While Mussolini asserted in his “What is Fascism” entry of the Italian Encyclopedia that “The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual , but the State alone…”; Hannah Arendt has suggested that “fascist regimes build on the fragmentation of their societies and the atomization of their population.” (R. Paxton The Anatomy of Fascism, p 157.)
To what extent do you agree with Arendt’s evaluation of fascism? Be sure to offer support for your answer.
You need one original entry and at least two reflections / responses to your peers’ entries before December 24th –that way you can enjoy the holidays.
Don’t forget to read the selections on Nazism. We’ll start there on January 6th. Season’s Greetings!
I thinkt that there are a couple of different ways to look at Arendt's evaluation of fascism. You can look at the first part of the quote saying that "fascist regimes build on the fragmentation of their societies..." I do not fully agree with this. As we talked about in class, part of the appeal to fascism is that its goal is to make everyone feel as if they are a part of the nation. The single party state idea that goes along with fascism is part of this. Also, I think that it is important to look at the symbol that fascism has taken its name from, the fasces, a bundle of sticks. Fascist regimes work towards societal congruency. The other half of the quote says that fascist regimes build on "...the atomization of their population..." I do agree with this part of the quote. This is saying essentially that fascist regimes break down people individually by taking away their individual rights. For this, I think Mussolini's quote given in the prompt helps to show how the fascist regimes broke people down: "deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential..." Fascist regimes give the people in their nation as little freedom as they can without losing their loyalty.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Arendt on this one, at least in the case of Italian fascism. The roots of Italian Fascism go back to Italy being incredibly unstable. Politically speaking, the country changed governments often. On top of that, the country was divided economically, with the industrial sector in the north, and a backward, rural economy in the south. And the papacy wouldn't cooperate with the government, indicating instability in social and religious terms. You could argue that things got a bit worse after WWI - the nationalists were extremely upset Italy didn't get all the territory it wanted, and the currency reconversion led to high rates of inflation and unemployment. Immediately following the end of WWI, Mussolini gained a seat in 1919 in Italy's first general election. In spite of the extreme fragmentation of Italian society, he got 5000 of 270000 votes.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kevin's post, I see where you're coming from (that the unity and nationalist feeling in fascism negates the idea of building from a fragmented society), but I interpreted this part of the quote differently. Maybe Arendt meant that fascism used the division in society to its advantage; in promising unity, fascism gained supporters who were tired of extremist views and division.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your interpretation of the second part of the quote because it's true that fascist regimes limit individual rights, and this loops around to feed back into the idea of unity (since no one can disagree with the government, it seems like everyone is unified).
I think the quote could go further to imply that the "atomization" of a population might indicate the contradictions that fascist regimes always have (according to Eco). For instance, when you break something down into small pieces, of course these pieces aren't going to be all the same, yet fascism is adamantly rascist and sexist. It depends on breaking down society, yet discounts minorities and women.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe incompleteness of Arendt’s statement about fascism makes it initially difficult to evaluate. The matter of how fascist regimes build on the fragmentation of their societies is not addressed, thus forcing the question. In Robert Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism he elaborates on Arendt’s statement by pointing out that, “In fascist regimes at war, a fanatical minority within the party or movement may find itself freed to express a furor far beyond any rational calculation of interest” (157). This is in direct contrast to liberal governments that, in times of war, will temporarily restrict certain liberties “in the interest of defeating the…enemy” (Paxton 157). Thus we see how Arendt is using this evaluation. Fascism relies on a disunity between the power of the state and the power of the people. This, of course, is obvious, however, as it is no secret that fascism seeks to be totalitarian. Mussolini himself said, “The only liberty which can be a real thing is the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian.” To this extent, Arendt’s evaluation of fascism is accurate; the government has an extraordinary amount of power, while the people have little to no liberties, being “deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom.” This is especially true in times of war, and as Umberto Eco suggests in his Ur-Fascism, in the fascist state, “life is a permanent war” (83). Thus, fascism does rely on fragmentation, at least between the population and state.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Arendt’s interpretation seems to be misleading in the assertion that fascist regimes seek to splinter the general population. In fact, fascist regimes pursue the exact opposite of atomization of the population in the form of extreme nationalism. Fascist states attempt to concentrate the powers of the entire population in the service of the state, utilizing aggressive imperialism, racism against Jews and foreigners, nationalistic propaganda to help identify the nation with the fascist party, Fascist youth movements to integrate younger generations into the party ideology, and consolidation of all economic enterprise in the interests of the state to eliminate class conflict (Filmstrip notes). Each of these actions of the state is, in its roots, intended to unify the fascist population in pursuit of national glory. According to Mussolini, “Fascism is the dictatorship of the state over many cooperating classes.” Whether, the classes did indeed cooperate and readily submit their individual wills to the state is debatable. In fact, Mussolini’s use of political violence is direct proof against it. Yet either way, Arendt’s statement, is to a large extent, incongruous with the cooperative goals of fascist ideology.
