For a summary of this interview, click here.
A long-retired colleague from the Department of French, Hispanic and Italian Studies (FHIS) recently came back to Vancouver for a visit and found out that today one of the most popular courses in the Department, ITST 345, revolves around Italian Fascism. He became curious and asked the faculty member who designed it and teaches it, Prof. Carlo Testa, to fill him in on this new item — or, this item that was new to him. What follows is a transcript of their conversation.
Interesting … in my days, the Italian program did not have courses taught in English, much less one on a social or political topic such as Fascism. I’m glad ITST 345 is so successful … but … anyway, what is this new thing all about?
Not so new! We’ve had it since Fall 2006. (Smirk) At the beginning, before the course title was approved, the content was test-run and offered as RMST 222, Romance Studies 222. In fact, we often still offer the two courses as cross-listed. But these are technicalities. Essentially, this is an interdisciplinary course centred on Italian Fascism, plus a little bit of Fascism’s origins (where Fascism came from), plus a little bit of its “legacy” (where it went after 1945).
What do you mean by “interdisciplinary?”
The habit of specialization — one could even say, the obsession with fragmentation — that rules modern Academia usually leads us to teach (and research) topics as separate, mutually watertight vessels. This is just the way that the age of Fascism is usually examined in many disciplines: history (about diplomatic and military events), fine arts, architecture, cinema, economic history, and so on. Even in the field from which I come, literature, I have found it not uncommon to see Italian literary texts being treated in isolation from the social context that gave rise to them. Of course, at some level of specialization there is a logic to this; technical questions require technical answers.
For example: Why did the Italian armed forces have no radars in the Second World War, despite the fact that the inventor of the radio, Marconi, was an Italian Nobel prize winner?
Right. Yes, there are questions like that. But that is really a very high level of specialization. For all practical purposes below the level of a PhD, which is where most of us operate most of the time, what really matters is a combination of disciplinary knowledge and a solid grasp of the interdisciplinary big picture. And there are few areas where this “big picture” comprehension is more urgent than in the case of Fascism. This is an elusive, complex, multi-faceted topic … greatly impacting the entire general public. Our community, our polity at large, does not suffer much if it is not conversant with arcane technical issues in some areas. But it does suffer considerably when it proves ignorant in matters surrounding Fascism: yesterday’s Fascism and today’s.
In practice, what should students expect from ITST 345 and/or RMST 222?
We study works from the first half of the Italian twentieth century that belong to — or straddle creatively — theory, politics, essays, literary fiction and memoirs: Marinetti, Moravia, Pirandello, Ungaretti, Carlo Levi. We examine the fine arts of the same period, from Boccioni, De Chirico and Modigliani to Sironi and Morandi. We consider the urban planning and architecture of Mussolini’s regime, from the planned EUR 1942 Exhibition to new Fascist towns such as Sabaudia.
Futurism and Modernism were anyway central “global” tenets of that age, weren’t they?
Yes, and in Italy, Futurism and Modernism generally took on a fascist tinge. Or vice-versa! But … sometimes not. More on this later … and in the course. (Smirk)
What else?
Cinema. We obviously watch quite a bit of newsreel footage from the age. And we also watch clips from fiction films belonging to the genres of the white telephones comedy (Camerini’s Mr. Max), war propaganda (Balbo’s transatlantic flights, Rossellini’s The White Ship), as well as historical “peplum” kolossals (Gallone’s Scipio the African). Then, it goes without saying, we do study «M», the Duce, close-up — via his biography by Neville, as well as through excerpts from other notable historians, such as R. J. B. Bosworth, Denis Mack Smith, and Martin Clark.
Nothing about the Duce’s (many) women?
Ah, that is one of the most intriguing parts of the course! We discuss the socialist activist Angelika Balabanoff, the wealthy art critic and literata Margherita Sarfatti, «M»’s peasant wife Rachele, the archetypal “spoiled mistress” Claretta Petacci. And, of course, the beloved Edda, Benito’s eldest daughter. There were more, but we only have so much time, and these were just the most important among the Duce’s women.
