I thought I’d take the opportunity presented by the pause between preparing/eating dinner and now to put a few words together and fulfil “a meaning to do”.
Reading Tiso’s now not-so-recent post on the return of Italian Fascism I was returned to my own study of politics, and reminded that although there is a tendency to see something like the development of a political movement as a discrete event, it is better expressed as a coalescing of already extant attitudes and norms within a society. I’ll try to unpack that slowly within the limited time I have.
A “becoming” is likely the best description of the rise of any movement, whether it be fascism, communism, or economic liberalism, because a political movement cannot exist without the support provided by followers, adherents, and leaders. There’s nothing new in saying that politics do not exist in a vacuum, right? Further, there is nothing new in saying that government and governance is a way of restraining people’s natures, and of preventing the more extremes of inhumane behaviour people routinely exhibit. What’s interesting to me is that within both these ideas is the kernel of what people and their societies can become.
It is a usual stereotype of conservatives that they fear other people. They worry about the protection of their property and act in accordance with the need to protect it, even at the expense of personal freedoms. Liberals on the other hand are frequently stereotyped as worrying about their rights and freedoms, and act to prevent society from limiting them. While these are both caricatures of modern left and right, and could do with substantial elaboration, they both serve the purpose of exhibiting in XKCD-style simplicity the potential for a society to pick two poles between which it will acceptably change to become something other.
The thing is, while these two poles have been the predominant political forces at contest in the West since the collapse of Soviet Communist, they are far from Fukuyama’s claim of being the only game in town. Varieties of political meme range across the spectrum, and although Communism and Fascism don’t feature very high on the popularity stakes, they are still present and active within our society, and many other societies. What Tiso’s post and ongoing commentary shows us is that something like Fascism is actually not too far from the top of the menu feeding popular appetites, and that if other alternatives are not satisfying the people, then… Hello, Mr Roman Salute.
My metaphors are starting to head west here, but the body politic is not a coherent object. Any body politic is necessarily a pastiche of distinct parts, each with its own utility. This means that some are Frankensteins, others are clay golems, and some are cosmetically super-enhanced whores; with all offering the opportunity to become, to transform, into something other that what they were designed to be, or serve. The word itself reveals why this is the case. Be-Come. Be-ing, the static but continuous present, and come-ing, the continuous future. Any body politics is both what we desire it not to be, while also not being that thing.
Hold on… just ducking off to put the potatoes on.
Right. Back. So… where were we? Ah, yes. Fascism. Like any political movement, Fascism exits because it is component part of the construction of the body politic. You don’t (yet) find or hear of many genuine Fascist movements in the African nations or in the Pacific Islands because the ideology, and its necessary memes, don’t find a home in the way those societies organise themselves (I stand to be corrected there). But were these places to adopt the right types of precursor, for instance industrialisation and consequent strong socio-cultural separation of worker and owner of means of production, then the possibility for Fascism to become present could exist.
It is not a commonly known fact that there was in the 1920s and 30s every chance that either the UK or the USA could also have assumed Fascist regimes. Both could have become Fascist had historical events not prevented the emergence of this body politic out of the turmoil of the Great Depression. That they did not is a quirk of history for the buffs, and an object lesson on what to look for when your nation is becoming something other than what you would wish it to be.
I think where all this is leading me is the statement that I am unsurprised by the continuing rise of fascism in Italy, just as it appears to be doing in modern Germany. Further, there remains the possibility that, while contemporary OECD countries continue to own the precursors of Fascism within their body-politics, the movement could rear its head anywhere in what are currently liberal democracies. Because, as George Mosse has shown, it was a liberal democracy that gave us “the worst” Fascist regime the world has seen, so far.
29 June, 2009 at 10:23 pm
‘The word itself reveals why this is the case. Be-Come. Be-ing, the static but continuous present, and come-ing, the continuous future. Any body politics is both what we desire it not to be, while also not being that thing’
Maybe it’s the vinos I had this evening, but I found this bit particularly life-enhancing.
30 June, 2009 at 7:57 am
that bit was my nod to deleuze and guattari (sp?).
read capitalisam and schizophrenia after a wine. it’ll turn your head inside out.
29 June, 2009 at 11:45 pm
I think you have omitted one crucial element: Catholicism. Fascism originated and thrived in Catholic countries or regions: Italy, Spain, Bavaria, Austria. Fascism is a product of Catholicism’s misanthropic and authoritarian nature.
30 June, 2009 at 12:06 am
Russia also didn’t feature on your list of countries where fascism might be felt to be more imminent or actual in emergence. It’s conceivable that memories of the war against the Nazis and a more politically educated populace might present a bulwark against it, but I’m not betting on that, given the behaviour of Putin & Co.
Also, following Paul’s point above, it would be worth considering the nature and potential contribution of the Russian Orthodox church to this.
Oh, and there’s been proto-fascism in Slovakia (and Hungary?) regarding gypsies/Roma people. And catholicism is pretty strong in Poland where they’ve got some intolerant attitudes in government too (see the new right-wing block being formed in the EU parliament by the British Conservatives in conjunction with the Poles).
Interesting piece though. Ta.
30 June, 2009 at 7:58 am
you’d have to assume that there were books discussing the relation between catholicism and fascism… hmmm. might have to check mosse’s back catalogue.
30 June, 2009 at 9:55 am
I’d hesitate to say that Fascism is a product of Catholicism. As a matter of historical record Catholicism held those particular countries and regions back – some more than others – which helped create the conditions in which Fascism could thrive. But Nazism did take hold in a country that wasn’t Catholic, I’m not sure you could call it a Bavarian-Austrian movement except in its inception. And conversely, France didn’t succumb. I think it’s a little more complicated than that.
I’m immensely fascinated by the process of becoming, at any rate, and in all those movements it involved manufacturing a past, with its attendant iconography, which in both Fascism and Nazism was not only not Catholic, but in fact pre-Christian.
Lega Nord in Italy (which to my mind is the true and more dangerous kernel of Fascism back home at the moment) did the same in the 1990s, inventing elaborate rites and instant traditions; it was both horrifying and fascinating to behold.
30 June, 2009 at 10:21 am
yeah, i think the (re)invention of the past is a product of the nationalistic side of authoritarian regimes, and not a product of authoritarianism itself.
another essential component of the body politic, i would say.