Response to Kevin:
ReplyDeleteI definitley agree with the first part of your post. I think looking at the "fasces" is definitely a valid way to refute Arendt's statement. The bundle of sticks is clear symbol of unity, not fragmentation. However, I think that the second part of Arendt's statement is essentially saying the same thing as the first. Atomization deprives the population of meaningful ties to eachother. However, Mussolini sought to create ties among his population through his nationalistic propaganda and the idea of the fasces. Isn't individuality or uniqueness what causes atomization or fragmentation? If everyone is uniform, then there is no atomization. So by taking away everyone's individual will, wouldn't that eliminate atomization? Thus, Mussolini is not relying on atomization or fragmentation, but rather, on unification.
Response to Amy:
ReplyDeleteYou clearly prove how fragmented Italy was when Mussolini came to power in your original post. But it is unclear how you think he utilized this to his favor in pursuit of fascism, which as Kevin and I agree on, is centered on the unification of the people. You touched on this in your response to Kevin, when you suggest that possibly Mussolini was using the fragmentation of society as promise of better things to come. This suggests that the risorgimento movement was, in some sense, still in effect around 1922 when Mussolini came to office. But wouldn't this then further support that Fascism relied on unification? If the country could not be unified, then fascism would fall apart...
And now I am going to contradict myself. As I think about it more, what seems to make fascism so unique, is not its attempts to unify the nation, but rather its method of unification: which is, ironically fragmentation of power in society. Mussolini wrote in his definition of fascism that "it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage." So he does attempt to unify the country, like the fasces, but he does so by atomizing the power.
I definitely agree with Arendt in her interpretation of what kind of society Fascism can grow on. Mussolini also says in his "What is Fascism" article that "Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State." We know that up to this point in history Italy has become a unified state through the efforts of Risorgimento (national independence movement). However, as stated in the packet "Mussolini and Italian Fascism", the fight for unification has not be totally successful. The nation was still divided based on geography, politics, and religion. This is where I see the "fragmentation" that Arendt is talking about come into play. The entire goal of Mussolini and Fascism was to create a a nation where the "State" held all power and the individuals themselves had to become united in order to achieve that power. This guarantee of "being part of the power" was a huge appeal to all parts of society in Italy., and I think is what ultimately created the environment for fascism to grow so quickly and even come about through the political process. If we look at the "atomization" that Arendt is talking about, we can also see how fascism relies on the idea of the power of the State. As previously quoted from Mussolini, the individuals and groups are only relative to the absolute State. It is really interesting here that Mussolini could basically say that the individual has no power, and the only way you are going to get the power back is to join the state. Obviously there were other "ideals" that fascism adopted to appeal to individuals (like the play-dough effect that we were talking about), but ultimately he made it so that the best thing that any individual are group could do was to join the fascist movement, because if you didn't you were just that one individual with no value, freedom, or power. So in conclusion, yes, Arendt hit right on in her explanation and we've got to give props to Mussolini for this level of manipulation.
ReplyDeleteWhen Arendt talked about how fascist regiemes are built upon fragmentation, I didn't agree at first. I thought that Fascism is all about unity, and making everyone feel like they are a part of the nation. However, the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that the fragmentation is almost necessary. Italy was fragmented religiously, industrialy, and geographly. The people in Italy were so divided in their beleifs, that when the idea of facsism came and many agreed with it, it gave all the people something all be a part of and agree upon. In a nation where no one agrees on anything, and with extreme fragmentation, an idea that has a large group agree upon it immediately grows in popularity, because it is something everyone can work with. Therefore, when a country is fragmented, like Italy was, the idea of fascism has the unique ability to actaully unite the people and the masses.
ReplyDeleteAs for the atomization of the people, I also agree with this part of Arendt's idea. For fascism to work, the people have to give up "unnecessary" freedoms, as Mussolini believes. The problem with this is that people will eventually stop being loyal once thier freedoms and individual rights are being taken away. The only way to regain power as an individual is to join the state, which is why fascism relies so heavily upon the atomization of the people.
In response to Riley,
ReplyDeleteRiley, I agree with you when you talk about how Fascism relies heavily upon unificatoin. But my question to you is, the unification of what? Of the masses? Of religious belief? Italy was fragmented in many ways. I beleive that fascism relies upon the unification of the people and their nationalistic veiws. I think that fascim relies upon the unification of the people in the sense that they are all apart of thier nation. This in turn goes back to how they must sacrifice individual rights in order for fascism to succeed, and that they can regain power by joining the state. And people do this because of the unification of all being apart of the same nation and state.
