Knižní recenze / Book review.Knižní recenze / Book review

Mareš, Miroslav

Masaryk University Journals / Časopisy Masarykovy univerzity

St?edoevropské politické studie Ro?ník IX, ?íslo 4, s. 351-354Central European Political Studies Review Volume IX, Part 4, pp. 351-354Mezinárodní politologický ústav Masarykovy univerzity ISSN 1212-7817351Griffin, Roger – Loh, Werner – Umland, Andreas (eds.):Fascism Past and Present, West and East. An InternationalDebate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Studyof the Extreme Right. With an Afterword by WalterLaqueur, Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag, 2006, 520 pages,ISBN 3898216748.Miroslav Mareš1Research into fascism is an important part of contemporary political science as well as historicalscience. Despite several decades of research and many publications, many questions and answersabout the essence of fascism still remain open. There exist various conceptualizations andapproaches to the study of fascism, and the community of researchers is very heterogeneous. Thenew round of debates about fascism may be found in a new book edited by Roger Griffin,Werner Loh and Andreas Umland. The book is bilingual but chiefly in English, with only sometexts in German.The editors have decided upon an atypical but interesting structure for the book. Themain section is an article by Roger Griffin entitled “Fascism’s new faces (and new facelessness) inthe post-fascist epoch”. Following this is a discussion featuring critical contributions from DavidBaker, Jeffrey M. Bale, Tamir Bar-On, Alexander De Grand, Martin Durkham, Roger Eatwell,Peter Fritzsche, A. James Gregor, Klaus Holz and Jan Weynand, Siegfried Jäger and AlfredSchobert, Aristotle A. Kallis, Melitta Konopka, Bärbel Meurer, Philip Morgan, Ernst Nolte,Kevin Passmore, Stanley G. Payne, Friedrich Pohlmann, Karin Priester, Sven Reichardt, DavidD. Roberts, Albert Scherr, Robert J. Soucy, Mario Sznajder, Andreas Umland, Leonard Weinbergand Wolfgang Wippermann.The first response to the criticism has been included in Griffin’s article “Da capo, conmeno brio: Towards a more useful conceptualization of generic fascism”. This article is followed1 Author  works  at  the  Institute  for  Comparative  Political  Research  and the  Department  of  Political  Science  at  theFaculty of Social Studies of Masaryk University, Joštova 10, 602 00 Brno; e-mail: mmares@fss.muni.cz.St?edoevropské politické studie Ro?ník IX, ?íslo 4, s. 351-354Central European Political Studies Review Volume IX, Part 4, pp. 351-354Mezinárodní politologický ústav Masarykovy univerzity ISSN 1212-7817352by another round of discussion. The second response is found in Griffin’s article “Grey cats, bluecows, and wide awake groundhogs: Notes towards the development of a ‘deliberative ethos’ infascist studies”. The second debate in the book, between Andreas Umland and A. James Gregor,deals with the thoughts of Alexandr Dugin. The afterword is written by Walter Laqueur.Griffin’s first article searches for fascism’s definitional core, which is “consistent with the‘new consensus’ that has grown up in Anglophone fascist studies” (p. 29). According to Griffin,its “main contestable features” are:a) its methodological premise is derived from Max Weber’s theory of the “ideal type” whichrejects Marxist, essentialist, or metapolitical notions of the “fascist minimum”;b) it identifies this minimum in a core ideology of national rebirth (palingenesis) thatembraces a vast range of highly diverse concrete historical permutations;c) while fully recognizing the singularity of Nazism, the application of this theory to the ThirdReich categorizes it as an outstanding example of a fascist regime;d) its application to the post-war era identifies new variants of fascism that have evolveda long ways from its inter-war manifestations, notably those associated with the Third Positionand the New Right;e) it postulates a major organizational transformation within post-war fascism since itsextensive “groupuscularization”, namely the emergence of “rhizomic” qualities” (p. 29).Criticism  of  Griffin’s  thesis  is  mostly  aimed  at  the  very  vague  definition  of  the  fascistminimum. According to Alexander de Grand, “Griffin frees himself from the lists of attributesthat other historians use by limiting the linkage to one point in ideology. In the end, he is goingto return to the position that each movement might be better understood if studied separately or,in Angelo Tasca’s words, to define fascism is to write its history” (p. 97).Ernst Nolte, among others, argues that the reduction of fascism to the “NationaleWiedergeburt” is also valid for Mao Tse Tung (p. 162). Several authors criticize Griffin’s attemptto classify as fascist various highly heterogeneous actors, including the American “leaderlessresistance” groups and individuals on one hand, and the French Nouvelle Droite on the other.Stanley G. Payne asks: “Was the American libertarian anti-statist terrorist Timothy McVeighrepresentative of a permutation of the mythic core of fascism, or something more analogous toa kind of libertarian anarchist terrorism that has a much older pedigree than fascism, generic orotherwise?” (p. 177).St?edoevropské politické studie Ro?ník IX, ?