Authoritarianism, National Populism and Fascism

Gino Germani

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000674811
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This definitive contribution to social science literature describes German's general theory of authoritarianism in modem society, and applies it to authoritarian movements and regimes likely to merge out of the social mobilization of the middle and lower classes. Germani analyzes the nature, conditions, and determinants of authoritarianism in the context of Latin American political and social developments and compares it to European fascist movements.

PART I
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

CHAPTER ONE
AUTHORITARIANISM IN MODERN SOCIETY

DOI: 10.4324/9780429334559-1

LEVELS OF ANALYSIS

In this book I intend to examine some aspects of recent and contemporary political authoritarianism, using primarily a theory of social mobilization and stressing the role of the classes and the characteristics of stratification in the genesis of such movements. The historical and empirical material has been taken from a case of national populism (Argentina) with comparisons with “classic” fascism (Italy). Both countries provide examples and illustrations highly useful for a preliminary test of some hypotheses relevant to a better understanding of these forms of contemporary authoritarianism.

The theory of mobilization and the hypotheses on the role of social classes do not exhaust the analysis of the genesis of authoritarian movements and regimes in the modern world. Other alternative or complementary hypotheses and theories should be used and the studies here exposed, needless to say, do not pretend to be but a partial contribution to the examination of political authoritarianism.

The theoretical analysis developed here is placed at a specific level of generality, both in terms of sociocultural contexts and of historical epoch. Most of the theoretical and interpretive contrasts concerning authoritarianism, as well as other social and political phenomena, derive from the use of theoretical frameworks whose validity is limited to particular sociohistorical areas. So, for example, fascism was initially interpreted as an expression of characteristics peculiar to Italian society, or as an almost accidental phenomenon created under exceptional historical conditions. Later, other interpretations of a wider range of generality were formulated, not bound to a single national society but to a type of society and to certain stages in its development (capitalist society and its “monopolistic” phase), or to the form assumed by this type of society in a particular national setting (thesis of the “more vulnerable spot” of the capitalist system). With the spreading of totalitarian movements and regimes in the world, especially after the advent of Nazism and the emergence of the Stalinist form of the Soviet regime, the discussion was considerably enlarged: there appeared hypotheses based on the role of the middle classes, mass society, psychosocial changes induced in all industrial societies, and other theorizations of a much wider range of application. Above all, the theme of modernization appears in various ways, in which it is assumed that the causes for authoritarianism may be found in particular conditions characterizing the transition to a modern structure, as well as in the characteristics of the “point of departure” in preindustrial society, e.g., in the types of absence of feudalism and other features of the “initial” social context. Finlly, in this widening of the explicative schemes, the historical specificity of fascism or of modern authoritarianism may become completely lost, as for instance when the repressive character of culture or even human nature is considered the essential factor underlying every kind of authoritarianism.

To the extent to which these interpretations reveal real aspects of the phenomenon, they are valid within different levels of generality. The peculiar characteristics of a given national society exercise a remarkable influence on the rise of authoritarian movements and regimes, or on the forms they assume and their development. This notwithstanding, underneath the specific historical determinants (or conditions) of a single social context may be acting factors of a more general order, that is, related to a type of social structure comprising various national societies, even those different in their historical and sociocultural peculiarity. The notion of “type,” then, also comprises levels of generality. For instance we may distinguish successive phases in the development of a given type, and/or different varieties of the same type. With the development of capitalism (and its transformation) and with the appearance of a variety of noncapitalist forms, the notion of modern industrial society as opposed to other types of society remains useful as a necessary analytical instrument, but it is to be applied only at a wide range of generality. Conversely, it is less useful or even misleading when one deals with a more specific area at a given historical or sociocultural level. Table 1.1 summarizes these considerations. In it, like in all schemes, one simplifies (and thus deforms) the extreme complexity of analyses and theories. But the scheme helps to clarify the level at which we place the present studies.

