top of page
Writer's pictureArron Cockell

Fascism and the Ontology of Man


Fascism proves to be a term that has been stretched in every direction. In doing so, the accommodation of who constitutes a “fascist” has been extended to varying demographics. Today, the term fascist is often used to refer to individuals inclined towards authoritarianism; the far-right are fascists, xenophobic nationalists are fascists, even religious fanatics are fascists. Does this contemporary template use of fascism help us understand what underlines the initial inclination towards fascist ideology?


Historically speaking, there were only two fascist regimes that achieved any tangible sense of political power: Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. It is true that there remains debate around if it is possible to consider other regimes in this bracket – Franco’s Spain comes to mind – but that is a conversation for another day. Further, there is also discussion about what the structure of power is and why it matters for definition. As the American political scientist Robert O. Paxton has argued in what he refers to as an essay of fascist doctrine, the reason why these two regimes are so commonly used in fascist discourse is because of their relationship to power.[1] Paxton explains in his Anatomy of Fascism that it is difficult to determine the agency of the various other fascist organisations in the interwar period (1918-1939) due to their absence of political hegemony.[2] This is not wrong, and Paxton’s observations on these two regimes are essential for gathering a sense of how a fascist organisation maintains power – albeit short-lived – when it is in the respective position to do so. However, as the societal associations with fascism have shown, fascist discourse and identity is not necessarily restricted to tangible power. Our own openness – whether it is well measured or incendiary – to using fascism as a language invites a much-needed inspection of fascism as an existence.


I started my thesis with an insatiable itch to delve into recess of the human inclination towards fanaticism. Further, I wanted this lens to fall over masculinity primarily because of man’s predisposition towards extremity and the way in which this has been unfortunately oversimplified. Initially, I proposed the idea to examine the fanatical manifestations in art and propaganda in both communist and fascist doctrines within interwar Europe. To no surprise this scope was out of the question of a PhD programme as the sheer size of it would better suit a ten-year period of research, not a meagre three. However, the post has not been abandoned entirely. After revision and scrutiny, a distinct focus was put on fascism, yet in order to derive as much as possible from relevant source material, a case study was identified in British fascism. In all their mongrelised outfits – The British Union of Fascists (BUF), The Imperial Fascist League (IFL), The British Fascist(i) (BF), The Nordic League, The Link, The National Socialist League… and so on – the cohorts of British fascists all had at their root particularly strong relationships with the concepts of this article: rebirth and renewal.


Before diving into the pertinent relationship between fascism and rebirth, it is critical to briefly outline some of the working definitions scholars have to hand. Having these for reference will grant permissibility to discuss the article’s content matter purely in the context of fascism. Further, the definitions show how ingrained the concepts of rebirth and renewal are in fascist discourse. The premeditations and subconscious ruminations that lead to an adoption of a fascist typology have come to feature in the transformation of definition.


Definitions:

Two of the earlier models of what constitutes fascism come from the schools of totalitarianism and Marxism. In Hannah Arendt’s seminal work, The Origins of Totalitarianism she comes to draw the distinction between the authoritarian fascist (Fascist Italy in this case) and the totalitarian fascist (Nazi Germany).[3] Arendt acknowledges that the use of the term totalitarianism had to be somewhat revised due to Mussolini’s own symbolic use of the term. Fascism, she argues, was authoritarian in its praxis and had strong emphasis on the dictatorial character.[4] However, this did not necessarily mean it was totalitarian, which Arendt identifies solely in Nazism and Stalinism.[5] The key difference for Arendt was the way in which power was atomised within an acute group of individuals that formed a novel government.[6] The totalitarian model was then used to coerce a select population to inadvertently commit to the process of oppression that transcends the individual, eventually leading to the collective desire for world domination.


Similarly, Marxist definitions of fascism identify the concentration of power within a genus of individuals who also rely upon the coercion of a population. However, in contrast to the totalitarian model, the Marxist model of fascism is predicated upon the forceful acquisition of wealth and material. In the eyes of the Marxist historian, the fascist was the result of unremittent capitalist production. As Lewis Young and Roger Griffin highlight, fascism was anti-revolutionary in its nature and took its measures against a working-class population.[7] One text that is often cited to corroborate this underlying reason is Alfred Rosenburg’s The Myth of the 20th Century, in which he proposed a solution to the decadent cycles of Marxist revolutionary behaviour.[8] After the seizure of power, the fascists would maintain their position through nepotistic relationships with financial benefactors and aristocratic elites. In doing so, the fascist protected their existence from the emergence of reactionary class conflicts.

