Abstract This research paper examined the relationship between the concept of and Hannah Arendt’s life experiences and the sense of belonging in her sense with based on the concepts of ‘’worldliness’’and ‘’rootedness’’. This study mainly focused on Hannah Arendt’s life, relationship, experiences and their comparison with her studies on human and politics as essence of being a part of human beings and the fact of ‘’living together’’ as a social being with its outcomes and necessities. This study was carried out with the intention of creating a synthesis as Hannah Arendt’s concepts and the life experiences studies separately in many studies. For creating a synthesis between both of them, some psychological approaches, hypothesis and theories also used. Key Words: Belongingness, Loneliness, Rootedness, Worldliness. Introduction In this paper, I shall try to analyze the concept and bases of ‘’rootedness’’ and ‘’worldliness’’ in the thought of Hannah Arendt. First I would like to share that what are my starting points and why I wondered these concepts. During my Hannah Arendt readings, I realize that she doesn’t have any nationality or not much emotionality belonging and always keeps her distance from the ideologies and keeps her objectivity. These points make her thought stronger in my opinion. The lack of strong belongings expands her field of thinking. Although I identify myself with ideology and not against the identity politics in some cases, her way of thinking and its quality made me impressed. However, I wonder that which circumstances, events, and decisions leads that rootedness and wordiness, lack of belonging except her friends as she says ‘’I have never in my life ‘loved’ any people or collective group, neither the German people, the French, the Americans, nor the working class or anything of that sort. I indeed love only my friends, and the only kind of love I know of and believe in is the love of persons.’’ (Arendt, Jew As Pariah, pages: 246/47, Google Scholar.). My arguments come from a psycho-historical background. I claim that there is a connection between her life’s significant and her concept of ‘’rootedness’’ and ‘’worldliness’’. In order to investigate that argument, I use a sort of comparative method. I shall both use secondary sources especially about her biography and I shall try to pair her life cycle with her own work. That comparative method is going to reach an answer for how her turning points and experiences affected her thought, point of view and also the behaviors and approach to these two concepts related to the sense of belongingness. One of the key sources I used in that study is Elizabeth Young-Bruehl’s ‘’For Love of the World’’, Julia Kristeva’s ‘’Female Genius: Hannah Arendt’’ and the Julia Kristeva’s ‘'Hannah Arendt: Life is a Narrative.’’ for the part of researching Hannah Arendt’s biography with the aim of synthesizing it with her thought, concepts, and senses. The other major sources mentioned and used will be from Arendt’s works like the ‘’The Human Condition ’’ and there will be more other primary sources. Analyze First of all, I shall start by trying to explain the concepts of ‘’worldliness’’ and ‘’rootedness’’ for Arendt as far as I understand from the readings that I have done until today, especially with reference to her conceptualizing in the ‘’Human Condition’’.‘’Worldliness’’ is sort of an attachment both socially and physically. Arendt herself defines the concept of ‘’Worldliness’’ as: ‘’Work provides an ‘’artificial’’ world of things, distinctly different from all-natural surroundings. Within its borders, each individual life is housed, while this world itself şs meant to outlast and transcend them all. The human condition of work is ‘’worldliness’’.’’ (Arendt, The Human Condition, page:7, The University of Chicago.) At that point, George Kateb underlines that ‘’Freedom and worldliness can serve as the terms that stand for what Arendt prizes most. She regularly connects them; she sees them as dependent on each other.’’ (Kateb, Political Theory, Sage Publications, page: 142.) What I understand from Kateb’s words and its synthesis with Arendt’s concept of wordiness I argue that according to Arendt the real-life and the work part starts when we are able to go beyond obligations and burdens that modern society pushes us. Another critical point in Kateb’s words is the ‘’ danger’’ to me. In addition to Kateb, I understand that Arendt underlines that freedom is a dangerous thing, not a comfort zone, leisureliness is differing from freedom from Arendt’s point of view and, is the worldliness dangerous may be also worths to think on to me. Cause again she says in Human Condition ‘’The fact that one is not sure of himself or does not believe in himself completely is the price he pays for freedom.’’ There is a key to the necessity of spontaneity and its cost at the same time. However, the price (I am afraid that is a calculative method of expressing my ideas ) brings the beauty of living together according to her. I think there is a point from Arendt’s perspective in the concept of ‘’Worldliness’’, As she mentioned in Human Condition again, we are trying to survive on that planet. However there is a distinction; some of the homosaphiens live with the ‘’labor’’ among their lives but the ‘’essence of life’’ as I understand, borns with the effort of ‘’work’’ too. The earth we live in today and the earth that our ancestors lived has been having more and more things that labor gave us like the art, the science. Indispensable essence of wordiness to my understanding. Art and science also get into the sphere of labor but it losses its substance when its aim has changed according to Arendt. Before going deeper into the concept of ‘’worldliness’’ and its connections, fundamentals of Arendt’s life, I shall touch upon the concept of ‘’rootedness’’ to clarify both of the concepts for the coming discussion and findings. However before I clarify the rootedness, I want to mention one more conceptualization which I see a strong connection with the term of rootedness and worldliness. The concept of ‘’Loneliness’’ according to Arendt and how she defines loneliness in her words: ‘’.It bases itself on loneliness, on the experience of not belonging to the world at all, which is among the most radical and desperate experiences of man.’’ (Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism-Ideology and Terror, page: 475) As the wordiness and loneliness are strongly related, the loneliness shall be used in the coming parts. As the last man concept: Hannah Arendt defines the concept of rootedness: As having a “place in the world, recognized and guaranteed by others. I see one more important point about rootedness in Human Condition part: ’’Unpredictability and the Power of Promise’’ which is ‘’ The miracle that saves the world, the realm of human affairs, from its normal, ‘’natural’’ ruin is ultimately the fact of natality, in which faculty of actions is ontologically ‘’rooted’’. It is in other words, the birth of new men and the new beginning, they are capable of by virtue of being born.’’ (Arendt, The Human Condition, page: 247.) I understand that human beings are not just related to death, not just living its life with it, we also give births continuously. The lack of believing new beginnings and the ‘’ miracles’’ in Arendt’s words seems to a significance instinctual renunciation from the state of that rooted wordiness. In the ‘’Female Genius’’ the writer Julia Kristeve says: Arendt says: ‘’Social ‘’Semite-love’’ has always come to an end with political Antisemitism. Without a mysterious fanaticism, Antisemitism would have been a bit difficult to become the best slogan for organizing the masses.’’ (Arendt, Antisemitism, page:32.) And adds: ‘’According to Arendt, what had to be done was to analyze the psychological components of this hidden fanaticism in the universe.’’ As my question is coming from the feeling of belongingness, I want to go deep in the issue of ‘’fanaticism’’ and my assumptions on the origins of fanaticism and its relation with the feeling of ‘’belongingness’’. Then I shall compare what Hannah Arendt was in during the time she wrote them (1950) and try to make a connection between what happened and what was thought. As a human behavior, fanaticism leads the fanatic people to think their political party, football team, religion or ideology is the certainly best one, so there is a strong dogmatism here which Arendt always tried to avoid. While working on what leads us, people, to fanaticism, we ought to be careful about the distinction of fanaticism and the belonging in my opinion. Arendt herself is not rigidly against the community feeling. When we look the evolutionary psychology, us; as a social being, evaluated with living together and the sense of community and developing a feeling of belongingness to our community was one of the factors which determine whether we would survive or not. However one of the assumptions about how belonging turned into a fanaticism among time is bases on the growth of the population, starting to build cities and living in these big cities. With starting to live in big communities, there may be started conflict of different group’s interests. So this conflict could be open a psychological strong defense mechanism for the members of different groups. Because of that new mechanism, fanaticism may develop among time with human relations which have become more complex and still becoming more and more complex and polarized. When we look the times when Hannah Arendt wrote on fanaticism over social-love to a group and its terrible results, it points to 1950. To me, it is going to be healthier to look Arendt’s life during 1950 and a bit before 1950 together to understand better. In the ‘’For Love of the World’’ Elizabeth Young-Bruehl says that ‘’After its founding in 1948, Hannah Arendt became the president of the Restructuring of Jewish Culture, a position she held until 1952. .For Hannah Arendt, working with the Restructuring of Jewish Culture became a salve in the grisly final years of the war. However, providing a homeland for Jewish cultural objects did not alleviate her sense of homelessness (heimatlos).’’ (Young-Bruehl, Dünya Aşkıyla, page: 320-21.) It is seen here, Arendt also had a political stance/point and all of her life is about giving her political points accounts to the world however that point which Elizabeth Young showed up is very important to understand Hannah Arendt’s sense of belonging. ‘’The sense of heimatlos’’ never decrease, she worked hard in the community, made a huge effort but the results or the sense of winning in some cases has never satisfied her lack of sense being rooted in somewhere. There is one sentence from Arendt’s poet which is written in 1946 and explains a lot of things, the last sentence: ‘’It is good for those who are not the homeland, at least to see it.’’ So that gloom which is reflected in her poet brings a question: We see her objectivity and lack of belongingness as o good thing in order to her academic life and paradigm, the point of view to things and phenomenons but the personal effects of these is another question. The friendship and her closeness, feelings about her friends are significant as I mentioned in the introduction part with reference to ‘’The Jew as Pariah’’ with her words. However, for Hannah Arendt during and immediately after the war, it was usual to meet American Jews whose political beliefs were close to her and read her writings admirably but after 1948 the situation began to change; their friendship and devotion did not last during the era of Jewish nationalism. As I mentioned before, she started to account for her thought about her political standing in her life. One important point to say about her belongingness among her life bases on the dialog between Hannah Arendt and Mary McCarty. McCarty and Arendt had met in 1944. However they had a friendship crisis on McCarty’s approach to one point, I think that is important to understand Arendt’s sense of belonging. The issue became with a dialog of McCarty’s in the spring of 1945 with a group of her friends about the French attitude towards the Germans invading Paris and she says something like she felt sorry for Hitler, who was nonsense enough to wait for the victims' love. As a reaction, Hannah Arendt says: ‘’How can you tell me something like this to someone who was a victim of Hitler and stayed in a concentration camp?’’ As we know Hannah Arendt was not talking too much about her concentration camp experience in her daily life. However beyond the feeling about belonging there are experience and trauma which is so possible to handle. Hannah Arendt questioned the depictions of evil on the Nazis, and in modern times, evil was identified with Nazism, although we think that the phenomenon of evil is no longer a sin. This means being subject to the same essence. In other words, the appearance of the single essence has come to reality. Arendt said the greatest thing the Nazis had done was to end human existence. But how was this termination? Killing them would not end existence and differentiate it from historical events. Because all societies in history have attacked the origins to protect their authority and have not hesitated to commit genocide for their own acceptance. What the Nazis did was to keep man from his autonomy. To destroy their self-esteem by disguising them in the same form and disguise as others. To do so, the Nazis stripped their prisoners naked and forced them to shower, go to the toilet and sleep in the same environment, regardless of age, sex or nudity. Thus, by eliminating the essence of human self-separation from society, she would terminate their existence. In this perspective, the role of women in society can also be an invisible continuity of the true phenomenon of evil. Because, unlike her own self, the woman is expected to carry the characteristics of the identification number and name put by society. Thus, the self-conscious decision-making mechanism is left to the auto-control of someone from the very beginning, and in the same way, as Nazism did to the prisoners; it places them in the role of being “women as a” prisoner ”role. Thus, the woman will be forced to remain independent of her self-awareness and control throughout her life. Because, even though she believes that she has his own self-consciousness and control, this election will not be able to become an election post within the role given to her by society. I would like to extend my analysis here, including an important psychological argument of Sigmund Freud. The ‘’Energy Hypothesis’’. Freud claims that with reference to structure of the ID, Ego and the Super-Ego; as much as you repress the things which your unconscious part keeps it inside, the things dangerous or something you don’t want to remember, your energy for repressing take away your energy needed for other essential things bot intellectually and for the daily life. The connection between the ‘’Energy Hypothesis’’ and Arendt’s conversation is that the repressed things come out sooner or later if we think the unconscious repression like squeezing clothes into wardrobe, as much as you