Jay, M. - Intellectual Family Values

8/10/2019 Jay, M. - Intellectual Family Values

1/14

Intellectual Family Values: William Phillips, Hannah Arendt and the Partisan ReviewAuthor(s): Martin JaySource: Salmagundi, No. 143 (Summer 2004), pp. 43-55Published by: Skidmore CollegeStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40549569.

Accessed: 17/11/2014 20:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Skidmore Collegeis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Salmagundi.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.189.152.198 on Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:17:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=skidmorehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40549569?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40549569?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=skidmore


2/14


3/14

44

MARTIN JAY

somewhat

arlier

ay.

or

twasno

ecret hat

R'

s moment ad

ong

ince

passed,

perhaps

s

early

s

the

1960's,

when t

began

to be outflanked

politically

y

theNew Left nd

culturallyy

the ise

of

postmodernism.

From hat ime

n,

t

ncreasingly

oiced an

aging

generation's isap-

proval

f he ollies f

ts

uccessors.

ot

urprisingly,

t ook

efuge

n

ts

last

years,

fter

eaving

he tillNew Yorkish mbit f

Rutgers

n

a cloud

of

crimony,

tBoston

University,

hose utocratic

resident

ohn ilber

gave thispersonal lessing. rom eing he vant-gardef ntellectual

life n he

940's

nd

1950's,

R

turnednto forum

or hose

who

felt

ittle

real

ffinity

ith

he

Geist

fthenewZeit.Whilenever

urching

s

far

o

the

ight

s other

rgans

fNewYork ntellectual

ife

uch

s

Commentary,

it

hared

with hem disdain

or he rendsf

cademia hat ould

neatly,

if

reductively,

e

grouped

nder

he ubric

f

political

orrectness.

s

so

often

as

the ase with

ormereftist

ilitants,

he nd f he oad urned

out

obe a

splenetic

eo-conservative

corn or hevarious dols hat

ad

replaced

ll the

arlier

ods

that adfailed.1 ven Silber

ame to under-

standwhen ethoughtbout eepinghemagazine oing hatthe eneral

consensus

was that

artisanReview

was

a

reliquary.

hatwas the

word

more

han ne

person

sed. 2

There s no

reason,

owever,

o dwellon the

final

years

f

an

intellectual

nterprise

hat

eserves

erious

ecognition

or he

ital ole

t

played

uring

o

many

arlier

nes.

Nor an one

fail o

acknowledge

he

positive

ontributionsade

by

William

hillips

o

Americanntellectual

life

n

the

0th

entury.

ithout

imself

ver

producing

major

work

f

scholarship,

e

provided

hekind f

ngaged

ditorial

uidance

or

many

othershatllowed heournaloprosperor arongerhansnormallyhe

case with

nterprises

f ts

kind.And s a model f

what

ollowed,

e was

also

enormously

nfluential.s one of

the ontributors

o his

memorial

symposium,

orris

ickstein,

ut

t,

Try

o

magine

heNew

Republic,

The New

YorkReview

f

Books,

Salmagundi

or The New

Criterion,

different

s

they

re,

withouthe

example

f PartisanReview

nd the

contributors

hofirst

ppeared

n

ts

pages. 3

There avebeen

many

estimoniesothe

ways

n which

hillips

presided

ver he ntellectualife

fhis

feistyommunity,

oth efore

nd

after isbreakwith he ther o-founderfPR,PhilipRahv.4 'mnot ure

I

have

much o add to

them,

ut

erhaps

ne

episode

s worth

ecounting

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/14

Force ields 45

in

my

own

fleeting

nteraction

ith

he

ournal.

t

concernsHannah

Arendt,

ne

ofthemost

owerful

embersftheNew York ntellectual

world,

hose

elations ith

hillips

were otwithoutheirtrains.n what

follows,

want

o revisit

he

ontroversyurrounding

n

essay

contrib-

uted o Partisan

Reviewmore han

quarter enturygo.

