The Anarchy of Nazi Memorabilia: From Things of Tyranny to Troubled Treasure by Michael Hughes (review)

Abstract

academics and cultural figures during the Weimar era. These weaknesses limit the book’s utility for historians and cultural scholars of the period who are not expressly interested in one, some, or all of the philosophers that Chamberlain examines. The approach and tone of the book are uneven when read from an academic perspective. Frequently, Chamberlain inserts herself into the narrative with critiques of the quality of a philosopher’s prose or similar asides. In fact, this approach reinforces the general sense that Street Life and Morals is a piece of commentary rather than analysis. Even more jarring are the places in which Chamberlain admits to not understanding concepts or ideas presented by her sources. For example, in reference to Arendt’s widely contemplated post-war relationships with card-carrying Nazis Heidegger and Benno von Wiese, Chamberlain writes, “If I understand her rightly, this is why she could talk of forgiving the person but not the deed” (167). Of course, the minds of philosophers can be challenging, but here the intrusion of the author is disruptive to the overall effectiveness of the text. Similarly, at times the prose strays into concatenated, discursive, and/or derivative language that abounds with jargon and obstructs understanding for the non-specialist reader. Street Life and Morals: German Philosophy in Hitler’s Lifetime adds to scholarship that discusses the crisis of modernity and one of its catastrophic outcomes in World War II. As such, it offers valuable content and material for an advanced, general audience interested in or seeking a general overview of German philosophy during the first half of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, it does not live up to the promise of its title and leaves its subject matter analytically isolated and disconnected from the wider scholarship on the intellectual and cultural history of the period. This means that the book ultimately fails to go beyond its own boundaries and make a case for its relevance to scholars outside the history of ideas. Jeremy Best, Iowa State University