I think you said the course does not stop at 1945. Why is that? That is when Fascism was defeated.
Defeated? Well — yes, no, and maybe. The legacy of Fascism in Italy after 1945 to our day is discussed during the last three weeks of the course. You know, in films, fairytales, etc., it seems, the most tantalizing part of the story is often the one that takes place after the word «The End». (Smirk). So in ITST 345 and/or RMST 222 I also address what happened to this complex issue after the end of the Second World War. In fact, the question as to just how Italy dealt … or failed to deal … with Fascism after it was supposedly “over” is a no less instructive part of the story for today’s times.
To summarize, in ITST 345 and/or RMST 222 the actual point of the exercise is …
The point of the exercise is to provide students with some tools necessary not only to condemn, with a serious understanding, the Fascism or Fascisms of the past, but, more importantly, to face consciously, and effectively resist, the many forms of Fascism that are arising today.
To practice, in two words, conscious anti-fascism?
In three words (to paraphrase a famous essay by Susan Sontag), to practice a conscious, fascinating anti-fascism … (Smirk)
OK, so here’s the big one: what is Fascism?
So much work has been done by scholars on this topic! It is really difficult to say anything about it that does not sound already thoroughly chewed and digested by others. The most effective short essay I have read on Fascism is not by a historian, but by a medievalist-turned-sociologist, Umberto Eco. It is titled «Ur-Fascism» and was originally given as a talk to North American students. The first part of this essay elaborates on the many internal contradictions of Italian Fascism. Each of these mutually exclusive facets was able to “give something to someone”; and so contradictoriness, instead of hurting the Fascist regime, helped it draw popularity from various social groups. The second part develops the idea that Fascism contains and shrewdly exploits a number of archetypes which can be combined in different guises; so, different permutations of the same elements are able, in different times and places, to give rise to different forms of historical “fascisms” with a plural S.
Alright. So Fascism — or, at any rate, Italian Fascism — was inherently contradictory; and, second of all, it exploited “archetypal” impulses. But, may I?, this seems fairly abstract, “academic” so to speak. For our purposes, let’s say for everyday purposes, have you, yourself, developed a more practical, handier definition of Fascism?
Yes. Let me start small, with two basic items, two key concepts. The first is «populism». It seems that today everyone understands this idea well, if only empirically and intuitively, so I won’t belabour the point. The second is the adjective «reactionary». This word, too, is a pretty simple and transparent one, yet not everyone sees through it clearly. Let me say that a «reactionary» movement arises as a … well, as a reaction to something that many people oppose and reject. On this basis, three fundamental things need to be understood about Fascism.
One: Fascism is a populist reaction to a failure of liberal democracy,
Two: Fascism is a populist reaction to a failure of liberal democracy,
Three: Fascism is a populist reaction to a failure of liberal democracy,
— with the accent on failure. This is my “handy” definition of Fascism. It seems to me that, if we grasp this, we are miles ahead in our task. If we don’t, we struggle, and we give Fascism a huge chance.
That will require more elaboration. But before we go there, let me ask you a preliminary question: do you feel that all historical moments can be equally vulnerable to Fascism?
Oh, no. There can be variations on the theme, but in Italy’s case, at least it is clear that a deep crisis was needed to trigger that emergency situation. For Italy, that emergency situation was the local aftermath of the First World war, coupled with the success of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. In ITST 345 / RMST 222 we see that Fascism arises from (a) a deep crisis in a country that was (b) endowed with a glorious past, especially if that formerly glorious country (c) recently endured a pretty long spell under the yoke of foreign imperialism. In our Italian Fascism class, this (a+b+c) “formula” absolutely seems to be key.
Any counterexample that you are aware of?