In

so

doing,

hope

to

cast

some

ight

n the

ways

n

which

hillips

layed

his

role as

intellectual

iddleman.

Having reviouslyontributedshortiece n197 to heournal

on ThePolitics fTerror

to heNew

Left,

hat

s,

nd

not o

he

ariants

of

terror

hat ame

nto

rominence

ater

I

had

lready

aintly

ppeared

on

Phillips'

adar.n

October, 974,

e askedme

to

review

new

book

by

Margaret

anovan,

which

might

erve s a

springboard

or

writing

bout

Hannah

Arendt

erself. 5

t

was,

n

fact,

hefirst

ustained

ook-length

treatment

fArendt'

oeuvre,

nd

having

een

xposed

nly

o

parts

f

t,

I

wasanxious

o

ee how

t ll came

ogether.

lthough

had

dmired hat

I

had

read,

nd

n

fact

addrawn n Arendt'

ideas n

one

of

the

arliest

pieces I had writtenbout HerbertMarcuse, found he theoretical

underpinnings

fher

osition erplexing.

anovan' book

was,

however,

a

disappointment.6

ituating

rendt

ntirely

n he

ontext

f

18th-century

Republicanism,

anovan

ever

robed

hemore

roximate

erman oots

of her

hought.

either

aspers

or

Heidegger,

or

xample,

merited

mention.

As

a studentfthe ntellectual

igration

rom

azi

Germany,

sensed

he

necessity

f

situating

rendtn a

European

ontext.

My

only

personal

ncounter

ith er

ame,

n

fact,

n

1971

t a

conference

t the

New School on the theme f the ntellectualegacyof the Weimar

Republic.7

ronically,

rendt erself

adwritten

bout

he

mportance

f

Existenz

hilosophy

n an

essay

he

published

n 1946 nthe

ages

ofthe

PartisanReview}

Using

his

ssay

s a

umping

ff

oint,

attempted

o

show

he

oots

f

her deas bout

olitics

n tender ather

han

tough

version f

he xistentialismhehad bsorbed

rom er

German

eachers,

producing

erdefense f the elative

ndependence

f the

political

rom

ethical,

ocial

nd

philosophical

onstraints.

his

ategorizationut

her

n

the

ncomfortable

ompany

f

figures

ikeCarlSchmittnd

Ernst

nger,

whose

xplicit olitical

ommitmentserefarmoredubious hanhers,

and

attempted

oheadoff he nevitable

ccusations

f

guilt

y

associa-



5/14

46

MARTINJAY

tion and

acknowledge

the

strengths

f her

position

as well as the weak-

nesses.

Still,

t

would be

fair o

say

that he

essay

was more of a

critique

than had

anticipated

writing

when

accepting

he

ssignment.

The bite of

the

essay

had been

sharpened by

conversations

had had with

very

differentritics f

Arendt,

whose vehemence had

surprised

nd,

I

guess,

emboldenedme. HerbertMarcuse from he

eft nd Isaiah Berlin from he

centerhad bothvoiced very eriousreservations bout Arendt' work, he

former

or her

mpoverished eading

of Marx and disdain forFrankfurt

School Critical

Theory,

he atter orher

hostility

o Zionism and contro-

versial claim

in

Eichmann

in

Jerusalem

about the role of the Jewish

Councils

in

enabling

the Holocaust.9

Whatever he

timulus,

my

nitial fforto strike he

right

otedid

not

eave

Phillips

atisfied.On

June

8th, 975,

he wrote ome that

lthough

much

of the

piece

is ofcourse on

a

very

high

evel somehow thebalance

and tone are

not

right,

nd invitedme to dinner

n

New

York to discuss

how to fixthem.Late that ummer, spenta verycordial eveningwith

Phillips,

his

wife

Edna,

and Steven

Marcus and his

wife

Gertrude

enzer,

in

which

their

bjections

were

thoroughly

ired.

