to apply her theories to the democratic development in Korea. What similarities and differences are there between Arendt's concept of civil society and Korea's social reality and historical experience? Also, what motivated you academically to convey Arendt's thought to Korean readers?
Arendt personally experienced the realities of totalitarian politics after Hitler's rise to power in 1933. Without those experiences, she might not have become a political theorist. She wanted to understand how to overcome totalitarian rule. Therefore, she studied classical Athenian democracy, which we humans consider the most ideal form of government. After settling in the United States in 1941, she experienced firsthand the American-style mass democracy Alexis de Tocqueville envisioned.
Through this process, she identified the problems of modern democracy from the perspective of this ancient ideal and contemplated ways to improve it. I believe Arendt's personal experiences and critical awareness overlap with the experiences of totalitarianism under military dictatorship and the struggle for democracy experienced by Koreans in the past century. This is because Koreans, too, proceeded to a fully democratic society after approximately 26 years of military dictatorship.
My academic motivation stems from the fact that Arendt's political theory and philosophy are so relevant to understanding and explaining the current circumstances of our lives. For example, in explaining the evolution of the Korean democratization movement, I believe Arendt's political action proposition namely that ‘the raison d'être of politics is freedom and the arena for its realization is action’ and her participatory democracy proposition stating that our citizens participate in politics to pursue ‘public happiness’, are very compelling explanatory mechanisms.
For example, the candlelight protests of 2016-17 and the 2024 ‘cheering baton rallies’ demanding presidential impeachment can be viewed as political actions that took the form of peaceful civil disobedience movements. To paraphrase this in Arendt's terms, they were political actions undertaken by citizens in pursuit of freedom and public happiness.
How do you think the perception of Hannah Arendt has changed in Korea after your research and publications? Also, how are Arendt scholars in Korea networked? I am curious about whether regular exchanges take place in Korea, or whether the structure relies more heavily on collaboration with international researchers. I am also curious about whether there are any formal exchanges or collaborations with German research institutions or experts.
I anticipate that it will take at least a year or two, and at most three to four years, for The Political Aesthetics of Hannah Arendt to have any academic impact. This is because it will take that long for the book's content to be widely read and for subsequent discourse to mature among researchers. In contrast, I cautiously anticipate that when the English edition of the book is published in 2026, a shift in the perception of Arendt among international researchers and readers will first emerge.
I understand that scholars of Arendt in Korea are actively engaged in activities centred around the Korean Hannah Arendt Society and the Korean Association for Political Thought, and that they collaborate intermittently with Arendt specialists in Japan and Germany. With the publication of this special issue commemorating the 50th anniversary of the death of Hannah Arendt at the Goethe-Institut, we anticipate that opportunities for official exchange and collaboration between German research institutions and experts and Korean Arendt scholars will become more frequent and diverse.
Arendt's work spans a wide range of genres, including academic books, essays, articles, and interviews. Which of these works has left the deepest impression on you? And which would you recommend to a reader new to Arendt?
Among Arendt's works, The Human Condition, published in 1958, was the most impressive. It was after encountering this book in 1996 that I decided to study Arendt's political philosophy. Of the Arendt interviews, her interview with Gaus, in which Arendt reveals her academic identity, remains deeply etched in my memory.
Arendt is a remarkably complex political philosopher and writer. If a student is new to Arendt, her book Between Past and Future might be a good choice. It functions as a glossary, explaining how the conceptual categories of Arendt's political thought—freedom, authority, history, tradition, and culture—differ from the traditional conceptual categories of Western philosophy. For the general adult reader, books such as Men in Dark Times, Crises of the Republic, or Responsibility and Judgement might be more accessible. These books illustrate difficult concepts through familiar figures and events based in actual life.
Through this conversation, I was able to reaffirm the importance of Hannah Arendt's thought in the Korean context and the significance of translating and communicating it. I am grateful to you Professor You-Kyung Suh for your profound insights and fruitful conversation.
I dedicate this book to Hannah Arendt. Without her outstanding political thought and academic achievements, this book would not have been possible. In this context, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and honour to be able to personally introduce Arendt’s ‘new’ political philosophy of ‘political aesthetician’ through this interview organized by the Goethe-Institut in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of her death. Thank you, again for the invitation.