During the “economic miracle” of the late 1950s and 1960s, no Italian took seriously the danger for their country to revert to Fascism. Some fringe madmen in the armed forces tried their luck and attempted a coup, but they found no support worth mentioning; their attempts were both dangerous and — laughable. Tragicomic films were made about them. But … a counter-counterexample: in today’s Italy, no one laughs about Fascism any more! We do talk about this with more ease in the course … (Smirk)
Let me insist a little bit in this digression: in 1922, was the rise to power of Fascism inevitable in Italy?
Yes, I think it was inevitable. Or rather, I think it became inevitable the moment that the King saw it as inevitable … and so resolved to connive with it. I’d say that Victor Emmanuel III carried out — to put it in today’s parlance — something like an «autogolpe». We talk about this in the Fascism course too.
Now, to go back a little, could you say a little more on what you mean by «populism»?
Sure. Populism is a political manoeuvre by established powers that starts from real questions, real issues, real problems in the lives of people, and gives them the “wrong” answers. “Wrong” for the people, obviously; and just as obviously, “right” from the viewpoint of the interests of those established powers. To use a word current today, those answers are fake answers. To put it differently: the business-as-usual ruling classes give certain social groups empty promises which are not kept, or are only kept to the extent that they serve the ruling classes’ own interests. Here, concepts such as «ideology», or «hypocrisy / bad faith», «lip service», or «empty words» can be useful.
But words are never empty. In fact, in the history of humanity few things seem to be as powerful as words.
Yes, you are absolutely right. The central concept is a perfunctory “symbolic” appeasement of the masses. When I say that Fascism rises by promising certain social groups “symbolic” appeasement, I don’t mean to say that it is nothing. Far from that: symbolism can be argued to be one of the most substantial factors in societal, i.e. political, life. Archetypes are ubiquitous, powerful! We should always keep in mind that it is very dangerous to turn them over to fascists and para-fascists for their reckless, self-serving use.
Could you give some examples of what you mean by “symbolic” appeasement?
The content of that “symbolic” appeasement may vary hugely. Everyone seems to know today that direct propaganda, architecture, sports, the media, cinema, etc., was a huge part of that appeasement in historical Fascism. That is what today’s academic area of cultural studies emphasizes; and as far as I’m concerned, that is all well and good. For all intents and purposes that image is in fact the image of Fascism held by our contemporaries. But today’s cultural studies act as though there had been nothing else to Fascism, nothing else besides the façade of propaganda, architecture, sports, the media, cinema, etc. — all of these, by implication (at least as judged by us today), quite blunt, coarse, uncouth. This is a caricature. It is a joke. I’m thinking, to mention but one, of the oft-repeated charge that during his speeches Mussolini routinely adopted quasi-simian poses for the benefit of the Italian public.
Stalin and Hitler, too, were pretty improbable showmen.
Yes, they were! To our contemporary eyes, at least, and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. And yes, by all standards Fascism was indeed blunt, coarse, uncouth. But, if so, why then was it so successful for so long? This is what worries me, this is the problem I try to address … And look at the politicians that monkey around today, in our supposedly more sophisticated times!
So, in your opinion Mussolini’s antics are beside the point.
Absolutely. Fascism was not removed — or rather, defeated — because Mussolini was a ham; it was removed — or rather, defeated — because Mussolini ended up losing the Second World War big time. If he had relied on the counsel of a truly well-informed think tank, he could have remained non-belligerent, as did Francisco Franco in Spain … and kept strutting on the global stage for at least two decades longer. So the bad acting should not even begin to distract us from the very, very serious matters at hand in Fascism: yesterday’s or today’s. Being a clown never stopped a dictator, and never will.
Aha! Could that be an allusion to any of the strongpersons on today’s political stage?
Yes. In passing.
So, in your opinion, we should take Fascism “more seriously.”
Very much so. If we dismiss historical Fascism as a joke, as the mere caricature of what it really was, then we fail to grasp the entirely logical dynamics that brought it into power; and so, most importantly, we fail to grasp the entirely logical dynamics that today could, and can, bring it to power again and again. In general, laughing at the supposed naïveté of past epochs is a very dangerous game. By that standard, future epochs will laugh about ours!
