Hello, I’m Yang Zhao. We continue analyzing The Origins of Totalitarianism. Arendt singles out the frantic imperialism of 1884–1914, a development built on a basic contradiction: the expanding imperial powers were all nation-states.

This explains why, after World War I ended in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson’s call for national self-determination at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference drew worldwide attention. Thirty years of imperial expansion had turned nationalism and national consciousness into grave problems.

These states effectively partitioned the world in only thirty years. That dramatic expansion is the first fact.

Second, the expanding powers were nation-states becoming empires, an arrangement filled with internal conflict. A third question follows: what ideology inherent in nation-states could stimulate imperial ideas, policies, and expansion?

Arendt’s answer is the politicization of the bourgeoisie during this crucial period. Her chapter title is “The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie.”

What did this politicization involve? We must return to the French Revolution and the origins of the nation-state.

 

Why emphasize the nation? Feudal and monarchical orders could not survive the French Revolution. Society demanded equality, but equality did not make everyone alike. Kings and nobles disappeared while differences of life, economic position, and interest became more conspicuous.

Monarchy had organized society hierarchically: nobles obeyed the king, nobles and clergy cooperated, and together imposed an order serving their interests on the people below.

Once kings, clergy, and nobles were removed, how could conflicts of interest be managed and a new multiclass society maintained? These classes were not only Marx’s bourgeoisie and proletariat, but people in many ways of life and economic positions. How could they cooperate and form a state?

The answer was a shared nation. Despite different work, lives, and regions, common language, custom, history, and culture allowed people to accept common political rule and form a new kind of state.

This was the nineteenth-century transformation of the state. National identity became the essential bond, with clear boundaries defining who belonged and enabling division of labor and cooperation within a state.