A

second,

more nuanced

version

was

written,

ut he

response

was

the ame.

Your

piece

has

given

me more

agony

than

ny

n

years.

As

you

can

imagine,

Steven

and

I

have

talked bout

t a

lot,

Phillips

wrote n

October 30th.

It is difficult

o

sum

up quickly

what feel. But

I do

feel

the

piece

isn't

right.

You

have made

it a littlemore balanced

but t still trikesme as

being quite

one-sided

for,

while

you

do

acknowledge

some

of her ntellectual ssets

and achieve-

ments, heemphasisofyourpiece is largelynegative. Then after epeat-

ing

his

qualms

about

my

critique

f her imited

eading

of Marx and

anti-

historicism,

e

added,

Again,

as

I

said to

you,

ince we've

already

had one

verydamningpiece

about Hannah Arendt

incidentally,

he

only

one,

as

I

recall)

it

would

look

as

though

we're out to

destroy

her. And this

impression

would be

particularly

einforced

y

the fact that ll kinds of

people

with

big reputations

ave not been takendown in PR.

I

was at the ime

nlydimly

ware of the

arlier

damningpiece

and its

repercussions,

ut

years

aterwhen

Phillips

published

his autobi-

ography,A Partisan View, tbecame clear that had entered minefield.

After

escribing

heir

meeting

n

the 1940' at a

party

iven by

Schocken



6/14

Force ields 47

Books,

where

he

worked,

nd

detailing

er initialdifficulties

ith

English,

ualities

f

mind,

ld-fashioned

ersonal

abits,

nd ome f

her

ideas

a

coalition

f

opposites ),

hillips

urned

ohis

personal

elations

withher.

He characterized

hem

s warm nd

friendly

f not

ntimate,

except

or

ne nterlude

f

everal

ears,

hen achof

us acted

ut he

ole

of the

hurt nd

misunderstood

ictim. 10

In

1963,

when

ichmann

n

Jerusalem

ppeared,

ionelAbel

had

requestedhe hance odo a review,which urned ut tobe a farmore

strident

ttack

han

hillips

emembers

nticipating.

I felt twas

n

many

ways put-down,

e

recalled,

though

omeof

the

hings

e said

were

true nd

ertainly

ell

nto he rea

of

egitimate

riticism.

nd here

ere

also

personal

onsiderations

inceboth

Arendt

ndAbel

were riends.

n

situations

ike this

there re

no

satisfactory

olutions. 11

bel's

own

version f

he

pisode

enies

he

ikelihood

f

urprising

hillips.

ecall-

ing

hat e had

lready

ublished

very

harp

ritique

f

her arlier

work,

he

insisted

hat

when he

Partisan

Review ditors

sked

me

to review

MissArendt'EichmannnJerusalem,heymust avebeenexpecting

piece

that

would

havebeen

very

ritical

f Arendt. 12

Whatever

is

expectations

ay

have

been,

Phillips

was

clearly

unnerved

y

he ehemence

f

Abel's

attack. e decided

o

how

he

iece

to

Arendt

efore

twas

published,

nd he

was

upset

nough

o

urge

him

to

kill it.

He then

ought wight

Macdonald's

advice,

and

the atter

surprisingly

oncurred

ith

Arendt,

ending

o

Phillips

letter

ater

printed

n Elizabeth

oung-Bruehl's

iography

f

Arendt,

n which

he

reported

hat

[She

aid he

eview

howed]

a

lack f

espect

orme s

a

person

and

s a serious

writer,

nd s

much heworst

hat

as

happened,

far

worse han

he imes

eview

after

ll,

hey

on' owe

me

ny

consideration.

he also

askedme

totell

you

not ocall

her rto

write

er,

hat

hedoesn't

want o

have

nything

ore

odo

with

PR

or

you

or

Philip

Rahv].13

There

was no

turning

ack,

however,

s

Rahv,

hen till

o-editing

he

magazine,

nsistedhe

ssay

be

published.