In response to Amy-
ReplyDeleteAmy I agree with you when you say that Arendt meant that Fascism used the fragmentation of Italy to gain advantage. Fascism promised unity, which must have had much appeal to many of the people who were tired uf the division. Therefore, with the promise of unity, many were willing to give fascism a chance, even if it meant losing some of thier individual rights.
And also, I think its pretty funny how you mentioned another contradiction of a fascist regieme. Fascism promises unity, and makes people feel like they are part of something. Yet at the same time, they alienate women and minorities, creating yet more fragmentation in an already fragmented society. Its very contradicting and ironic.
In response to Amy-
ReplyDeleteThats a good observation on how sexism and racism is rampant. If you look at it in that way, Arendt's quote is easier to agree with. For example, in Germany the Nazis were drawn together by the fragmentation of their own society. They divided out the Jewish poplulation, making them the enemy. This division brought the rest of the nation together. However, if you look at it in this way, almost every nation in the world has fascist tendencies. They may not be as extreme as Nazi Germany but most countries have another nation or race that they fear, or hate.
In response to Peter-
ReplyDeleteThat is a good observation. The fact that division is almost necessary for these fascist regimes to succeed is interesting. The whole idea of fascism is so self-contradicting its hard to follow. The reason that people label everything as fascism is because fascism really is all encompassing.
Basically, what Arendt is saying is that Fascism is based upon one common thread: the lack of unity in a nation previous to its inception. Because the nation is so “fragmented” and “atomized”, Risorgimento nationalism taken to an extreme as Fascism becomes emphasized. Historically, Fascist based countries, such as Italy and Germany were not unified since the 1870s. If this is compared to other countries participating in the European theatre in WWII, we see that those we consider “non-Fascist” have long histories as a nation-state, that is, the communion of the political and cultural/ethnic powers. Italy and Germany lack this communion, and there is a need for Fascism, the recognition of the country and their belonging to it. Risorgimento nationalism is taken to an extreme (as opposed to other European countries before and after the Congress of Vienna) because they were are fragmented and young to begin with. Even in Japan, which some people label Fascist, pre-Meiji Restoration, Japan was entirely feudal. There was no common unity. There is a the lack of unity is a certain common thread that ties this label of “Fascism”.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Arendt’s evaluation of Fascism. The more dissent and disunity in a country, we can see the labels of Fascism be applied more readily, which is exactly what Eco is attempting to warn us against: Ur-Fascism.
Arendt is not talking about the state of Fascism in the current regime. She is talking about how Fascism regimes come to be. There is of course, a sense of connection with the state. That is the point is Fascism. The point is that Fascism is a type of extreme Risorgimento nationalism, based upon the fragmentation of the nation, and that is how these dictators seize power.
As a response to Riley's original post:
ReplyDeleteIdioms are fun, so I am going to say that I think that Arendt hits it right on the head with this type of analysis about how Facist regimes come to be.
Like I said in my original post, I don't believe that she is talking about the current Fascist regime. She says "Fascist regimes build upon..." The word "build" is the key. Arendt is talking about the past and foundation of these nation-states.
You're right, Fascism is based upon the disunity between the masses and the elite as a means for control and for power. Yes, cooperation and the act of "being together", that nationalistic aspect of it is there. However, I really don't think she is referring to Fascism as an current entity. She's talking about the origins of it and why that disunity and that nationalism is function of that, and every classically "Facist" nation has that fragmentation in its history.
In response to Kevin's response to Amy:
ReplyDelete"However, if you look at it in this way, almost every nation in the world has fascist tendencies."
What you said is extremely interesting, and alludes back to Ur-Fascism. The potential for Fascism is apparent in all countries. Dissent and fragmentation brings those tendencies.
Take the label of "Facism" for example. From current political history, you get Fascist name-calling of politicians in context of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is such a contested issue. There is dissent, and it gets thrown around.
I don't have a source for this, but I would suppose that where these is more political unity, that label would get tossed around less often. Taken in context of the time period, you would most likely not hear much name-calling after the announcement of the invasion of Afghanistan shortly after 9/11.
While this is not a perfect analogy, the point that I am trying to make is that dissent breeds Fascist tendencies, even in common vernacular, the "Ur", the eternal aspect of Fascism arises.
To relate this back to the original Arendt quote, dissent is the not the function of Fascism. It is the basis. With fragmentation can Fascism arise. This is why it is important to watch dissent without sacrificing freedoms, which is of course, a tenuous balance.
There are the US tendencies of imperialism and spreading ideology, and that of perpetual war, which are factors of Ur-Facism (while not to an extreme degree), further emphasizing Eco's point and what Kevin has said.
Okay, guys, let’s look at the most important knowledge issue in Arendt’s quote: language. I looked up the definition of atomize, because I wasn’t entirely sure what it meant, and here’s what the dictionary came up with:
ReplyDelete1. To reduce to atoms
2. To reduce to fine particles or spray
3. To split into many sections, groups, factions, etc
I’m having a hard time deciding what Arendt was trying to say, that is, was she intending to say that fascism reduces its population to one collective atom, or if she meant to say that fascism reduces its population to several atoms? If it is the former, then I would say that I agree with her entirely. If it is the latter, I disagree with her.