íslo 4, s. 351-354Central European Political Studies Review Volume IX, Part 4, pp. 351-354Mezinárodní politologický ústav Masarykovy univerzity ISSN 1212-7817353In his answer to the criticism of various authors Griffin writes that he wants todistinguish “between generic fascism as a political science concept and as a historical concept”(p. 276) and that he wants “for historiographic purposes to identify three distinct (ideal typicallyconstructed) periods in fascism’s evolution as a historical force, pre-fascist (1880–1918), fascist(1919–1943) and neo-fascist (1944–), each of which was/is conductive to different ideologicaland organizational manifestations” (p. 276). In answer to the second round of criticism, Griffinsummarizes the importance of the debate for the future development of fascist studies (p. 411-457). The debate about Aleksandr Dugin is a subsidiary part of the book.The famous fascism researcher Walter Laqueur writes relatively sceptically about thefuture of fascist studies in his afterword: “Fascism in Europe has had its hour, whether it hasa chance in other parts of the world is a moot question; there could be all kinds of very violentmass movements but whether they will be fascist (or clerical fascist) I doubt – not only in view ofthe strong religious element in these movements … Who will be tomorrow’s historians andpolitical scientists, and what will be their priorities? I somehow doubt that fascism will figure ashighly as it does today.” (p. 503)Despite Laqueur’s scepticism, it could be relevant to research fascism in thecontemporary social sciences, as well, among other reasons to analyze (neo-fascism) as a part ofbroader movements in the context of inter-cultural disputes. For these purposes, it is importantto find an acceptable conceptualization of this phenomenon. Griffin’s theses are an interestingcontribution to the debate; however, as a definitive conceptualization of fascism, they are notacceptable.His search for the definition of fascism solely in the ideological dimension is too narrow.It is important to combine historical and strategic aspects with the ideological. The “fascistminimum” might also be taken to include the self-definition and self-identification of fascistsubjects. National rebirth is an important part of the fascist identity but it does not exist inisolation. In the current politics of fascist subjects, pan-nationalist and pan-Aryan concepts areeven more influential.The classification of Nazism as a part of fascism is acceptable, considering, among otherthings, the current context of close cooperation among neo-fascist and neo-Nazi organizations inEurope. The use of the term (neo-)fascism for the contemporary New Right has a limited sense.It is important to find real neo-fascist structures with connections to historical fascism; however,neo-fascism and neo-Nazism are only parts of the contemporary extreme right. Some politicalstreams (“law and order” and anti-immigration populism) have occupied a similar position withinSt?edoevropské politické studie Ro?ník IX, ?íslo 4, s. 351-354Central European Political Studies Review Volume IX, Part 4, pp. 351-354Mezinárodní politologický ústav Masarykovy univerzity ISSN 1212-7817354the political spectrum of some countries as former fascist formations, but these new parties andmovements are not (neo-)fascist (e.g., Liste Pim Fortuyn or Schill-Partei).The discussion of fascism and fascism studies is still topical. From this point of view, thenew publication is an outstanding contribution to the research into fascism and the extreme right.The main topics of this book should be discussed in academic circles and at university seminars.The influence of this publication on fascist studies will be comprehensively evaluated by futurescholars. Already today, however, the conception and results of this book may be judged verypositively.

Griffin, Roger – Loh, Werner – Umland, Andrea (eds.): Fascism Past and Present, West and East. An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right

https://journals.muni.cz/cepsr/article/download/4405/3445

Griffin, Roger – Loh, Werner – Umland, Andrea (eds.): Fascism Past and Present, West and East. An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Masaryk University Journals / Časopisy Masarykovy univerzity