These two early theoretical variants have been thoroughly challenged – and reappropriated, which is particularly the case for Marxist definitions of fascism – in academia. It is not the intention of this article to hoist another criticism against them. Rather, the purpose is to discuss how the fascist typology developed in order to accommodate the constructs of rebirth and renewal. Moreover, it must be stated that these are not the two sole progenitors of a definition for fascism.[9] As tempting as it is to include further examples, the focus must remain on arriving where the definition is today.


It is evident from the two models of fascism discussed above that there were glaring limitations in what could be constituted as being fascist. With such definitions, the conversation of fascism was restricted to a binary: a discussion of the manifestation of power, and the discussion of the maintenance and use of power. However, as with anything worth niggling over, a conversation began about the character of fascism, the individual involved, and the existence of fascism as an entity separate from material and political constructs. One good example of the broadening of definition comes from Stanley G. Payne, a historian who has had his eye primarily over Spanish Falangism in the 1930s and beyond. In one of his later works A History of Fascism, Payne provides the reader with something that mirrors an anthology. From the findings made in his previous research and their contextualisation within the purpose of this text, Payne compiles a list of what comprises the fascist identity.[10] In doing so, the composites listed above that concern the individual are considered with greater attention. Aspects such as the physical spectacle of fascism, the inclination towards collective violence, and fascism’s portrayal of masculinity as a spiritually deprived shell are factored into Payne’s generic discourse on fascism.


In the same vein, the more recent speculation over the definition of fascism takes into consideration more nuanced paradigms. The broadening of how fascism is approached as a theory and ideology has meant its application to multiple schools of scholarship. Eliminationism and genocide, transnationalism, and gender studies are just some of the schools that have integrated a receptive model of a fascist definition in order to permit its use in whichever respective context.[11] With such flexibility comes a consequence; there remains absence of something definitive. However, all is not lost, and the historian Roger Griffin has drawn on a wealth of perspective to arrive at what is one of the most well-received definitions of fascism. His analysis of fascism acknowledges it as an ideology and as an existence.[12] The definition that Griffin has landed upon over decades of research and collaboration breathes even more life into the subject because it permits exploration of the phenomenological nuances that exist with fascism. Griffin argues that fascism at its root is a:

‘Genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism’[13]


Within this definition is the true promise of this article. Of course, the development of the definition on fascism still roars on, and rightly so. With each new development and paradigm comes a new discussion. The reason why Roger Griffin’s definition on fascism is so essential for this article is twofold. Firstly, it is the evidence of a shifting thought on consciousness and practice. From Griffin’s definition, the discussion steps out of the limited realm of power and into a place of ontology. Fascism is not arbitrary, and it is rooted in human reason and existence. This is a quite striking realisation as it forces one to contend with the existence of fascism within themselves. Secondly, the subtle extrapolations that Griffin makes in his definition lead historians further down the road of asking why. What fascism looks like and what its practices are has been well covered – Paxton is a clear example of this. However, why it manifests as it does and why it remains to be such a conflicting entity still prove to be labyrinths of explanation. There is one burning word in Griffin’s definition that invites the possibility of examining the questions of why: palingenetic.


Palingenesis – Rebirth and Renewal:

Palingenesis typically refers to a process of reincarnation. If something is a ‘palingenetic form’ then it is a model of this process of rebirth. As discussed above, the psychological ingredients that underpin fascism as an ideology have been factored more so into the historiography. However, in consideration of British fascism, only the surface has been scratched. It is evident from the research that good analysis has been drawn on the physical manifestation of the ideology, and this is particularly true regarding men.[14] However, if there is to be clarification on what the predispositions are in masculinity towards the allure of fascism, then there is also the need to apply the term palingenesis further to our analyses.


The palingenetic antidote of the fascist ideology impinged distinctly upon four psychological precepts: trauma, addiction, the proximity to death and suicide, and sexuality. Once again, there is the urge to claw at these four precepts separately, but it proves more purposeful for this paper to consult them as a composite clause.


What mutilation and chasm The Great War (1914-1918) left behind has been well documented and remains – for now – intact as a societal memory. The ways in which the impact of WW1 is approached in academia has shifted considerably. A debt of understanding is owed to the work done by psychologists and historians regarding the resultant trauma of the Vietnam War (1955-1975). What was referred to as malingering, cowardice, and symptomatic neuroses during WW1 were re-examined under the newly created framework of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Further, there was a conceptual revision of the relation between the severity of war and the unconscious neuralgia caused from it.