I have arrived at this conclusion based on some of the readings we’ve done as well as our discussions. First of all, in the text of the narration for our presentation notes, fascism at its core is reduced to, “a doctrine which sanctifies the interests of the state and minimizes the rights of the individuals.” Also, the presentation notes describe Fascism as “a form of extreme nationalism, based on pride in the allegedly unique characteristics and achievements of one’s own people and country.” These two statements suggest that fascism, at its heart, is focused on the state rather than the individual, and that the state must be unified and strong in fascism. This corresponds well with Arendt’s quote, if she intended to say fascism builds on its population becoming one singular atom. If, however, the atomization was intended to mean the third definition of splitting into many groups, factions, etc., then I would entirely disagree with her statement because we have learned that fascism prides itself on nationalism, patriotism, and the interest of the state. For example, Italian fascism managed to unify Italy’s population by returning to their roots of fasces and the Roman Empire from centuries past. This supports Arendt’s claim that fascism builds on the atomization of its population (to one collective atom).
I think it is interesting to look at Arendt’s word choice, as she says fascism “builds on” fragmentation. By taking apart the society fascists actually build a regime. Another contradiction! But I do agree with this idea that by defining fractions of the society, whether by race, gender, religion, etc., fascist dictators are attempting to create a unified nation (or a bundle of completely homogenous sticks). Under Mussolini the “Italian man” was defined, and violence/prejudice followed for those who did not fit this image. In Germany, Hitler glorified the pure, true Germans, and physically removed those who opposed his great race. He even regulated sports, art, music…, through these policies of discrimination, trying to create a single German culture.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is pertinent to look at the other single party states and neopatrimonial states we discussed earlier. These governments also divided their societies, through classes and among the elites. Rights were limited and the most important thing for an individual became their relationship to the dictator/state. In communist Russia one’s relationship to the state was also paramount. So, are these traits always a part of ur-fascism?
In response to Natalie:
ReplyDeleteI interpreted Arendt’s meaning for atomization as the third definition, splitting in many parts/groups, because it went along with the fragmentation idea. However I like the idea of atomization meaning the reduction of a thing to a basic unit. I still think that fragmentation occurs, but its goal in a fascist state is to clearly define the outsiders, thus reducing society to a more unified and basic structure. The purpose of breaking the society up is to attain a unified state, and to do this it becomes necessary to do away with all individual rights that would prevent this from happening.
In response to Gavyn’s original post:
ReplyDeleteDo you think that fascist regimes employ purposeful fragmentation even after they seize power, or do they just try to unify an already separated and disgruntled nation? I see these dictators, Mussolini, Hitler…, as feeding off of disunity to take power and then after they have control they use it to further break up society and approach a single unified state. The racism and bias that Amy talked about play into this; these sentiments give the “true people” an enemy and a means by which to define themselves. Therein lies another contradiction, because even as a fascist state attempts unification and a homologous society, it needs groups to alienate in order to sustain this idea of a common enemy against which to fight.
I would agree with Arendt's quote. In the first line, she says, "Fascist regimes build on the fragmentation of their societies." The society in Italy and Germany is broken up by the strong racist and sexist sentiments, or anti-semitism specifically in Germany. In my opinion, the second part of Arendt's quote is saying the same as the first part is. The society is made up of the population of people in the state, so the "atomization of the population" is saying the same thing as fragmenting the society. However, if the population is to be looked at as separate from society, is still true. Eco said that fascism is also syncretic. Eco says, "'Synecretism' is not merely, as the dictionaries say, the combination of different forms of beliefs or practices. A combination like this must tolerate contradictions" (78). Since the people in the population can believe in a combination of beliefs, they are naturally separated by what they believe in. Even though the society is made up of different beliefs, there is unity among the people. Eco says, "To those with no social identity at all, Ur-Fascism says that their only priviledge is the most common priviledge of all, that of being born in the same country" (81). Here Eco explains how even though there are differences among the population, there is always the unity of living and being born into the same country.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Katie:
ReplyDeleteI think that the relationship to the state, whether through limited rights or through a unified culture, is always a part of ur-fascism. If the people didn't feel connected to the state, who would actually support a dictator, especially one like Hitler who was so harsh in his punishments? The unique culture that Hitler created through regulating art and sports gave all Germans a common factor and thus created more nationalism and unity. Why do you think that there are some common features of fascist states and the single-party sates we studied?
