Discussion: Arendt's "Banality of Evil"

In 1961, political theorist Hannah Arendt attended the Jerusalem trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the foremost executors of the Holocaust. Her subsequent report of the trial, published in the New Yorker in 1963, stirred controversy for multiple reasons, the most enduring of these being her repeated description of Eichmann as a banal figure. The supposed singularly vile man who could help perpetrate a genocide as he did was not necessarily vicious or even hateful — he was rather an unimpressive, bureaucratic, doltish clown.

In this Meetup, we will discuss Arendt's account of both the trial and Eichmann's role in the Holocaust. We will also discuss the term "banality of evil" and its fame, its lasting impression on the public.

Here are just a few motivating questions to keep in mind:
Why does Arendt's sketch conflict with popular notions of what evil is?
What are the implications of this conflict, especially in terms of our ability to recognize evil?
What role does organization, hierarchy, or bureaucracy play in the diffusion of responsibility for evil acts?

(Note: I plan to upload an excerpt later on from the book Eichmann in Jerusalem where the idea behind the term "banality of evil" is most relevant.)