The clinical and empirical observations made on subconsciousness and unconsciousness were not new roads. During the interwar period the well-known Vienna Psychoanalytic Society was one of the first organisations to analyse the relationships between the composite clause mentioned above and war. Within this small circle that never exceeded past 150 members, the likes of Sigmund and Wilhelm Reich to name just a few, drew causal links between the dispositions present within man and his proclivity towards extreme ideology.[15] The findings made by the Viennese school, particularly on sexuality and addiction, proved to be uncomfortable, yet today psychoanalysis and the relation a human has with their own layers of consciousness is relatively well accepted.


Like their European fascist counterparts, the progenitors of British fascism sought out answers to their own psychological ruminations. Most of them were involved in war in a variety of ways: some acted as medical surgeons on the western front (Arnold Leese, Robert Forgan); some served in British regiments in South Africa (AK Chesterton, Henry Hamilton Beamish); whilst others volunteered in auxiliary positions (Mary Sophia Allen, Rotha Lintorn-Orman). Even for those who had no participation in WW1 still had a direct experience with tangible trauma. An example of this relationship with trauma stems from the suffragette Mary Richardson who became the BUF’s chief organiser of the women’s section of the party in 1934. In contrast to many of her fascist compatriots, she had not served in combat, but Richardson had a distinct experience with subjugation. During her hunger strike at HMP Holloway, she recalled in a statement a personal horror of forced-feeding and chemical torture.[16] In the letter Richardson displayed the immediate existential affinity the trauma had on her memory and agency. She wrote:


‘Sleeplessness is an accompaniment of the hunger strike, but more especially of forcible feeding, when one suffers from horrible nightmares and this in spite of the fact that medicines containing drugs to quiet the nerves are administered… It is therefore more than a wish or desire, it is an entreaty from me that you will stop this prison torture before this last stage of satanic statecraft is reached; this last fiendish element added to the torture of suffragist prisoners.’[17]


In the difficult search for meaning and reason – both conscious and unconscious – heads turned towards the allure of fascism. The offer of a possible rebirth away from the embedded memories of horror and torture held a distinct presence in the ideology. However, despite the lofty promises made by the fascist utopia, the psychopathologies could not be shaken, and with it came collective motifs commonly associated with fascism. Eliminationism, ethnocentrism, nationhood, and the volition over the outsider in the physical realm supplanted the individual existential ambiguities that so many members of the British fascist discourse had.


For man, the appeal of the fascist ideology during the interwar period was even more potent precisely because of the allure of rebirth. In an era where modernist design in art and sexuality eroded the ideals of the heroic, man’s meaning looked ever more dislocated. Other than in war and mutilation, the masculine position in existence was perceived to be waning. In addition to the European motifs of the time, the underlying composition of trauma, addiction, death, and sex, pushed him closer to the brink of disillusioning extremity. Despite the memorials dedicated to the hero of The Great War and the remedies offered in marriage, the incessant need for man to find his own meaning to the subconscious horror within his existence pushed him out to the folds of fascism.


Use and Theory:

To understand fascism is to understand man, and in order to understand the fascist man one must be willing to dive into his ontological apparatus. Many of the studies on masculinity adhere to sociological frameworks that insist upon using the overbearing existence of a patriarchy. In this patriarchy there is a hegemony that is characterised by a masculine oppression and the willing suppression of those who do not conform to the stratifications of male behaviour.[18] These theories are sometimes useful in highlighting how structural power can be maintained, but they are fundamentally difficult to apply to interwar fascist discourse, particularly in the case of British fascism. Firstly, a patriarchal structure is predicated upon the existence of a model where a select group of men maintain power over both women and those not who do not fit the normative niche of masculinity. Moreover, the maintenance of this power structure functions on the heterogeneous approval between male members within the given organisation. Without such a mechanism of approval there remains the potential of external interference from outside agents.


Those who were involved with fascism in the interwar period do not slide into this category without struggle. Firstly, the majority of men who were involved in fascist ideology came to face death after a relatively short timeframe since its inception in Europe.[19] Whether this was through involvement in war, suicide, derision, alcoholism, the man who bought into fascist ideology had to contend with reality of death either in themselves or with their associates. This alone undermines the validity of the idea of longevity or maintenance. Secondly, and this is pertinent in British fascism, the involvement of women at the very top of the hierarchical structures does not corroborate with the patriarchal framework often associated with fascism.[20] The principal discussions historians need be having when regarding fascism and masculinity are the transgressions behind the seemingly utopian ideal of male palingenesis and the underlying pathologies that led to such interpretations.


