|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a recent discussion of On Revolution by Hannah Arendt, I found myself reflecting on how lessons from the Cold War era about the American Revolution can remain entirely relevant today, in the midst of the technological revolution driven by artificial intelligence.
As background, Hannah Arendt was born in Germany, escaped the country during World War II, took refuge in France, and eventually traveled to the United States in 1941. Twenty years later, she wrote On Revolution, while also working on Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil and teaching at the University of Chicago. In the essay, Arendt raises several important distinctions, such as Liberation versus Freedom, and Negative Liberty versus Positive Liberty. For example, she asks whether independence immediately meant liberation, which in cases such as Haiti we know it did not, or whether a republican regime directly represented positive liberty. More importantly, if political regimes are fragile, liberation does not necessarily lead to freedom.
Arendt argues that what made the modern revolution unique were three characteristics: novelty, freedom, and violence that is inevitable but not defining. If modern democracy was created to separate itself from the British Crown, how different are the republics of Latin America that were inspired to free themselves from their own yokes? Although the American and Latin American experiments have been extensively studied and compared, Arendt chose to focus her critique on the United States and the Soviet Union because of their sociopolitical context. These countries were engaged in a struggle driven by technological and political innovation (novelty). Both sought that moment of standing on the podium and receiving the gold medal, enjoying the advantage of outperforming the other (freedom). So close, and yet so far, from the third characteristic.
That characteristic is violence, which we can understand as entirely opposed to government and governance in the pursuit of peace. Yet no revolution has been achieved without violence, or at least without civil disobedience. Poverty is a key factor in the political significance of these revolutions, especially in the contexts of France and the United States. Even so, Hannah Arendt does not account for factors as important as the enslavement of Black people, where there was a clear distinction between those who could participate in political and social life and those who were relegated to the background. Nevertheless, as a society we have always understood that one of the main things that makes us human is our ability to create, and that this is the political act par excellence.
We are human because we create art, politics, society, and revolutions. Revolutions are human because they create spaces for dialogue and for listening to others. Even when power is seized through violence, the establishment of those spaces transcends the acts of violence that emerged from the need for disruption. We can only create if we are fully human, and that grants us personal freedom. For that reason, so many thinkers have been politically persecuted throughout history, because the creation of one’s own freedom inspires others to be free as well. This disrupts authoritarian governments and artificial intelligence magnates alike. Why burn books that may encourage new ways of thinking? We ask the authoritarian dictator that question. But do we remember to ask corporations why they have been buying books in massive quantities to remove them from circulation? What is it that they want to stop encouraging in us? Curiosity, creativity, or freedom?
The philosopher exercised power from her position as both a migrant and an academic in order to criticize the country of liberty. Had the revolutionary legacy been lost? In my opinion, at least until the civil rights movement for Black Americans, it had not. However, are we now at risk of losing the civic value of creating revolutions in defense of our freedoms because of artificial intelligence? I fear so. Was Arendt right to criticize American society for forgetting its civic duties and embracing consumption for the mere pleasure of consuming? I believe she had every reason to make that argument, and she would still be justified in making it today. We criticize those who seek freedom, autonomy, and independent thought, but not those who are willing to damage entire communities so that their data centers can consume a little more water, nor those who choose to live in ignorance and depend entirely on what is provided by a machine powered by a somewhat sophisticated algorithm.
On Revolution directly explained the three characteristics of a revolution. It argued that novelty, freedom, and inevitable but non-defining violence were necessary. I believe that today we need to remember something even more fundamental: first, we are human; second, we create; and only afterward are we revolutionaries.
