The real promise of federalism: A case study of Arendt’s international thought
| Author | Shinkyu Lee |
| Date | 01 July 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1474885120906059 |
| Published date | 01 July 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article EJPT
The real promise
of federalism: A case
study of Arendt’s
international thought
Shinkyu Lee
Oberlin College, USA
Abstract
For Hannah Arendt, the federal system is an effective mode of organizing different
sources of power while avoiding sovereign politics. This article aims to contribute two
specific claims to the burgeoning scholarship on Arendt’s international federalism.
First, Arendt’s international thought callsfor the balancing of two demands: the domestic
need for human greatness and flourishing, and the international demand for regulation
and cooperation. Second, her reflections on council-based federalism offer a nuanced
position that views the dual elements of equality in politics (intra-state and inter-state
equality) as neither contradictory nor reconciliatory but rather as ideal types along a
continuum. Thisstudy shows that, through the unique form of federalism emphasizingthe
need to balance two demands of free politics with a clear acknowledgement of its pre-
cariousness, Arendt’s thinking adds much-needed sensitivity to international discourse.
Keywords
Arendt, federalism, freedom, representation, sovereignty, state agency
Hannah Arendt (1993: 146) famously argued that whereas freedom—“the raison
d’etre of politics”—can only be achieved by acting together, the sovereign will is
always unitary and negates plurality, the precondition of free politics. Further,
Arendt (1993: 165) stated that “[i]f men wish to be free, it is precisely sovereignty
Corresponding author:
Shinkyu Lee, Department of Politics, Oberlin College, 10 N. Professor St., Oberlin, OH 44074, USA.
Email: slee10@oberlin.edu
European Journal of Political Theory
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474885120906059
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
2022, Vol. 21(3) 539–560
they must renounce.” The anti-sovereign aspect of Arendt’s thought appeals to
critical theories of international relations that problematize the mainstream schol-
arship building on the principles of state sovereignty and international anarchy.
1
Of course, Arendt’s thinking has distinctive features that do not conform so easily
to those alternative theories. For example, although Karl Marx’s thought consti-
tutes a crucial source of inspiration for critical international theories, Arendt
(1998: 116, 228) considers Marx’s arguments too deterministic to fit her free pol-
itics, as several scholars (Canovan, 1992: 63–98; Weisman, 2013; cf. Barbour, 2014)
point out. We must also note that, though fiercely resistant to establishing politics
in natural and quasi-natural criteria, Arendt (1998: 50–58) emphasizes a politically
engaged care for the world in which individuals act and attain their public
identities. By highlighting a rootedness solidified through public remembrance
and organized communities, Arendt’s thinking differs from the poststructuralist
rendition of subjectivity in which individuals have no agency over their identity
construction (Hyv€
onen, 2016: 201–205; Lang, 2005: 223; Villa, 1992). That said,
Arendt would undoubtedly find problematic the overly deterministic aspect of
mainstream international theories arguing that no central authority exists among
sovereign states and that this immutable anarchic status of international politics
brings states into constant security competition (Baehr, 2010: 14–26; Barder and
McCourt, 2010; Williams, 2005: 6). Indeed, a recent trend in Arendt studies is to
engage in this promising area where her thinking aligns with critiques of the
assumptions of mainstream international theories. Grounded in Arendt’s critique
of sovereignty, violence, and domination, several works have fruitfully applied her
free politics to the global dimension of politics (e.g. Axtmann, 2006; Hayden, 2009;
Owens, 2007).
Less explored, however, is Arendt’s discussion of federalism, a mode of political
organization that divides powers between two or more institutional levels of gov-
ernment. It is not the only way to separate power; confederalism and devolution
also divide powers. Yet, federalism is distinctive as a middle way, pursuing more
integration between the general and regional levels of government than confeder-
alism, and less integration than devolution (Hueglin and Fenna, 2005: 31). Arendt
(2006: 141) also recognizes that “the separation or the balance of powers” is
federalism’s function. The federated republic, Arendt (2006: 142) believes, eschews
the possibility that powers at the local level of politics will be destroyed or “result
in a decrease of [their] potency” through tyrannies or excessive legalism. At the
same time, her federalism resists any approach that renders the power of the cen-
tral government non-existent because, without a viable central government, “the
allied powers” of the local units “cancel one another out” (Arendt, 2006: 144).
In Arendt’s (2006: 166, 1970: 44) view, power emerges from people acting in con-
cert and the federal system is an effective mode of organization for associating
different sources of power. In federation, “neither expansion nor conquest but the
further combination of powers” happens (Arendt, 2006: 159). Arendt (2006: 144)
claims that federalism avoids the centralization of power and contributes to the
abolition of sovereignty.
540 European Journal of Political Theory 21(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial