“Fascism”, like “racism” is a word that has been unmoored from meaning, and anchored into emotion. We are no longer capable of any coherent discussion of either, it seems.
An interesting bunch of thoughts. I think, without quite disagreeing with Pynchon & Vidal (he calls it “communism” rather than “fascism”, but Kojève’s famous line about the equivalency of the midcentury US and USSR hits on something similar) I would perhaps throw my lot in more with James Joyce contra Morrison and Lawrence. Not exactly in favor of empire, but extremely wary of what replaces it, the parochialism, the drive to purify the body of the nation, to remove the elements “poisoning the blood” as it were. That said I agree about the artist’s duty to try to imagine something else, however hopelessly.
Yes, I'm also with Joyce (and Dante) in preferring a civilized universalism (empire) to Lawrence and Morrison who dream of racial gods. (This might be the "Italian" vs. the "German" way! Even Italian fascism was more civilized and universalist than German, for that matter.) But I am with Pynchon and Vidal in objecting to the empire we actually have, which I don't think is civilized at all, is less so now in certain ways (cf. Barkan on the post-9/11 authoritarianism that hasn't yet abated) than when they were writing.
Thank you for comments that are delightful and not debasing. Only poets, never polls, right?
Would the term anarchist apply to any of the above sensibilities? It's an uncertain term itself, but it seems wider and more encompassing than "libertarian" or "left." I've been gumming "Christian anarchy" courtesy of the (deranged?) Catholic priest Ivan Illich who keeps coming into my reading.
You're welcome! I like the word "anarchic." "Anarchist" is kind of contradictory; if you're "ist" you're not very "anarch." And thus the anarchic spirit can co-exist and correct whatever archons remain necessary in our fallen world.
(I like Illich, read some of him during the pandemic, for obvious reasons. I also think of Tolstoy as a Christian anarchist, too, but I'm not sympathetic to his position.)
Thought-provoking post! Since everything has always been fascist and always will be, I think it might be useful to distinguish between natural and unnatural forms of fascism (I understand that this is by no means a clear distinction - but it might point to something: go watch a David Attenborough documentary and tell me Mother Nature isn't a fascist according to modern liberal sensibilities). That's why I think Morrison et al are wrong to liken the slave trade to the Holocaust. Slavery is a natural evil. War is a natural evil. In contrast, as The Zone of Interest chillingly demonstrated, the dispassionate consideration of the most efficient way of murdering and disposing of the remains of defenceless civilians on an industrial-scale is a peculiarly modern form of evil - unbecoming of beasts, blond or otherwise.
Thank you! Your distinction maybe speaks to the idea of "improving God" I allude to in the post—that is, we can be better than nature, maybe make nature itself better, or be worse. (Re: slavery, I gather Morrison thought modern slavery to be an Enlightenment-accompanying industrialized system anticipatory of the Holocaust as the pre-modern Greek, Roman, Turkish, African etc. variants weren't. I'm not a[n] historian, so I don't know.)
I get the argument that a particularly pernicious form of racism evolved to justify the slave trade at a time when European countries were congratulating themselves for their humane and liberal values. But slavery always had an economic logic (until the industrial revolution) - isn't one of the reasons why Holocaust denial is such a problem that it made no rational sense? I also think comparing one atrocity to another is a rhetorical strategy that needs to be discouraged exactly because it is such an effective one.
In light of your point about The Zone of Interest, I wonder how you would characterize factory farming in the natural/unnatural dichotomy. I have often seen arguments against the ethical position of veganism call upon the idea that humans are naturally omnivores and have always hunted other creatures for meat. Another argument along a parallel tract is that nature is so cruel to its prey-animals that our unnatural mistreatment of them is actually somewhat gentler than what they'd otherwise face.
All this is certainly not to say that I am placing human mass slaughter and animal mass slaughter at an equivalent level -- I'm not asking this question in service to a form of activism, your comment just lead to me thinking and rethinking about an ethical question I've often had.
I definitely see factory farming as an unnatural evil. Like you said, it is natural for humans to eat other animals, but there is a difference between hunting a wild animal for meat and raising it to have a miserable unnatural life. Unless one believes that our morality derives from some supernatural principle, the basis must be a form of respect for life (which includes a consideration of what comes natural to that life).
Although I'm vegetarian, I don't like to describe it as an 'ethical' choice (it's not clear to me that the production of dairy and eggs is less cruel than the production of meat and in any case, my individual choice makes no difference to the overall picture). I think we need to be pragmatic about it: animal welfare standards differ greatly across the world and it would already be a moral victory if America adopted the same standards as in Europe (I despair for the situation in China). But animals can't speak for themselves, so their lives are easily ignored.
Great piece. You could talk about the politics of the artist every week and I wouldn’t tire it. Tracing the politics of art from Morrison to Dante was tantalizingly short!
“Fascism”, like “racism” is a word that has been unmoored from meaning, and anchored into emotion. We are no longer capable of any coherent discussion of either, it seems.
FDR, of course, did the most fascistic thing of all - intern the Japanese.
Yes, I should have mentioned that!
You know Trump doesn't have it in him because he's got no real callbacks to that era. Even he's too smart for that.
An interesting bunch of thoughts. I think, without quite disagreeing with Pynchon & Vidal (he calls it “communism” rather than “fascism”, but Kojève’s famous line about the equivalency of the midcentury US and USSR hits on something similar) I would perhaps throw my lot in more with James Joyce contra Morrison and Lawrence. Not exactly in favor of empire, but extremely wary of what replaces it, the parochialism, the drive to purify the body of the nation, to remove the elements “poisoning the blood” as it were. That said I agree about the artist’s duty to try to imagine something else, however hopelessly.
Yes, I'm also with Joyce (and Dante) in preferring a civilized universalism (empire) to Lawrence and Morrison who dream of racial gods. (This might be the "Italian" vs. the "German" way! Even Italian fascism was more civilized and universalist than German, for that matter.) But I am with Pynchon and Vidal in objecting to the empire we actually have, which I don't think is civilized at all, is less so now in certain ways (cf. Barkan on the post-9/11 authoritarianism that hasn't yet abated) than when they were writing.
Thank you for comments that are delightful and not debasing. Only poets, never polls, right?
Would the term anarchist apply to any of the above sensibilities? It's an uncertain term itself, but it seems wider and more encompassing than "libertarian" or "left." I've been gumming "Christian anarchy" courtesy of the (deranged?) Catholic priest Ivan Illich who keeps coming into my reading.
You're welcome! I like the word "anarchic." "Anarchist" is kind of contradictory; if you're "ist" you're not very "anarch." And thus the anarchic spirit can co-exist and correct whatever archons remain necessary in our fallen world.
(I like Illich, read some of him during the pandemic, for obvious reasons. I also think of Tolstoy as a Christian anarchist, too, but I'm not sympathetic to his position.)
Thought-provoking post! Since everything has always been fascist and always will be, I think it might be useful to distinguish between natural and unnatural forms of fascism (I understand that this is by no means a clear distinction - but it might point to something: go watch a David Attenborough documentary and tell me Mother Nature isn't a fascist according to modern liberal sensibilities). That's why I think Morrison et al are wrong to liken the slave trade to the Holocaust. Slavery is a natural evil. War is a natural evil. In contrast, as The Zone of Interest chillingly demonstrated, the dispassionate consideration of the most efficient way of murdering and disposing of the remains of defenceless civilians on an industrial-scale is a peculiarly modern form of evil - unbecoming of beasts, blond or otherwise.
Thank you! Your distinction maybe speaks to the idea of "improving God" I allude to in the post—that is, we can be better than nature, maybe make nature itself better, or be worse. (Re: slavery, I gather Morrison thought modern slavery to be an Enlightenment-accompanying industrialized system anticipatory of the Holocaust as the pre-modern Greek, Roman, Turkish, African etc. variants weren't. I'm not a[n] historian, so I don't know.)
I get the argument that a particularly pernicious form of racism evolved to justify the slave trade at a time when European countries were congratulating themselves for their humane and liberal values. But slavery always had an economic logic (until the industrial revolution) - isn't one of the reasons why Holocaust denial is such a problem that it made no rational sense? I also think comparing one atrocity to another is a rhetorical strategy that needs to be discouraged exactly because it is such an effective one.
In light of your point about The Zone of Interest, I wonder how you would characterize factory farming in the natural/unnatural dichotomy. I have often seen arguments against the ethical position of veganism call upon the idea that humans are naturally omnivores and have always hunted other creatures for meat. Another argument along a parallel tract is that nature is so cruel to its prey-animals that our unnatural mistreatment of them is actually somewhat gentler than what they'd otherwise face.
All this is certainly not to say that I am placing human mass slaughter and animal mass slaughter at an equivalent level -- I'm not asking this question in service to a form of activism, your comment just lead to me thinking and rethinking about an ethical question I've often had.
I definitely see factory farming as an unnatural evil. Like you said, it is natural for humans to eat other animals, but there is a difference between hunting a wild animal for meat and raising it to have a miserable unnatural life. Unless one believes that our morality derives from some supernatural principle, the basis must be a form of respect for life (which includes a consideration of what comes natural to that life).
Although I'm vegetarian, I don't like to describe it as an 'ethical' choice (it's not clear to me that the production of dairy and eggs is less cruel than the production of meat and in any case, my individual choice makes no difference to the overall picture). I think we need to be pragmatic about it: animal welfare standards differ greatly across the world and it would already be a moral victory if America adopted the same standards as in Europe (I despair for the situation in China). But animals can't speak for themselves, so their lives are easily ignored.
Great piece. You could talk about the politics of the artist every week and I wouldn’t tire it. Tracing the politics of art from Morrison to Dante was tantalizingly short!
Thank you!
The Emerson quote is fantastic. Which essay is that from?
Sorry, I meant to link it but forgot. It's "Montaigne; or, The Skeptic":
https://emersoncentral.com/texts/representative-men/montaigne-the-skeptic/