TABLE 1.1 LEVEL OF GENERALITY IN TERMS OF SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT AND HISTORICAL TIME

Level of Generality in Terms of Historical Time	Level of Generality in Terms of Sociocultural Context
	Generic Type of Society	Specific Sociocultural Characteristics
long range	Structural contradictions in modern society	Cultural area or nation
medium range	Stage and forms of the process of transition from nonmodern to modern	Specific configuration for a given country of the stage of the process of transition (including the state of the international system)
short range	Cycle of mobilization (general characteristics)	Cycle of mobilization and nature of the traumatic changes that have initiated it

The theories ea authoritarianism which emphasize the role of social classes are placed in the medium range, here identified with the process of national development of the countries used as an illustration. It must be noted that in the case of Italy the nature of the process is only briefly described. The scheme of social mobilization regards instead the short range; that is, it tends to supply the theoretical instruments for a comparative analysis centered on the period in which the authoritarian movements and regime emerge or immediately preceding it, attempting to explain their form, success, or failure. With respect to the degree of generality of the sociocultural context, the examination of both cases refer to national peculiarities (both in terms of social change and structure, and in terms of culture). The whole analysis is based on the assumption of the specificity of modern authoritarianism, which at a level of wider generality is considered different from nonmodern authoritarianism.

Analyses conducted at a given level cannot neglect the factors and their consequences to be observed at other levels. In this sense the analyses intertwine, and considered separately they would be quite partial. Within the limits of the subject matter I shall therefore mention some components related to different levels and correspondingly different analytical schemes. For this purpose in the following sections of the present chapter I shall be concerned with a distinction corresponding to a more general level of analysis: the nature of modern versus traditional authoritarianism. This is necessary to clarify some general premises on which the theoretical schemes and analyses are based. Special chapters will consider the theory of social mobilization and the hypothesis on the role of social class in the rise of fascism.

AUTHORITARIANISM AND STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN SOCIETY

My definition of modern society is based on the concept of secularization in the sociological sense (which I shall define shortly), referring to other writings for a more exhaustive exposition.¹ In synthesis it is this: Modern society differs from all other types of society in that there is a predominance—or at least a very vast area—of behavior regulated within the normative framework of elective action, or by individual choice rather than by prescriptive action prevailing in nonmodern societies. To this characteristic we must add two others derived from it: (1) institutionalization of change (in lieu of institutionalization of tradition); and (2) the increasing specialization of institutions (therefore of roles, values, and norms) and the autonomization of values of the various spheres of action and partial structures or subsystems. Action by choice is still a form of socially regulated behavior, but it differs from prescriptive action in that what the norms indicate are criteria of choice and not models of behavior assigned in a rigid manner to every “socially defined situation” (to use Thomas’s famous expression). The criteria of choice may be rational (in an instrumental sense) or emotional. Thus in science, the economy, and technology we find choice with “instrumentally” rational criteria, but in other choices rational criteria are often combined with emotional ones (for example in the choices for marriage, or in occupational vocations, where criteria include the effort to reach, given certain conditions, the maximum expression of individuality, of what one wants to do and what one is capable of doing). We must also remember that the three principles of action, change, and increasing specialization constitute a description of modernity which in different expressions and concepts is found in the classic sociological tradition and generally in social thought from Marx to Durkheim, Toennies, Weber, and others, and adopted by contemporary sociology in its diverse and frequently contrasting interpretations. These characteristics (translated abstractly into the three “principles”), are the outcome of the confluence, at a certain point in time and space, of a series of single or analytically distinguishable processes, which though they may be to a certain extent intercor-related do not always or necessarily converge. In some historical epochs the convergence was only partial, and the particular configuration of structural and psychosocial traits found in the West, particularly since the Renaissance, failed to crystallize. These are the cases of “unsuccessful” modernization, such as “ancient” capitalism or the Italian communes.