It is time for historians and scholars to look at masculinity with new eyes. The sociological models hitherto used offer minimal for our understanding on male existence and its embroilment with extremity. In the context of fascism, the allures of rebirth and renewal in the distinct form of palingenesis appealed to man’s psychological conflicts. In a world perceived to be full of societal dislocation, the fascist identity looked to be a plausible answer. However, man carried with him his dark disturbances. Maybe if there is an opportunity to level with this difficult topic, there will be the chance to understand masculinity, and with that there can truly begin an acknowledgement of the reality of man.



 

Arron Cockell is currently pursuing his PHD at the University of Glasgow, focusing on masculinity, intellectual and societal history, having completed his MA in Modern History at the University of Leeds.


Notes: [1] Robert O. Paxton. the Anatomy of Fascism. (New York, 2004) [2] Ibid. [3] Hannah Arendt. The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York, 1951) [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] The two sources to mentioned in reference to the Marxist definition of fascism are: Lewis Young. "Fascism for the British Audience: The Communist Party of Great Britain’s Analysis of Fascism in Theory and Practice." In Fascism 3.2 (2014) 93-116. And Roger Griffin. "Studying Fascism In A Postfascist Age. From New Consensus To New Wave? 1.” In Fascism, 1 (2012) 1-17 [8] Alfred, Rosenburg. The Myth of the 20th Century (1930). The 1937 third edition of Rosenburg’s text can be accessed here: https://tragicallyhip.neocities.org/files/pdf/Alfred%20Rosenberg%20-%20The%20Myth%20of%20the%2020th%20Century.pdf [9] One must also consider works like Theodore Adorno, et al. The Authoritarian Personality (New York, 1950) and George Orwell. Notes on Nationalism (London, 1945) when discussing the origins of definition. [10] Stanley G. Payne. A History of Fascism (London, 1995) [11] Good sources to consult the fascism in eliminationism are: Daniel Jonah Golhagen, Worse than War: Genocide, eliminationism, and the ongoing assault on humanity (London: Hatchette, 2009). Aristotle A. Kallis, and António Costa Pinto. Rethinking Fascism And Dictatorship In Europe (Basingstoke, 2014). Aristotle Kallis. Genocide and fascism: The eliminationist drive in fascist Europe (Oxfordshire, 2008). For Transnationalism: Arnd Bauerkämper. Fascism Without Borders: Transnational Connections and Cooperation Between Movements and Regimes in Europe from 1918 to 1945, (New York, 2017). Constantin Iordachi. Comparative Fascist Studies: New Perspectives (Oxfordshire, 2010). For Gender perspectives on fascism: Claudia Koonz. Mothers in the fatherland: Women, the family and Nazi politics. (Oxfordshire, 2013). Victoria De Grazia. How fascism ruled women: Italy, 1922-1945. (California, 1992) [12] Roger Griffin. The Nature of Fascism (New York, 2013) [13] From: Roger Griffin. The Nature of Fascism (New York, 2013) [14] Sources that have consulted British fascism and gender: Matin Durham. “Gender and the British Union of Fascists.’ In Journal of Contemporary History, 27.3 (1992) 513-529. Martin Durham, Women and fascism (London, 1998). Julie V. Gottlieb. Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain's Fascist Movement, 1923-1945 (London, 2000). [15] The psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich proposed a theory that fascist identity was rooted in sexual repression within children. He argued that authoritarian family which actively represses the rational sexual drive in children inadvertently creates workable human subjects for authoritarian regimes. See The Mass Psychology of Fascism (New York, 1946). The book was originally published in German in 1933, but was one of the many texts burnt in the Nazi book burnings. [16] Extract of Statement from Mary Richardson, titled “Extract of a statement from Mary Richardson on forcible feeding, 6 February 1914 (Catalogue ref: HO 144/1305/248506)” In National Archives. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/suffragettes-on-file/mary-richardson/ [17] Ibid. [18] Sources that discuss the patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity as a construct in relation to extremism: R.W. Connell. Masculinities (Cambridge, 2005). Kathleen Blee. "Where do we go from here? Positioning gender in studies of the far right." Politics, Religion & Ideology 21.4 (2020): 416-431 [19] The first use of fascism as a party template came from Benito Mussolini in 1919. Unlike Communism, the fascist ideology was not as dogmatic, and it held roots in syndicalism, corporatism, and the irrationalist philosophies of the Fin De Siècle. [20] Rotha-Lintorn Orman founded the first British fascist party the ‘British Fascisti’ in 1923. From the conflict within this group came various splinter organisations such as The Nordic League and The Imperial Fascist Party.

162 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page