In response to Natalie:
ReplyDeleteI think each of these definitions of "atomization" could be applied to fascism. The first definition would be, as you said, the reduction of the population to one single group, which is the unity of fascism. The second definition would be the reduction of the population to a few groups that have a lot in common, which fascism does because not everyone is identical in their beliefs, which splits them into a few smaller groups. The third definition applies to the groups created by racism, different beliefs, and different practices, which exist in most fascist countries. Thus, all definitions could potentially apply to a fascist country according to Arendt.
When I think of "fragmentation" in terms of a society, I think of a class system. If this is what Arendt is implying, then this is ironic and I do not agree with it. Fascism does not promote stuctured societal classes, in fact, it attempts to break them down. But then, Arendt uses the word "atomization," which as Natalie points out, implies breaking down to the individual level. This is a more accurate interpretation of Fascism in my opinion. Many have said that the "bundle of sticks" implies unity. However, I think if Fascism wanted to symbolize unity, it would have a symbol like a machine or something singular as its...mascot? But I see the bundle of sticks as a bunch of individuals working together. This is unifying, but its important that its a bundle of sticks, and not just a hammer or something. So back to Arendt, I think she is emphasizing that even though fascism may appear to rely on unity, the individual is just as important, even though individual rights are taken away.
ReplyDeleteTo what Kevin first said:
ReplyDeleteHow can the removal of individual rights promote the individual? I agree that the individual plays an important role, but I'm not sure what you meant by that. I guess it could be that by taking away individual rights, the state is recognizing the individual? Just based on what I've seen here and in class, it seems like Fascism does rely on the breaking up of the popluation. In examples like post WWII Italy, Fascism thrived on an un-unified society. And things like the "bundle of sticks" I mentioned before. But I'm still confused as to why this works. Why does Fascism rely so heavily on the individual when it appears to only promote unity and the state?
In response to Katy and Peter:
ReplyDeleteIf Fascism "builds" on a broken up society because it is something that everyone can agree on, then why must it be broken up? It is ironic, like Katy said, that Fascists must have a fragmented society to form a unified regime, and this has shown to be true. Why, then, would a unified society be incapable of forming a Fascist regime, if it is, as Peter said, something they could all agree on?
I believe Arendt’s response is valid, although short in explanation and lacking support as to why she believes Fascism that way. From all of our research with what fascism is, we can easily agree or disagree with her statement; but someone with a less educated background in fascism may not be ale to agree or disagree as easily. The first part of the statement, “fascist regimes build on the fragmentation of their societies...” Perhaps that is why fascism became so popular in the first place; a fragmented society easily clings to anything that will bring them unity once again. When a society is fragmented, like the Italian population at the time of Mussolini’s rise to power, it is easy to provide any sort of structure and have the society act positively to it, especially when the people are ready for a change and a unification. The second part of Arendt’s quote, “…the atomization of their population,” continually suggests a unity of a country, in a bad sense but a sense of unity nonetheless. This part of the quote implies exactly what Kevin said, “fascist regimes break down people individually by taking away their individual rights” which is further supported with the Mussolini quote Kevin supplies. In the end, this quote is only understandable with the background information we all possess on what fascism is and what its background is.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Natalie:
ReplyDeleteI viewed atomize one way (break down into many atoms), when in reality there are different ways to look at Arendt’s word usage. The fact that the second part of the quote can be read in different ways is very interesting. In my opinion, both ways to read the quote may be true; fascism must first utilize all of its resources by breaking its people and society into many “atoms” and then unify these atoms to create on “perfect atom”…resulting in a fascist regime. Which way Arendt intended to use atomize we will never know, but either way, it’s no less true.
In response to Ali:
Her break down of “Fascist regimes build on the fragmentation of their societies” is very valid and easily seen through history…the unification of Italy and of Germany. I know in class we questioned why Mussolini and Hitler came to power so easily, and in the end, the answer may be as simple as the fact that the nation was so divided; it would do anything to be unified. Hence, the fascist regimes build upon fragmentation. I believe that this part of Arendt’s quote is unmistakably true.
To not repeat what others before me have discussed, I will try to be succinct. It appears Adrent’s interpretation is the consequence of the deprivation of liberty to an individual in a fascist state. I saw fragmentation and atomization as simply representative of the lack of power which goes hand in hand with any united effort like certain aspects in a democracy. This fits perfectly with another segment of Mussolini’s fascist definition when he states “Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society… and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind”. By being unequal and completely without power, the people can only be fragmented so that the ability to organize is taken away. A separation between the state and the “majority” and the seemingly necessary Fascist leader and the state must exist for this complex relationship to function as it appears power comes with the ability to manipulate.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Konrad: It is possible Fascism presents the illusion of unity, of belonging to something larger and greater than oneself and tied to this idea of a common past, yet in reality the separation of the individual from the state is essential in the maintenance of power for one dictator.
