Supervised by Professor Clifford Orwin of the University of Toronto's Political Science Department

Abstract

The definition of “fascism” is in an unfortunate limbo for political theorists. It is a term of critical importance, as the regimes which identify itself with it have spurred everything from genocidal violence to ideological breakdowns of the values which hold democracy together. Yet, the term’s actual meaning is highly contested among political theorists, and even more so among citizens who are either invested in combatting fascism before it gains momentum or exonerating their political ideologies from the taboo attached to the word “fascist.” Moreover, the arenas in which political discussion of fascism takes place have largely detached from state structures, changing the character of its expression so drastically that the political theory defining yesterday’s Nazi seems short-sighted and easily mis-applicable to today’s neofascist. What seems to be constant in all characterizations and manifestations of fascism, however, is the presence of the fascist’s enemy as a creative force in the making of the “in-group” identity. As such, this research seeks to begin the process of defining the term “fascism” by examining different theories from the World War II-era onward, then comparing them to the writings and speeches of the fascists of today, with a narrow focus on how both sides of this examination understand the enemy of the fascist. The end goal will be to discern where the political theory of yesterday is still right, where new theory has improved on it, and what its failures mean for the changing character of fascism in online and non-state political spheres. This will be conducted in the form of a comparative literature review, having applications in the realms of political theory, social movements, and public policy in the internet age. 

Research Questions

Are contemporary and historical theories of fascism adequate in understanding the real-world creation, characterization, and political treatment of ‘enemy’ classes in modern-day Fascist political groups? Subsequent questions include: How could the way these theories fail or succeed in characterizing enemy classes affect our detection or understanding of fascism? Are theories from different eras (pre-WWII, post-WWII, post-internet) equally applicable to the de-centralized and de-personalized neo-fascism of the internet age? If unequal, does this inapplicability suggest new approaches to fascism need to be adopted/created/expanded upon?

Project Background

The traits normally ascribed to fascism, often discerned from the observable policy and published writings of fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler and thus within specific historical context, are fatally superficial. The most common traits, authoritarianism and extreme nationalism, can be meaningfully ascribed to any number of regimes which are not in any other way fascist. Combined with the difficulty in fascism not having a unified societal goal as communism or anarchism does, this has prompted some thinkers to resist actually using the word fascist, seeing it as a linguistic mishap grouping a number of possibly unrelated traits.

As such, historical superficiality in analyzing fascism has waned in productivity. What may prove more worthwhile is to focus not on the externalities of fascist action, but rather the focus point of the fascist group identity (which then informs their nationalism) – who they hate.

While there has been little specific focus on the fascists’ enemy as an element of political theory on the topic, the ever-present opposition to the fascists’ rise to “greatness” is a constant in all fascist mythology. Given both the reactionary nature of nationalism as creating a separation between an “us” and “them," as well as the bespoke-to-its-home-country nature of fascist ideology, enemies to the nation must be created by each regime. This creative aspect may be the deeper identifier of fascism that can surpass historical superficiality, and thus finding the common traits of the fascists’ enemy should be a priority for scholars of fascism. Evaluating what has been said on the topic so far in comparison to current enemies of fascists is the first step in this exploration.

Methodology

This research will be conducted in three phases over the course of 6 weeks:

1. I will first conduct a theoretical literature review to outline the primary theories concerning fascism with specific focus towards theories about fascism’s treatment and requirements for the identity of the ‘enemy’ (tentative theorists to consider include: Stanley G. Payne, Roger Griffin, Hannah Arendt, Jason Stanley, etc.). These theories will be analyzed with respect to the political context in which they were written – the political histories of the writers in cases where they were active with/resistant to fascist regimes, the broader political context at the time of writing (concerning especially the worldwide context of WWII), and whether these theories were in line with broader understandings about fascism in the given context.
2. I will then conduct an analysis and collection of the targets of contemporary North American fascism, analyzing writings and speeches of modern-day political figureheads and actors (possibly including but not limited to: Members of the People’s Party of Canada, Christopher Rufo, Richard Spencer, Costin Vlad “Bronze Age Pervert” Alamariu, etc.). From this, general themes/traits of contemporary fascist enemies will be distilled and defined in a summary of this analysis.
3. I will then compare the themes/traits of the enemy in contemporary fascism to the theoretical characterization of fascist enemies from part (1) in the form of a research paper.

Objectives/Impact

The achievement of this research, if successful, will be to highlight the possible successes and gaps in political theory’s characterization of fascism’s most obvious enduring trait – the necessity of the enemy in defining the movement – with respect to how fascism has changed in these new political spaces. The goal of finding these places of success is to illuminate the theories or elements of the theories which are most accurate to enduring traits of fascism that surpass the historical context of past fascist regimes. This, in effect, may create a more complete foundation of the actual definition of fascism in a way that can evade criticisms of incongruence with more recent fascist regimes/groups. This research will hopefully spur on new conceptualizations of fascism and its general traits, in service of both settling petty debates around whether a political figure is/is not a fascist and aiding anti-fascist groups in focusing their action against foundational fascist ideologies.