When

ttempts

omakeAbel

temper

is

criticism

ailed,

Phillips

hit on the

idea of

organizing



7/14

48

MARTINJAY

symposium

dealing

with the

essay

in

two

subsequent

issues,

which

included ommentaries

y

Mary

McCarthy,

Marie

Syrkin,

obert

Lowell,

Harold

Weisberg,

Macdonald

and

Phillips

himself,

withAbel

responding.

The

bitterness,

however,

was not

assuaged

by

this

forum,

nor

by

a

subsequentpublic

meeting,

ponsored,

tturns

ut,

by

Dissent

rather

han

PR,

in which

Abel and some

of his critics

lugged

it out.14

As

Phillips

remembered

t,

the

only

tangible

esult

f the whole

controversywas thatHannah and I did notspeak toeach otherfor few

years.

Hannah felt

betrayed y

me. And

though

tried o

explain

that

my

conduct

was

the

only proper

one for

n editorof a

magazine

that

prided

itself

n

being

open

to

any

serious

view,

and that

you

could not

ust

kill

things

hathad been

commissioned,

understood

her reaction.

He then

ruefully

oncluded

in

retrospect

hat

our little world

was deficient

n

friendship

nd

loyalty,

nd that

objectivity

often has

been a mask

for

competitiveness,

malice,

and

polemical

zeal

-

for banal evils. 15

Al-

though

ultimately hey

made

up,

t was clear that

he

experience

eft

deep

scars onPhillips. n anopen letter e wrote oMaryMcCarthy n1964,he

reflected

n the

sorry

utcome

of

the whole bitter ebate

about

Arendt'

book

on

Eichmann:

A historical

isaster

has been

transformed,

am

sorry

o

say,

nto

a

journalistic

ccasion,

because

people

have

been

talking

not so

much

about

the

meaning

of those

awful events

as about

what

other

people

were

saying

bout them.

And some

people

seemed

to think

hat

whatwas

being

said

was

more wful

than he vents

themselves.16

And

years

ater,

e

could still

huffily

emark

o John

ilber,

Who does she

think he

is? Aristotle? 17

Although

my

own

essay

did notrevisit

hedebate over Eichmann

in

Jerusalem,

which

by

then

had

played

itself

ut,

t s clear

that t must

have seemed to

Phillips

like the

return f the

repressed.

His

response,

as

in

thecase of

Abel's

essay,

was first o

try

o

persuade

me to moderate

my

critique

nd then o commission

another

ssay,

as he

put

t

n

his

letter f

October30, 1975, more favorable o Hannah Arendt longside yours.

answered

in

a

long

letter hreeweeks

later,

rguing

about

some of

the



8/14

Force

Fields

49

substantive

ndtonal

ssues,

nd

xpressing

y greement

ith he

plan

to solicit

rebuttal,

ven

offering

ome

possible

andidates.

But

then n December

, 1975,

Hannah

Arendt

uddenly

nd

unexpectedly

ied

of a

heart ttack

t the

ge

of 69.

In

January,hillips

wrote o

onfirm

hat had lso

mmediately

aken or

ranted:

I

assume

that

Hannah

Arendt'

death

as ed to second

houghts

bout

publishing

your

iece

now.

Obviously,

t

would e n

very oor

aste

oth or

ou

nd

for s topublish t this ime pieceaboutHannahArendts critical s

yours. erhaps

littleaterwe

could

put

everal

ieces

about

her,

ne

of

which

wouldbe

yours,

s both

tribute

nd an

analysis

f

herwork. 18

A little

ater,

however,

urned ut

to be

a bit

longer

han

expected,

s

Phillips

ontinued

o feel

very

mbivalent

bout

ublishing

the

aper.

