A new movement is on the rise in your town; one seeking to overthrow and disrupt the current establishment. You are reluctant to join but give in because others you know join because it is for a cause; however you are immediately told a specific person holds authority over this movement and all orders from them are to be carried out without question because what they do is for the people. In Dostovesky’s novel Demons, the Pyotr Stepanovich acts as both an unpredictable and dangerous leader of his movement but also poses as a unifier amongst the masses, therefore this supports Arent’s model of a single figure being indispensable to a totalitarian movement. Throughout the novel, Pyotr gains influence over those who join the movement, but Pyotr abuses his growing power making him a dangerous individual who often plots schemes and tricks others. He even goes as far as to plot assassinations but his leadership remains crucial to the movement. In Arendt’s book The Origins of Totalitarianism, she says a leader of a totalitarian movement draws authority from the movement and organization so in a sense, makes them an “agent” or “impersonator” of the masses. In today’s political climate, people and even politicians start movements for causes they are passionate about, making themselves self proclaimed leaders. But a presence of authority must be maintained in order to carry out the goals of these movements.
When Nikolai returns to town, people gather around interested to see if the young noble has changed. Upon his return, Varvara asks Nikolai if Marya is his wife and he says yes which sparks discussion amongst those present. However, Pyotr steps in to explain the situation to everyone. In contrast to Pyotr, Lebyadkin fails at making the crowd understand the situation showing Pyotr’s social adeptness. This success to sway and (in Pyotr’s case) manipulate the crowd is key when it comes to controlling the masses. “The peculiar selflessness of the mass man appeared here as a yearning for anonymity, for being just a member and functioning only as a cog, for eerie transformation, in brief, which would wipe out the spurious identifications with specific types or predetermined functions within society.” (Arendt, 431) Here, Arendt is specifically talking about Hitler’s rise in popularity before the Nazi Regime was formed. Hitler was like any other German citizen after the first World War. What made him so popular with the masses was he resonated with a lot of other Germans along with his great skills as a speaker, similar to Pyotr. Lebyadkin had his opportunity to sway the crowd but Pyotr was far better with his words. You could say Pyotr was more charismatic and appealing which helped him win over the crowd. And this is the point Arendt is making. Arendt is mapping out the reason for Hitler’s success in swaying the people because he connected with them and was a great speaker. The same can be said for Pyotr’s rise in popularity. Pyotr was just another member of the movement like everyone else in the room, only he knew how to persuade everyone. Starting a totalitarian movement requires charisma / persuasion in order to be one with masses. Hitler’s and Pyotr’s success at this shows how crucial these skills are to form and lead a totalitarian movement.
Leave a Reply