Social Realms

Social Versus Political Realms: Drawing the Line
In the modern world in which we live, there usually should be two different and distinct realms. The first one, known as the social realm, is where the normal citizens live and is focused more on how we treat other people react with the world around them. The social realm is more the way the average populace is impacted by the laws, actions that come from the government, or events that occurred; focused more on the emotional responses or personal issues that the citizens may be suffering through or going through. This also includes rebellion; the government would be very displeased if the citizens started an uprising intended to overthrow the government for something potentially life threatening

they did.
On the other end of the spectrum, the political realm exists for everyone who is not included in the general populace. The political realm normally consists of leading officials involved in government, their interactions with other people, or any documents or laws passed amongst them and their relevance to the government. The only reason why the social and political realms should overlap is when voting for the president, because obviously our democracy requires us to vote for our government officials such as our president. But for whatever reason, the line between social and political has begun to blur.
Potentially, the reason the line has become blurred may because of the media’s coverage of the political issues in our country.

Nowadays, whenever some political figure says something dumb, the press takes what they said usually out of context and feeds it right into the mouth of the public. Arendt discusses a little bit and decided that the rise of society and the interior of the property and how it looks to the public sphere has blurred the lines more and more between this social realm and the political realm. This being the case, because of society arising, the definition of both the social and political realms have changed so greatly over the years that they have become unrecognizable and their part in society has changed as well. But whatever the reason for this, Arendt suggests that we should make a clearer distinction between these realms. But

how?
The blur between the social and political can also be shown by this quote in Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition, where she mentions Thomas Aquinas:
The profound misunderstanding expressed in the Latin translation of "political" as "social" is perhaps nowhere clearer than in a discussion in which Thomas Aquinas compares the nature of household rule with political rule: the head of the household, he finds, has some similarity to the head of the kingdom, but, he adds, his power is not so "perfect" as that of the king. (Arendt 27)
Even though Latin seems to be ignorant to the fact that this distinction between political and social realms should exist, does not mean that they should not exist or that they are not needed. Arendt explains that there should be a distinction between public and private life and political spheres because that is the way it has always been, all the way back to ancient city states. She then continues to discuss how the actual social realm did not come to be until the modern age.
In one of the notes at the bottom of her book she notes how “The distinction is most obvious in the case of slaves who, though without property in the ancient understanding (that is, without a place of their own), were by no means property-less in the modern sense.” (Arendt 62)
This just shows how even though you may not be the king of a kingdom, you can still own property and may not be considered poor. Social and political realms became separate because they needed to be, because every man’s house is a kingdom but politically, people need the government to be separate.
Arendt was afraid that if the social realm and the political realm were not divided equally in the way they should be, that they would both become destroyed and that neither one could live without the other. She also believed that the economic realm mixed with the social realm would bring down the political realm.
But the problems of the world may merely not be just political, or social, or even private. The debate on whether the problems are worthy of being called social or political has in turn turned this into a political issue. For example, there are some problems such as a serial killer being loose on the streets of a major city that falls into two categories. This falls into the social realm because this is based on an interaction between one person and his impact on the victim’s lives. This may also follow a political realm path because it may impact the lives of several political figures, and even the lives. But what is the point of this comparison?
This is one example where the realms are not distinguishable or the lines between the realms may become blurred. This is important because it shows that it may not always be a fine line between the different realms.
Even though there may be many examples in the world we live in where the lines become blurred, this done not make Arendt’s theory of political and social realms any less valid. For one, as aforementioned, one reason she wants the political and social realms to stay separate is because they have stayed separated for thousands of years. The social and political realms have stayed separate ever since the times of Mayan and Aztec civilizations.
Another reason the two realms of politics and social interactions are separated is because the modern and every day humans that live their own lives, deserve to be separate from all of the nonsense and messiness of politics.

Arendt believes this method of separation because she lived in a time where social and political realms were blurred to the max. During World War II, the lines between social and political became immensely blurred because of Adolf Hitler’s reign of tyranny.
Many philosophers throughout time may have similar ideas to those of Arendt’s, but John Locke seems like the most prevalent philosopher to have relatable ideas to Arendt. John Locke believes in reason, which may explain why the social and political realms should be separate in the order of society. Locke also believes that these two ideas and realms are found on reason.
Arendt believes that the social and political realms should be separate for a few different reasons. For one, she lived in a time where these realms of society became blurred with the rise of the tyrannical Hitler. She also believes this because it is the way it has always been done. Locke’s ideas are based on reason, which would lead him to understand why this idea of separation of realms would make a lot of

sense.