Not

for

othing

id

his

stepson

ater emember

im s one

of

the

ruly reat

Worriersf

theWorld. 19

fter

year assed,

inquired

about

how

things

ere

going

with he

ymposium,

nd he

responded

n

February

0,

1977,

you

will

recall

that

we

agreed

t

would

not be

appropriateitheroryouor for s toprint our ieceas it was.We also

agreed

hat

we should

publish

yourpiece

in

conjunction

ith nother

taking

more

ympathetic

pproach.

haven't

ursued

his o

far,

ut

'll

do

that ow

f

you

want

me

to.

Another

ear

hen

went

y

without

ny

word f

resolution.

rustrated

y

he

nterminable

elay

nd

mindfulf

the

mounting

ew material

n Arendt

hat

would

have to be

taken

nto

account

n

nyupdated

ersion

f

he

aper,

wrote

o

Phillips

elling

im

that nother

ournal,

AlvinGouldner's

Theory

nd

Society,

would

be

happy

o

bring

t ut

fhe didn't

want t.

On March

0, 978,

e

responded

with onsiderablerritation,nsistinghat t stillbelonged oPartisan

Review:

We

have nvested

lot

of time

n

your

iece,

ncluding

iscus-

sions

t

ditorial

eetings

nd

ffortso

get

nother

iece

o

go along

with

it

a lotmore

ime han

nyone

lse

couldhave.

To shorten

hat s

already

robably

etting

obe

too

ong

tale,

the

ssay

did

finallyppear

nPR ater

n1978

long

with rebuttal

hose

author

only

earned

hen twas

published:

eon

Botstein,

y

hance n

old friend

rom

myhigh

chool

days

his

older ister

eing

n

my

lass at

Bronx

cience).

He was

an

appropriate

hoice

becauseof

Arendt' close

relationso Bard

College,

whose

presidency

otstein ad

ust

assumed.

Her second

husband

einrich lcher

ad taken

p

a

teaching osition



9/14

50

MARTIN JAY

there

n

1952 and her ashes were

buriedon its

ground.Losing

its

original

title,

The Political

Existentialismof Hannah

Arendt,

my

paper

was

turned nto

merely

halfof

Hannah Arendt:

Opposing

Views

and

all

my

notes

were

dropped.20

Botstein and

I

went

through

notherround

in

a

subsequent

ssue,

and

then

he

controversy

ied a natural eath.21 his is

not thetime o thrash ut the ssues

dividing

us

again

or

reply

o

the

other

critiques

made

by subsequent

eaders

f the

ssay,

which

n

fact

generated

morecontroversyhanvirtually nything have written.22

Phillips

had

in

factbeen

right

hat he

essay

was a

provocation,

and with

hindsight

nd

in

the

light

of

some of Arendt'

posthumous

publications,

think would

modify

few

of its formulations. ut

I

also

can't

suppress

a certain

feeling

of satisfaction t the fact that t contains

perhaps

he

first erious

ttempt

o situateArendt

n

the ontext f German

Existenzphilosophie,

putting

the

spotlight

on her

profound

debt

to

Heidegger. Only

laterwith he

publication

f

Young-Bruehl's biography

and the etters etween Arendt

nd her eacher/lover as thefull

depth

of

theirbond, emotional as well as intellectual, evealed.23By now that

relationship

has

become

itself ne of the most

widely

discussed

in

20th-

century

hilosophy

witheven a

play

dedicated to

it called Hannah and

Martin

by

Kate

Fodor,

which was

produced

at the

Epic

Theater

n New

York several

years go.

Some of the

ommentary

as,

n

fact,

mplified

he

qualms expressed

back

nthe eventies.24 ut at the ime he

depth

f their

involvement

was

unknown,

nd

indeed had been

deliberately

ccluded

whenArendt

omposed

her

pologetic

80th

irthday

ribute

o

Heidegger.25

Rather than dwell on

my

own

attempt

o come to

grips

with

Arendt' legacy, to which I have returned n a numberof subsequent

occasions

with

onsiderable

ambivalence,26

want to focus

on what

this

little

episode

has to tell

us about the

way

in

which PR under

Phillips

operated.