Katie, your question is an interesting one as I believe the answer is inherently contradictory. Ur-fascism is based on an elitist tie to the state and of one’s identity being a part of what this party stands for. However, as Eco states in his 13th characteristic of Fascism, “Having lost their power to delegate, the citizens do not act, they are only called upon, pars pro toto, to play their role as the people. The people are thus a theatrical pretense.” One feels closely tied to the state but has actually no effect on or say to the state which brings up the question: can this dynamic work for very long, was the fall of Fascism inevitable?
Konrad-
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea about the mascot being a bundle of sticks rather than a singular item. It would make more sense for the mascot to be a machine or something, but I think that also it's important to consider the historical and sentimental value of the fasces to Italy. Also, you said that fascism appears to rely on unity, but the individual is just as important. Perhaps that's why the bundle of sticks--a collection of individuals-- has significance in that the individual must submit to the collective. Not necessarily to be like a brainwashing thing, but the individual's compliance and conformity are essential to the unity.
Alex-
ReplyDeleteI like your idea about people losing the ability to organize. It reminds me of the basic principles of fascist regimes. For example, fascism seeks to dissolve the class system. "Fragmentation" and "atomization" from Arendt could be merely an observation of fascism attempting to rid itself of the class struggle.
I think this is a response to Kevin's response to Amy, but it may also have been influenced by Gavyn's response to this...
ReplyDeleteAnyways... I was very intrigued by your observation of fragmentation in terms of separating a single group in order to bring the larger group closer together. Although I definitely see this as being true, and it is even hit on in "Ur-fascism" when he described the elitist nature of the society, I think by stating that fascism seeks to be in a constant state of war, he is also talking about the fragmentation of the greater European society at the time. This is again why fascism makes no sense, because it's goal is to unify, but it relies, and may even create more fragmentation in order to achieve this.
it's is supposed to be its in my last post, sorry!
ReplyDeleteGavyn,
ReplyDeleteI think your point about the word "build" is interesting, but I disagree that Arendt is only talking about the past tense. The past tense of "build" is "built." So perhaps of just limiting the interpretation of her quote to the past foundations of fascism, we could allow it to include current regimes as well.
In that sense, I'd have to agree with everyone who has said that fascism depended on the atomization of society to get their bearings and still do depend on this separation to keep the regime going. Fascism builds in disunity, and continues to assert its influence in limiting individual rights, which could be interpreted as another way of atomizing the population.
In response to Konrad's orignal post,
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with your comment about the symbol, because I think that although fascism wasn't up for giving individual rights, they had to value individuals to some degree because that was what made up the state. I think the whole point was that the power of the state could not be achieved without the unification of these individuals (building on the fragmentation), which represents the bundle of sticks. Obviously the bundle of sticks would be just as useful if we tossed out one stick, which is why Mussolini was able to kill people, but he also had to maintain the bundle enough so that the state remained in control of the power, and the individuals knew they held no power unless they were part of the "state".
I agree with the statement of Arendt. For the second part of the statement, I agree that fascism separates, or "atomizes", the society. This is interesting, because it contradicts a lot of what fascism tries to stand for. Fascism pretends to unite the country, as shown by their use of the fasces as well as the idea of a "single"-party state. It strives to unify the country through the State, and in this way to make the country one strong, single entity; however, the reality is that fascism really is built from a separation.
ReplyDeleteIt has been seen through Italy, when there was a lot of social and political unrest, as well as in Nazi Germany, when there was a lot of anger and unrest because of the lingering effects of World War I, that fascism blossomed through a lot of unrest and therefore separation within the people. And the atomization of the people definitely grows more apparent the more fascism continues, as the people have to be separated in order for the State to be able to continue governing in peace. If the people were united, they would have joined to speak up against the actions of the government; instead, they continued to be separated and continued to have little power over the ruling State.
In response to Jenna's original post:
ReplyDeleteI agree that Mussolini did a good job in manipulating people to get them to agree with the ideas of the State and to follow what the State said. I think a big part of this was Italian fascism's focus on wars. Throughout the reign of Mussolini, there was a big focus on wars, such as the "war on socialism", a war on the mafia and organized crime, and was, as the article "Ur-fascism" stated, in a state of constant war. This sent the message to the people that if they did not agree with the ideas of the State, then the State would be "at war" with them.
I disagree. While Arendt’s proposal may seem spot on when looking at what Fascism became, it fails to account for the disparate foundations of this belief. First, while it’s true that Fascism in Italy and Germany preyed on the fragmentation of the societies around them, that is certainly not how they came to power. I would argue that their ascendency was mainly a result of the uniting of different factions that really shouldn’t associate. To paraphrase the speech Mussolini used to accrue support, “ blah blah big words blah I AM POWER HUNGRY blah blah JOIN ME…” He draws together ex soldiers with socialists, politicians, ‘the common man’ and some conservative ethics. Oh, and pagan symbols. If anything, his strategy would have worked better in a less fractured society. That way, he could have appealed to one or two ideologies rather than 10-20. By pandering to a ‘fractured society’, I believe he weakened Fascism itself. Which lends itself to the question, why Italy and Germany? I think ultimately the political and social conditions, in addition to the economic straits both countries were in and the general result of WWI ultimately made Germany and Italy suitable, and not the fragmentation, which occurred elsewhere. Also, it helps that they had Mussolini and Hitler, which helped.