Well, why shouldn’t they? (Smirk)
Right. If we don’t watch out, the joke will be on us … As if we didn’t have any “symbolic” mystification in today’s society: the full-fledged propaganda built into our times’ architecture, our times’ sports, our times’ media, our times’ cinema, and so on. What will future ages think of our “freedom” to choose between Pepsi and Coke? Apple and Samsung? Facebook and Twitter? The list of our own delusions goes on without end.
Let us return for a moment to the “real symbolism” or “symbolic realities” behind the façade of Fascism. This seems to be an important part of your argument. What facets would you include in this list?
Among the facets of “real symbolism” or “symbolic realities” of Fascism, I would give nationalism first place. It is the cheapest and most abundant political glue available. Surely, it is artificial: none of our “nations” is more than a few centuries old (and, on past record, who knows for how many more any of them will survive). But, politically speaking, it is a rallying cry that has worked and, in its present form, still works. This is the drawer where we should put the «classical» nationalist publicity stunts of Fascism: the Olympics, the soccer World Championships, the transatlantic flights by flotillas of hydroplanes, etc. These initiatives were mostly harmless. Others ranged from the useful — for example, draining malarial marshes — to the problematic — for example, pushing the monoculture of wheat for supposedly strategic purposes.
And beyond nationalism?
Beyond nationalism came “Fascist” social structures and provisions that gave the Italian working classes the perception that they belonged to a large social unity, acknowledged and fostered by a caring national State. Who does not want, or need, to belong? Contrary to the abstractions preached by the abstract intellectualism of the Enlightenment and later 19th-century economists — Descartes, Lamettrie, Leibniz, Ricardo … — human beings are not monads acting “rationally” (whatever that may mean) in the vacuum of a «mathesis universalis». There is no «mathesis universalis» … unfortunately. Far from that, human beings are historical actants anchored in the spirit of their time and place. We are not machines … fortunately. I realize this has already been said by at least two other people before me: Dostoevskii and Charlie Chaplin! Sorry for the digression … Let’s go back to your question.
Yes. Let’s go back to the “symbolic-real” social provisions put in place by Fascism. You seem to have some specific items on your mind. What were they?
Among these I would count: the After-Work clubs; the organization for the protection of Maternity and Infancy; seaside and mountain “Colonies” (i.e. camps and sanatoriums) for the children of the working classes; and, with the most enduring legacy, the National Fascist Institute for Social Pensions or INFPS. This last entity lives on to this day. To this day, every month it collects dues and disburses payments to Italian employees and pensioners from all walks of life.
Really? The very same institute?
Well, yes and no. Of course after 1945 the «F» in the middle has been removed! But everything else has remained, and it’s now just called INPS. With the simple drop of the «F» in the acronym, virtually no one in today’s Italy remembers, or knows, about the roots of their social security system.
Would you then argue that Fascism was generous with the working class?
No, no. It’s a long story, and I’ll keep it as short as possible. When Fascism went «decidedly toward the masses» (to quote one of Mussolini’s favourite slogans), it did so in its own interest. Yet the regime was very astute in devising, coordinating, packaging and selling to the public all these initiatives. And, taken together, they certainly did amount to much more than the previous “liberal-democratic” regime had ever been able — or, more accurately, willing — to come up with in support of the unwashed multitudes. All that the sniffy pre-Fascist oligarchs around the Savoy royal court had had to tell the masses in 1915-1918 was to go to war and die for the King: a pretty one-sided affair, if you ask me. Now, if the social support institutions created by Fascism really were mere window-dressing, if they really were nothing but cheap “symbolic” inventions — why then, I ask, did the earlier liberal-democratic regime not invent them first? The obvious answer I’d give is that the earlier liberal-democratic regime did not care about the masses, and couldn’t be bothered even to pretend it did. Fascism at least pretended! That is somewhat better, or at least somewhat more effective, than nothing at all.