What is obvious about

the

context nto

which

my

essay

was

placed

was

that t

was

alreadyhighly

harged

by

prior

vents bout which

I had little

knowledge

and less

responsibility.Although

all intellectual

fields re

nevitably re-structured,

hat

f

theNew York ntellectualswas

especially replete

with heresidues

of

previous

onflicts,

ersonal

as well

as

intellectual,

whichmade

t

mpossible

o enterwithout

etting

ffhidden

landmines.

Perhaps

because itwas located

by

and

large

outside of the

university ystem

n

non-academic

magazines

like

PR,

the nsecurities f



10/14


11/14

52

MARTINJAY

his

career,

anging

rom he

biding

iants

f his

age

Sartre,

amus,

Orwell,

ellow,Lowell,

chapiro,

nd,

f

course,

Arendt

erself

tothe

innumerable

maller

ry

hosenames ave

now

begun

ofade.

Although

it would

be

disingenuous

o

deny

smallfrisson

f

excitement

n

being

only

few

egrees

f

eparation

rom hat

eady ompany,

t s also

hard

to avoid

cknowledging

he

danger

f

a kind

f

cronyism

hat an

result

fromoo ntimate

n

cquaintance

ith he ften

emanding

nd

unforgiv-

ing rima onnas f he ita ontemplativa.hen hillipshowedArendt

Abel's

attack efore

twas

published

nd hen

gonized

verher emand

it

be

rejected,

e violated he

normal

ulesof disinterested

cholarly

debate.And

when he amented

hat

is

ontrary

ecision

howed

lackof

respect

or er s a

person

nd s a

serious

writer,

specially

ecause

he

journal

wed

her

consideration,

t was clear that

or ll her

vaunted

celebration

f

agonistic

iscourse

n the

public

realm,

Arendtwas

not

prepared

o

et he etter

rgument

inwithout

ulling

few

trings

ehind

the cene.

Itwould, fcourse, enave obelieve hat onflictn the ealm

of

deas

s

any

ess

riven

with

ersonal

imensions,

ften

etty

nd self-

serving,

han

t s

elsewhere,

ut

New

York ntellectual

ulture

xacer-

bated

heir

mpact.

he macho

posturing

hatwas so much

part

f

the

world

f abstract

xpressionist

ainting

uring

he

heyday

f

Jackson

Pollock was

no less

prevalent

n the

iterary

um

political

world

hat

thrived

n the

pages

of thePartisan

Review.

As

Phillips

imself

ame

to

recognize,

In the

hirties,

henNew York

iterary

anners

eredevel-

oped,

we were

brawling

ommunity,veryonerying

o

mpose

is

views

oneveryonelse bysheer orce f ogicandrhetoric,hichwas often

merciless.

We had

not

yet

earned

he

academicmode of

ignoring

r

accommodating

o deas

we found

epugnant. 29

Although

'm

not

ure cademic

ulture

lways

hovers

hat

igh

above

the

ray,

he

ntensely

ersonalized

nd nternecine

arfare

hose

repercussions

ould

till e felt

ven

by

latecomer

s hors e combat

s

I

myself

id set

hehothouse

artisan

Reviewworld

part.

hatworld s

clearly

n the

wane,

ven

f

magazines

ike he

ne

you

re

now

reading

carry

n

many

f

ts most

audablefeatures.

ut it wouldbe

wrong

o

identifytsfadingwith hat f ntellectualigortself. artisanshipnd

scholarship

re not

nherentlypposing

alues,

nor re the

protocols

f



12/14


13/14

54

MARTIN JAY

assessments f Arendt nd

Adomo,

which

gets beyond

he

pettiness

f their

ersonal

interactions,

ee

Dirk

Auer,

ars

Rensmann

ndJulia

chulze

Wessel,

Arendtnd Adorno

(Frankfurt,003).

Berlin's

ostility

s elaborated

n

Michael

gnatieff,

saiah Berlin:

A

Life

(New

York,

998),

.

