After viewing German concentration camp killer Adolf Eichmann in the witness box in Israel in 1961, political philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote about "the banality of evil". Arsonists are no less banal, writes Rowan Callick The Australian, 14/2.
A study of Eichmann’s life and crimes has suggested that Arendt’s analysis was at best naive, and at worst incorrect. Ms Arendt had attended only the beginning of Eichmann's trial. Up to Arendt's departure from the court room, Eichmann had tried very hard to undermine the charge that he was a dangerous fanatic by presenting himself as just another pen-pusher.
Had Hannah Arendt stayed for the whole of the proceedings, it would have become obvious to her that Adolf Eichmann was a person who had identified strongly with anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology. Obviously, he had been much more than someone who had dutifully subscribed to the Befehl ist Befehl culture.
Eichmann did much more than just follow orders: he introduced a range of new extermination policies. At the height of his career, he always stood by, and was proud of, his murderous achievements on behalf of the Third Reich. Eichmann's evil acts were overwhelming in nature - the antithesis of banal. Since we know nothing about Victoria's apprehended arsonists, we should refrain from 'doing a Hannah Arendt'.