During the program philosopher Susan Neiman discusses Hannah Arendt's notion of the banality of evil. As many know, the phrase "banality of evil" was Arendt's attempt to discern the origins of the Holocaust from the personality of Adolf Eichmann, insights Arendt's summarized in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.
The argument that Arendt makes in that book is that evil isn't dark and deep but is, rather, thin and superficial. Evil is ordinary people thoughtlessly making a million small choices. No doubt this account cannot explain all that needs to be explained about evil, but it does explain much, even much about the Holocaust. The Holocaust couldn't have happened if the German populace hadn't over time gradually consented through seemingly insignificant daily choices. Laughing nervously, but without objection, to the anti-Semitic joke. Not shopping at the Jewish store. Accepting the promotion when the more qualified Jewish person was passed over. Casting a vote on election day. And so on.
In talking about this, how evil is produced by a million small choices, in the radioshow Neiman floats the idea that if evil is banal in just this way then might not goodness be banal as well? Running with her suggestion, I wonder if we might speak of the banality of goodness?
A few weeks ago I wrote a post for the Tokens Show reflecting on the work of Jean Vanier. In that post I shared a quote from Vanier who suggests that we give up visions of heroism to embrace the insignificance of our actions, the recognition that we are not going to accomplish great things as Christians.
Goodness is, perhaps, more banal than heroic. Goodness is achieved through a million small acts of kindness, goodness, and generosity. Goodness is achieved through a million small acts of subversion, resistance, and protest. Millions of small Yes's and millions of small No's.