In other words, you seem to be saying, Fascism used the stick, especially in its first years presumably, but it was also able to use the carrot?
I’d say: not much carrot — and yet, still more than the previous “liberal-democratic” regime ever did. Food for thought for us today! For the record, in his excellent biography of Mussolini, Martin Clark writes that in the 1930s Fascism found a balance «not between consensus and violence, but rather, between two weaker forms of both: acquiescence and threat.» This seems a very sharp, very persuasive formulation to me.
Do you think that the argument about going «decidedly toward the masses» should still be valid in today’s global environment?
Completely. If I were running for DUCE 2.0 in today’s political arena — I mean, in some Western country currently run under a neo-liberal agenda — my first policy proposal would be free public Kindergarten guaranteed to all children. I think I would be extremely popular, among mothers, if nothing else. Lots of votes there! (Smirk) I repeat myself: if and when liberal democracy fails, authoritarianism slips in to pick up the slack, to fill a social need. Politics abhors a vacuum; in that vacuum, Fascism can thrive. We ignore unmet social needs (which includes “archetypal” needs!) at our peril.
At the beginning of our conversation, when you gave me your «empirical definition» of Fascism, you said that in your opinion «Fascism is a populist reaction to a failure of liberal democracy — with the accent on failure». It seems to me that we have now, in essence, turned to the second and last part of that definition. Hence my obvious next question for you: what failures exactly? Have you got something more precise in mind?
Nothing very precise. I happen to teach a medium-sized course on Italian Fascism and its roots and aftermath in Italy; my academic field is not the contemporary global economy or something even more daunting. To sail close to my shore, the little example I can quote for certain is that, for example, the essential «failure» of the Republic — the Roman Republic — which turned it into an empire, was the destruction of «republican virtue»: the virtue of egalitarianism, simplicity, and self-sacrifice which allowed all Roman citizens to have a shared set of values, responsibilities, chances etc. When, in consequence of colonial (and hence economic) expansion, the Republic was flooded with wealth, slaves etc. «Republican virtue» went down the drain, because an immensely unequal society arose, where strongmen had their own armies and jostled for power until the strongest of them became Kaesar — i.e. Kaiser, emperor. We know how it all turned out: not with «republican virtue» but with «imperial vice».
Let’s summarize then: why is Fascism so relevant today? Why is it important to understand it?
Well, because of the very reason I just mentioned: in our age our «Republic» — a word which in Latin quite eloquently means “the public thing” — is being privately appropriated by some of its “princes.” The direct consequence is debasement, corruption from within. Let’s face it: why should masses of slaves, deprived of any say, die fighting for the benefit of their “princes-slash-owners?” The Empire sets in when the Republic has nothing decent to offer.
In ancient Rome …
In ancient Rome, the so-called Empire flourished briefly, but soon ensued centuries of a professional military dictatorship run by a separate caste. And then, when even military dictatorship caved in economically under its own weight, came the barbaric invasions. This was a very high price to pay for the loss of Rome’s «republican virtue». No?
Of course. And … are we, too, going that way, in your opinion?
I hope not, but just check Edward Watts’ Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell into Tyranny, and then tell me how you feel. Not only that. Along with Watts, I have read, pretty much back-to-back, Thomas Picketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century and Bruno Latour’s Down to Earth. None of these made for reassuring reading.
All in all, then, is your bottom line on “imperial” Fascism — or rather, against it — an appeal to reason?
Again — yes, no, and maybe. Yes, if «an appeal to reason» means that today’s liberal democracy wants to further a balanced democratic society by addressing the people’s needs (material and archetypal) in a real, substantive way … before Fascism jumps in, promising to address them in a fake way. But also, no: no, if «an appeal to reason» means merely counting on some technocratic pseudo-logic of the marketplace to self-correct our current path to extinction.