The minimum requirement for the rise and development of modern society is the extension of secularization to three areas: knowledge, technology, and the economy. Although traditional traits usually remain or may be fused with modern structures, it is still true that secularization tends to be extended to the rest of a society, to all areas of behavior and all subsystems. No society can do without a certain central prescriptive nucleus to ensure a minimum but sufficient basis for integration: a core of values and norms in which are rooted the criteria for choices and those regulating change. Even the central core, however, according to the logic intrinsic to modernity, could be changed; but then mechanisms should exist to carry on such changes without destroying the society itself. From this basic condition springs a potential factor (at a level of maximum generality) for the rise of authoritarianism in its modern sense. Modern society is characterized by a tension intrinsic to its particular form of integration. This tension is the consequence of the conflict between the expansive character of secularization and the need to maintain a universally accepted central core without which the society ceases to exist as such. It is not surprising that the philosophy of history usually locates the beginning of the fall of the great civilizations exactly in the phases of acute secularization. Toynbee, Spengler, and Sorokin give the clearest examples of this. Historically, modern societies of Western or non-Western origin have found the basis of their stability in the conservation or transformation of preexisting prescriptive nuclei, or sometimes in the creation of new ones. Such stability was always interrupted by acute conflicts when some aspect of the prescriptive basic nucleus required for social integration was weakened or dissolved. For instance, in political modernization the nation, and the values, norms, and symbols related to it, turned out to be one of the essential prescriptive nuclei. And in the crises of modern or modernizing societies, even where the predominant ideology was strongly internationalist, modern authoritarianism always tended to be rooted in the nation and in nationalism (while the class element, which according to the ideology should have replaced the national one, played a secondary role or combined in different ways with nationalism). One can hence formulate the hypothesis that the structural tension inherent in all modern society between growing secularization and the necessity of maintaining a minimal prescriptive central nucleus sufficient for integration, constitutes a general causal factor in modern authoritarian trends. Such trends and the historical processes leading to them, as well as the manner in which societies confront these crises, will depend on a series of other conditions studied at medium-range level, in terms of epoch, time, and sociocultural specificity, that is, within given sociohistorical contexts. As an example we may mention theories imputing authoritarian propensities in a society to the nature of the preindustrial structure, or to the characteristics of the transition, or to the class structure and its changes. At the short range, theories explaining the process directly related to authoritarian attempts (and possible “solutions”) would be required. The theory of social mobilization is an illustration. As we shall see in another chapter, social mobilization may take the form of a cycle, whose outcome may be the reestablishment, modification, or creation of new prescriptive nuclei, capable of obtaining consensus at least within the limits necessary and sufficient for the functioning of a modern society. Authoritarian “solutions” are possible, and under certain conditions probable, in any of the crises generated by structural tensions inherent in modern society. Their outcome will depend upon the medium- and short-range causal and conditioning factors.

MODERN AND TRADITIONAL AUTHORITARIANISM

The notion of secularization enables us to distinguish between traditional and modern authoritarianism. In the different areas of activity, or in the subsystems, in which the prescriptive kind of action prevails, human behavior will follow internalized models for which alternative or different answers are “unthinkable.” Authoritarianism is therefore implicit in culture, and is not regarded as such by the subjects, for whom the behavior patterns they follow in their actions remain beyond any possible doubt or discussion. To take an extreme example, the taboo of incest is not perceived as an imposition by an external authority, but as an “instinct,” “law of nature,” or other similar attitudes. In contrast, where elective action predominates (even if prescriptive elements, such as criteria of choice, persist), any coercion that tends to hinder it and is felt as an imposition from an external authority will be considered as an expression of authoritarianism. In the prescriptive situation, social control takes place “naturally” by means of models of behavior internalized mainly through primary socialization. In this case authoritarianism expresses itself through “spontaneous” mechanisms, even when external social control remains necessary to deal with deviations. In the elective situation, as we defined it, internal control is limited to the criteria of choice, not to the choices themselves. Increasing specialization and autonomy of the institutional spheres and subsystems, the legitimacy of change, and the dynamic character of the technological society often interfere with the internalization of basic norms and values or make them problematic. The very processes of socialization in the various spheres become less spontaneous and more deliberate (choice with rational or other criteria). What used to occur naturally becomes subject for handbooks (a typical example is the handbooks for mother on child rearing). Under these conditions authoritarian solutions, which tend to reestablish or create new prescriptive nuclei, cannot avail themselves—or only in part—of the spontaneous mechanisms of preindustrial society. External controls must be used, in two different ways: (1) violent repression, but this cannot be normally exercised on the mass of the population; (2) forms of “artificial” socialization (or resocialization), that is, in forms deliberately induced, using the means provided by modern science and technology. The political socialization of the young in totalitarian regimes is an example of this kind. And the creation of “total psychological and ideological climates” in which the individual is submerged in his everyday life, also belongs to the same kind of planned reconstruction of prescriptive behavior patterns. Sometimes the result of such “total” climates may turn into a “normality” that to an external observer seems an illusion or madness.

What is essential in modern authoritarianism, above all in its “pure” form (totalitarianism proper), is that the aim of this planned socialization and resocialization is the transformation of the population into ideologically “militant,” active participa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Introduction
• Part I: Theoretical Background
• Part II: A Case Study of National Populism and a Comparison with Classic Fascism
• Part III: Mobilization From Above
• Index