ReplyDeleteTo Kevin and Jessica: absolutely. I agree the contradiction is there, between Fascism’s ideal of united people, and the fractured/ atomized society Arendt espouses. There are clearly some flaws in my theory, perhaps more so then Arendt’s. Point is, I feel as perhaps you do that her case is far from air tight, and especially doesn’t jive with the rhetoric of fascism.
Secondly: Atomization would involve reducing individuals to basic units, and isolating them. I think the strong anti communist stance of fascism proves this to be an erroneous adjective to use when describing fascism. It thrived on defining people as part of a group, and thus dehumanizing them. This can also be seen in Germany, with the Jews. If people were defined as individuals, then perhaps it would have been harder to order their deaths in such mass quantities. Seeing as how fascism draws such power from their association with groups, their classification and bigotry, it seems odd to suggest atomization as part of their defining characteristics. That being said, I think the strategies of Hitler and Mussolini involved instilling a feeling of isolation in their enemies and rivals.
On this point, Jenna: I read your Mussolini quote ("Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.") as supporting my contention, and not Arendt’s. I believe viewing individuals and groups only be how they relate to the state proves the extent of the associations fascism was willing to make. If ‘people’ are lumped together in relation to the state, then obviously there isn’t much of an individual component. And if groups are viewed for their usefulness, then we again see a willingness to use groups for fascisms purpose in order to unite their people, either against a common enemy or toward a common goal.
I find the wording of Arendt's quote to be very telling of the contradictions and means of manipulation of the fascist government. The order of the words fragmentation and atomization I believe is a key part of fascism. With fragmentation coming first it suggests separation into groups. When you fragment something not every unit is separated but rather large groups are separated from each other. In Germany this would be the separation of races and religions away from the Aryan race. In Italy it is perhaps fragmented into even smaller groups. The fact that Mussolini only needed 5000 of 270000 votes to win Italy's first general election illustrates how broken it really was. I think this is a big part of fascism. Because an individual can still feel like they are part of a collaborative effort if the group they have been divided into shares a common goal. Usually this goal is to destroy the other groups or to battle external forces. This creates ongoing conflict within the state while at the same time creating the illusion of collectivism. But for the leaders to stay in power no one group can become too powerful and overthrow the government. This leads us to the second part of Arendt's quote. That fascism atomizes the population. This ensures that while they feel like a part of their group they still don't feel the power to alter the group or even really communicate throughout the group. The collaboration with their group that they feel like they are a part of is really individual work that is moving in the same direction as what their group would want. The act of being both an individual and part of a group allowed the government to control the population much more easily. It is the same concept as removing some freedoms while letting the population retain some. The freedom they retained was the ability to decide how they were going to help the general cause but the lost the freedom of having a say in what the general cause was. The government could manipulate the population and avoid an uprising all by creating the illusion of unity while really separating the people more than ever before.
ReplyDeleteIn response to a post by Grant-
ReplyDeleteYou said that fascism came to power by uniting groups that really shouldn't associate. You used ex soldiers, socialists, politicians, and ‘the common man’ as examples of groups drawn together.
I am not disagreeing with you here, but I believe you would have to prove a few things before you will have truly made your point. First, that the unity of these groups truly led to an increase in power for the fascist government. What does it matter that a bunch of ex-soldiers are now hanging out with a bunch of socialists? I think a good way to argue this would be to talk about how the interactions of the veterans and the young officers led to the formation of the Arditi. A collaborative effort that resulted in the formation of elite troops that were of much use to the government.
Secondly, you would have to prove that these groups truly were drawn together. Politicians and 'the common man', I would argue stayed very much apart in fascism. Unlike communism there was still the private ownership of land and still the separation of the elite and the lower classes.
Overall, I would say that the unification between the various groups of the state was not as prevalent and did not affect fascism's rise to power as much as the unification of the groups to the government. Everyone was connected to the state and through the state to each other. So this made the unification between the groups less important and also less unnatural.