For the last four decades or so, the “rational expectations” of the market have been leading our human race on a firm and steady course to … well, self-destruction. Contrary to what economists keep claiming, this is never going to change by itself; «the invisible hand of the market» never self-corrects into an «equilibrium». (Speaking of fake “symbolic” reassurances!) In contrast — since to govern etymologically means “to steer” — it is, by definition, governments that need to steer human societies, not the businesspeople from the marketplace. I think that governments’ abdication to the mercantile class, to the mercantile-turned-corporate class, is the most tragic relinquishment of duty of our age. Merchants are trained to buy and sell, not to direct the ship of human society; it is not their task, and should not be.
In your opinion, it seems, “merchants” are unequipped to run the assembly of the human «polis».
Absolutely. When fascist politicians ran bits of the economy, they ran it badly. Self-evidently, the reverse is no less true: just think of Italy’s Berlusconi at the turn of the 21st century! To each their own. Besides, “reason” is no simple tool to use in the first place.
In what sense? In my time, there only used to be one human reason.
Maybe it wasn’t the right one, at least judging by the results … (Smirk). Seriously, though — it looks like human reason is just like geometry: there are as many geometries as there are sets of axioms to base the entire deductive system on. But in geometry, there are only practical implications, no tragic ethical consequences, if we disagree on the angle sum in a triangle. In contrast, when it comes to the human mind, depending on which set of axioms we pick there can be a “good reason” — a good way to use our reason — and then there can be a “bad reason” — a bad way to use our reason.
I see. Of course, it has always been so, and always will be.
Well, this is just my point. Who will help us choose between “good reason” and “bad reason”? We have no future if our heart picks the wrong one. But here we move into a different area of specialization … and matters of heart, of “intuitive knowledge,” are addressed in other courses in our Italian program.
Courses about pre-modern Italy, I guess? (Smirk)
Of course! … You haven’t forgotten what you knew and researched about Italy. Yes, that type of knowledge was more prevalent in the Italian Middle Ages and Renaissance. Before great modern scientists such as Galileo Galilei.
Why is it important to understand our history in addition to just learning a language? How does history inform current affairs?
If I wake up in the morning and don’t remember my name, my spouse’s name, my own address, or (to stay on the banal side) where I’ve put my eyeglasses or my wallet, I’m in trouble, aren’t I? So, to know my “history” — in the broad sense that I described at the start of this conversation — is less about knowing my past than it is about knowing my present. To know my “history” is a permanently, continuously necessary tool as I go about the task of running the daunting “business” of my life! Pun, by all means, intended …
And how about languages?
As for languages, I have parallel, similar feelings: to me, they, too, are indispensable tools. Who in their right mind would want to work in a tool shed that contained only screwdrivers? Only hammers? Only planes? Only lathes? Doing any job at all without the proper tools is hell! You’re always running off to your neighbour to borrow this or that … And when you do that, you have no control over what kind of piece of junk they may be handing down to you. (Smirk) You’re much better off having your own.
Meaning: you’re much better off if you yourself know your history … ?
Yes! And your languages.
Why do you think ITST 345 / RMST 222 is so popular among UBC students? Why is it interesting to them?
I have the impression that this Fascism course is quite a popular elective (relative, of course, to it being taught in a small program in a small department) because a considerable number of students “know”, or at any rate, “feel” — and wish to understand better — many, or most, of the things we just said. That can happen consciously or subconsciously. Today’s students yearn for knowledge and realize that, despite the superabundance of all kinds of earlier schooling, the media, and the internet etc. … or perhaps precisely because of it! … they just don’t have enough systematic knowledge about vital issues in the world that surrounds us. The topic of Fascism certainly is in that top league. They have not been given enough … well, tools! They feel the need to know more. They want to know. That is wonderful; to me, that is where hope is.
———
Learn more about Professor Carlo Testa and his course ITST 345 or RMST 222.
View the summary of this interview.
