ARGUMENTS
283
did, though I can imagine a society
in
which children were brought up
with the idea that murder is an expression of goodness.
I haven't tried to sum up what I think of
Eichmann in Jerusalem.
But
if
I were to state a final impression, it would
be
that the bpok
is
a
powerful account of Eichmann's contribution
to
the Final Solution. Still,
at times, there is an unfortunate tone, that comes either from clumsy
writing or from some undercurrent of bias, so that one has the feeling
that the J ewish leaders, if not the Jews as a whole, are somehow being
criticized for things that Hannah never succeeds in making entirely ex–
plicit. Actually, as you have intimated, most of the hue and cry would
have been averted by judicious cutting-and not very much cutting at
that-of the most inflamatory and ambiguous statements.
I t seems to me the lesson to be learned from the horrors which
Eichmann helped perpetrate is not that ordinary people can be taught
the art of mass murder or that the victims can be entangled in the
beliefs and forces leading to their destruction. This, unfortunately, we
know. But to
know
it is not enough to prevent a recurrence. For what
we do not know is how to change the social conditions that make these
horrors possible. Don't you think that for this we need a more radical
view of history and society, a more radical one than we find in
Eichmann
in Jerusalem,
or for that matter, in many sectarian criticisms of the
book which seem to be concerned only with upholding the honor of the
Jews? We certainly will not learn much if we do not recognize that
this is more than a Jewish question.
Affectionately,
William
P.S. I should add, for the record, that I was one of the people who
told you about the
Dissent
meeting. As I recall, I told you that the
atmosphere was too excited to permit calm discussion, and that nobody
seemed to listen to what Alfred Kazin, who spoke up for Hannah, was
saying. In fact, as I remember, he was booed by some people. Anyway, I
understand your reference to the
meeting
as a comment on the temper
of the audience, not on the copduct of the meeting.
P.P.S. I've just read
Dwight'S
piece. He says more or less what you did
but more breezily. I agree that reactions to Hannah were excessive,
though he could have put it more simply and
quietly.
But hunting for
"Jewishness" is going too far: one could hunt for anti-Semitism, too.
If
we're to be nostalgic, we might recall the days when the question whether
someone was Jewish or Gentile was of biographical and not intellectual
interest.