squeeze the clothes, your arms needed to show more power, effort to keep them in wardrobe, I see that conversation between McCarty and Arendt is a point which Arendt’s arms had became tired. In relation to all of these, Julia Kristeva says: ‘’Hannah Arendt who is far from being a ‘’professional thinker’’ puts her thought into action in her own life: ‘’There is a side of this specific Arendtian character that provokes us to see something unique to women. Because it is said that bast repression bast (in the Freudian sense) is problem problematic for the woman and therefore they are prevented from being isolated in the obsessive castles of pure thought, in which the men successfully struggle and are firmly attached to the reality of their bodies and their relations with the others.’’ (Kristeva, Hannah Arendt: Yaşam Bir Anlatıdır, page: 10.) The Freudian sense mentioned here is pointing out the Energy Hypothesis into my understanding because Julia Kristeva claims that the repression mechanism keeps away women from thinking. As the society that we live in is patriarchal, there are many things to fight with for women, the pressure of family, society, relationships, and authorities, make women busy with repressing their wills and pressure that they exposed. As Arendt says and Virginia Woolf underlines thinking both needs space and time which totally belong to a person. It needs singleness. The gender roles that society imposes on women are the most important factors preventing women from having this space and time. So women’s ‘’ arms’’ in my metaphor, work harder and harder in comparison with men’s. However, being of Hannah Arendt itself is a value for showing that women may be in the sphere of politics and philosophy. Hannah Arendt, with the opportunity to learn from philosophers who are accepted as an authority in the history of philosophy and with the important studies she has done, has shown that a woman has the opportunity to go beyond this suppressive basic role as an important thinker by stripping out of the suppressive basic acceptance and role that a woman cannot think. While making this research on the concept of belongingness in the thought of Arendt. It is unavoidable to touch upon her article of ‘’We Refugees’’ which she wrote after she went to the United States. I argue that every world she used in that article is worth to discuss, analyze and being seen, especially on that world's politics conjuncture. While bureaucracy and society are too much busy with the ‘’refugee crisis (!) ’’The story of our struggle has finally become known. We lost our home, which means the familiarity of daily life. We lost our occupation which means the confidence that we are of some use in this world. We lost our language, which means naturalness of reactions, the simplicity of gestures, the unaffected expression of feelings. We left our relatives in the Polish ghettos, and our best friends have been killed in concentration camps, and that mens the rupture of our private life.’’ (Arendt, We Refugees, 1943.) The word ‘’familiarity’’ is very important here to understand the lack of belongingness. The concept of ‘’rootedness’’ got lost with their other loss. As human beings, when we lost our comfort zone with the familiarity, our defense mechanisms got confused and got difficulties during the process of adaptation, when we add psychological violence that people who lost their rootedness in their life as ‘’other’’ existing itself became harder. With respect to the concept of ‘’worldliness’’ loss of confidence that we are of some use in this world is a huge process. As an existence without that feeling is brings depression. The result of that lack is similar to attachment problems in infants. The world and the nature that we live in are our mothers, we are the children of them and as we got a problem with the attachment, we already alienated our existence in it. Conclusion and Discussion In this research study, I tried to avoid the most popular and known milestones for Hannah Arendt as much as possible. Like always pointing out the concentration camp experience or the deaths and losses which is well-known and people had already written on and based Arendt’s thoughts on them continuously. I think that could not be a contribution but my aim was touching to points and making their synthesis with the psycho-analytical perspective on not well-known cases. This research shows that the life experience of Hannah Arendt brought the feeling of belongingness and strength to the relationship and attachment of Arendt to her friends. During the literature review for that research, I couldn’t find any psychobiography of Hannah Arendt. There are some sources like Julia Kristeva’s ‘’Female Genius’’ and the Elisabeth Young-Bruehl’s ‘’For Love of the World’’ which uses some psychoanalytical methods to understand Arendt’s life. However, in my opinion, a psychobiography as a source is one of the most important sources while trying to understand one’s life and thought. For the next studies, a psychobiography may a key study for the academy I think.