253. He calledTheHuman

Conditionhemost verratedook

ofthe

past eventy-fiveears

cited

n

Newsweek,

ebruary

, 1977,

.

72).

10

Phillips,

Partisan

View,

.

108.

11

bid

1

Lionel

Abel,

The

ntellectualollies:A Memoir

f

he

iterary

enturenNew York nd

Paris

New

York,

1984),

p.

274-275

emphasis

n

original).

13 Cited

n

Young-Bruehl,

annah

Arendt,

.

359.

According

o

Phillips, oung-Bruehl's

account

f he ncident as neither

ull or orrect

A

Partisan

View,

.

109),

but edoesn't

deny

his etter rom

MacDonald.Abel lso had

ualms

bout

er ersion fthe vents

The

ntellectual

ollies,

p.

277-278).

14

Young-Bruehl,

annah

Arendt,

.

360.

rving

owe's recollection

f he

meeting

anbe

found

n

Partisan

Review,

XXXI,

2

(Spring,

964),

.

260.

He denies he laim

by

Mary

McCarthy

hat he

pponents

shouted own

ach other.

15

Phillips,

Partisan

View,

.

110.

16

Phillips

etter

o

Mary

McCarthy,

artisan

Review,

XXI,

2

(Sping,

964),

.

278.

17

Silber,

Tributes

oWilliam

hillips,

artisan

eview, XX,

2

(Spring,

003),

p.

221

18 Letter rom

William

hillips,

anuary

9,

1976.

19 Allen

Kurzweil,

Tributes

oWilliam

hillips,

artisan

eview,

XX,2

Spring,

003),

p.

198.

20 Partisan

Review,

LV,

3

(1978).

My essay

was

republished

ith henotes nd

original

title

n

Permanent

xiles:

Essays

on the ntellectual

igration

rom

Germany

oAmerica

(New

York,

985).

21 Partisan

Review, LVI,

2

(1979),

ollowed

y

translated

oem

by

Ludwig

Greve

ent

to the

ournal

yMary

McCarthy.

22

See,

for

xample,

he

ritiques y

Marizio

asserin

'

Entreves,

odernity,

ustice nd

Community

Milan, 90),

p.

1 2-

7;

Dana

R.

Villa,

Arendtnd

Heidegger:

heFate

of

he

Political

Princeton,

996),

.

155-156.

23 Foroneattempt,ontroversialn tsownright,o make enseof their elationship,ee

Elzbieta

ttinger,

annahArendt-Martin

eidegger

New

Haven,

995).



14/14

Force

Fields

55

24 The most extensive

xpression

f these

qualms

can be

found

n

Richard

Wolin,

Heidegger's

Children: annah

Arendt,

arl

Lowith,

ans

Jonas,

nd HerbertMarcuse

(Princeton,

001).

25

Arendt,

Martin

eidegger

t

80,

NewYork

eview

f

Books,

7,6

October,

97

;

the

original ppeared

wo

years

arlier

n

Merkur.

26

See,

for

xample,

Women

n

Dark

Times:

Agnes

Heller ndHannahArendt

nd

The

Aesthetic

deology'

s

Ideology:

r

What

Does it Mean

to

Aestheticize

olitics?,

orce

Fields:Betweenntellectual

istory

ndCultural

ritique

New

York,

993),

nd

Afterword:

Reflectiveudgmentsna Conference hat s NowHistory, nHannahArendt ndthe

Meaning

f

Politics,

ds.

Craig

Calhoun nd JohnMcGowan

Minneapolis,

997).

27

RgisDebray,

eachers,Writers,

elebrities,

rans. avid

Macey

London,

981).

28

See,

for

xample,

ussell

Jacoby,

heLast

ntellectuals: merican

ulturen

the

Age

of

Academe

New

York,

987).

29

Phillips,

Partisan

View,

.

298.

Jay, M. - Intellectual Family Values

Documents

Transcript of Jay, M. - Intellectual Family Values