I have yet to become an expert on fascism, however based on the items I have read I agree with Arendt in her conclusions, although they are vague as so many of my classmates have commented on before. To me, there are a few distinct components that are very characteristic of fascism; it’s against democracy and Marxism, for dictatorship and emphasizes extreme nationalism. Of course these are not all of the components that we use to define fascism, but they are four main areas that I looked at in evaluating Arendt’s statement. Firstly, I think that the fascist’s rejection of democracy and their emphasis on a strong dictatorship are shown in Ardent’s statement by the comment on how fascism draws from the fragmented society. By rejecting democracy the fascist regime suggests that people do not have common sense or the ability to pass judgment and that the state is not meant to serve the people but rather themselves. These to ideas show that by having these ideals fascists are creating a fragmented society. By rejecting democracy I think the fascists are rejecting equality, which creates fragments. Fascist regimes thought that dictatorship was the most efficient way to rule a society and that the state was everything while the people were nothing. Based on what I have seen in history, I think a dictatorship comes to existence most easily when the society is in shambles and the people are separated. This correlates with Ardent’s idea of the atomization of population.
ReplyDeleteGrant-
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Ardent's quote I started evaluating it based upon what the fascist regimes became and now looking back on my original post i realized that I did not evaluate how the regimes came to power. I think that your response has some valid points on how Mussolini appealed to the public in the first place to come to power. And although I have not decided if I agree or not, I find it interesting that you said he would have been more successful if the italian populace had been more united
Jessica- I agree that fascism is one big contradiction. I think it would be interesting to look into how the dictatorships were able to last when they were doing nearly the opposite of what their ideology stated.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jeff's response to Grant's post:
ReplyDeleteI agree that the unification of the groups was not as solid as it appeared. The unification was a very loose one, and could be seen as temporary. The groups were only united long enough for the dictator to come into power, but in order for the reign to remain it was necessary for the population to separate the loose bonds to go back to an "atomized" population. A big part of its success is because it looks at the population and tries to sort out the ones that are worthy of being in the nation and from the ones that were "weaker", which definitely contributes to the atomization of the population. These ideas cause a lot of conflict within the nation and creates an ungrouped society, struggling within itself.
In response to what Kevin and Gavyn said about all countries having fascist tendencies-
ReplyDeleteyou both seem to be arguing that a country can lean towards more fascist ideals when a they are divided by an issue or fear another country. Gavyn said, "that dissent breeds fascism."
I would have to argue against this statement. Gavyn brought up the fact that after 9/11 the population was much less willing to call the government fascist because the sense of unity that we had after the attack. But this does not mean that by calling the government fascist when we are not unified is a signal for fascist tendencies. Just because when we are not unified we are more willing to insult the government does not mean that we wish to change our style of government to that of fascism. Fascism being used as an insult is meant to discourage people from a leader or an idea by equating it with fascism which in everyone’s mind is bad. Gavyn also brought up the fact that the US seems to be constantly at war as a signal that we are part of ur-fascism, or have ur-fascism tendencies. But I don't think that the concept of ur-fascism can be applied that way. I took the concept of ur-fascism to be that a fascist state will remain at war as a way of maintaining its power and control but not that a country constantly at war will become fascists. It is not a two way street.
I also believe that a population experiencing separation and dissent looks to socialism far before it looks to fascism. Fascism is so extreme that there has to be great dissent before a country will turn to it. I would say that almost every country has socialist tendencies but things have to be pretty bad before a country has fascist tendencies.
This is late. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteI have read through the posts and picked up on a theme of the “fragmentation” aspect of the provided quote. This reminded me of a discussion we had in class when we questioned the appeal people find in fascism… someone brought up the possibility that, despite the fragmentation in society, fascism can give people a sense of unity. (This idea has been alluded to in other posts with the idea of the bundle of sticks, and also a bit in the nationalistic propaganda.) So, after reading all of your posts, I am beginning to think that this is how fascism “builds” in society. Like Riley posted, the propaganda used in Italy did create ties between people. So, regardless of if the fragmentation is referring to class or other groups of people, isn’t a sense of unity and connection to others something humans inherently search for? Despite differences in beliefs people can find a nationalistic pride through fascism when they follow leaders like Mussolini, right?
In response to Riley –
I really like your post about whether or not fascism relies on fragmentation or unification. I had not looked at it this way. I think this is a valid point. I do have to wonder (as someone else mentioned) if leaders like Mussolini would be as “successful” leaders if there was not some societal need for unification. If people were united and had strong enough ties as a people, would they be as inclined to follow a leader like Mussolini (and become a stick inside the bundle) and as easily influenced by propaganda? It seems to me that if the people of a nation are truly unified, this wouldn’t be the case…
In response to Natalie –
I am so glad that you actually looked up what these meant… and am not altogether surprised.
You landed on a question because of this contradiction in possible meaning… which is not unlike the inherent contradictions in fascism our class discussed. You didn’t really come to a solid conclusion about which definition was relevant – and depending on the one you look at, the quote’s meaning changes drastically. This reminds me a lot of Riley’s post… is it unification or fragmentation? Because both ways – whether a collective being or a bunch of individuals – we can see how fascism applies… and this ambiguity is similar to those we found in Mussolini’s own writings about fascism.