What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nature of Fascism
The history of ideas combined with political, social and psychological theory - a new synthesis of approaches invaluable to students both of contemporary politics and of modern (particularly European) history.
249 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1991
20 people are currently reading
853 people want to read
About the author
Roger Griffin
44 books50 followersRoger David Griffin is a British professor of modern history and political theorist at Oxford Brookes University, England. His principal interest is the socio-historical and ideological dynamics of fascism, as well as various forms of political or religious fanaticism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
June 16, 2014
I've been raving about this book for well over a decade, but I only really took the time to sit and read every word of it this past month. I'd read the important chapters (those in which Griffin sets forth his thesis and discusses it in terms of the two successful fascist regimes), as well as having used the index to find important bits, and I was familiar with Fascism and several of Griffin's articles in which he further elaborates the theory, but only now, two years out of graduate school and during a period "betwen jobs" did I really have time to go through the whole thing. It did not disappoint.
In the twenty-five years since this book came out, Griffin has become the standard against which fascist studies are measured and has described the "new consensus" on the fascist minimum, based, essentially, on what he wrote here. To summarize it, for those who aren't already familiar, his definition of fascism runs thus: "Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." That requires a bit of explanation, and Griffin himself does it better than I can, but I'll give it a shot.
First of all, why define fascism at all? Everyone seems to "know" what a fascist is, especially those on the liberal left (although conservatives aren't above playing this game as well) who toss it around at nearly everyone they don't like. Well, from a political science or historical perspective, an insult isn't an especially useful category. Certain regimes may be conservative, authoritarian, or militaristic without quite managing to be "fascist." Some seem to be proto-fascist (meaning they have the characteristics that tend to lead toward fascism without quite fully developing into it) or para-fascist (meaning they adopt the external trappings of fascism and may use fascist support, but reject fascism's radicalism), but it's hard to say when you don't know for sure what fascism is. As strange as it sounds, prior to the "new consensus," you couldn't get two political scientists or historians in a room without them arguing over the basic ingredients necessary to define fascism. Several authors (eg: Eatwell, Gregor, Sternhell, Nolte) had attempted to provide definitions which were, for various reasons, not entirely satisfactory. Griffin finally gave us something heuristically useful to sink our teeth into.
Second, what’s that weird word, “palingenetic?” It has nothing to do with the Genealogy of a former Vice Presidential candidate, actually. It is a word that comes from Theology, and Griffin in his Glossary defines it as “Expressing the myth of rebirth, regeneration. In a political context, embodying the aspiration to create a new order following a period of perceived decline or decadence.” In a specifically fascist context, it tends to be expressed in terms of the phoenix-like rise of the national community from the degradation its enemies have subjected it to. These enemies are often internal as well as external, and may include (but are not limited to) Jews, homosexuals, Communists, Socialists, liberals, capitalists, large landholders, or immigrants. It is important to realize that palingenetic imagery is not unique to fascism, it is common to all Utopian, revolutionary, and often even reformist movements, but that its placement as central to a mythic core of populist ultra-nationalism is a very specific expression.
Finally, it’s worth talking about that concept of a “mythic core.” Griffin’s argument is that there is an element of irrationalism to all forms of political ideology, and the degree to which irrational impulses are tied to real political aims and actions determines ideological appeal in the broader body politic. A liberal democratic “mythic core” might express the concept of the social contract or the validity of “one man, one vote.” The Communist “mythic core” could perhaps be found in “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The fascist mythic core, as Griffin has identified it, is palingenesis.
The book itself takes us through this definition in considerable detail, along with historiographic analysis of previous attempts to identify the essential characteristics of fascism. Subsequent chapters explore the Italian and German examples within the context of the new thesis, followed by historical Inter-War and Post-War expressions, and then chapters discussing the conditions for the success of fascism and its contingencies. Griffin concludes that, contrary to its own propaganda and its apparent ascendancy in certain periods, fascism is a comparatively frail thing that requires very specific political circumstances to come to power un-assisted from the outside, and which contains the seeds of its own destruction in its basic philosophy. Nevertheless, he also finds that its basic vision of palingenesis is remarkably adaptable to historic conditions, and capable of producing nearly endless variations of violent if ultimately ineffective opposition movements.
This study is an excellent starting point for anyone interested in fascism and in the direction of fascist studies in the past quarter century. Griffin’s style is engaging and enjoyable, and his attention to detail remarkable. I strongly recommend this book to all who are interested in the field, whether you agree with Griffin’s thesis or not. It is the point of departure for most current discussions of the subject.
In the twenty-five years since this book came out, Griffin has become the standard against which fascist studies are measured and has described the "new consensus" on the fascist minimum, based, essentially, on what he wrote here. To summarize it, for those who aren't already familiar, his definition of fascism runs thus: "Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." That requires a bit of explanation, and Griffin himself does it better than I can, but I'll give it a shot.
First of all, why define fascism at all? Everyone seems to "know" what a fascist is, especially those on the liberal left (although conservatives aren't above playing this game as well) who toss it around at nearly everyone they don't like. Well, from a political science or historical perspective, an insult isn't an especially useful category. Certain regimes may be conservative, authoritarian, or militaristic without quite managing to be "fascist." Some seem to be proto-fascist (meaning they have the characteristics that tend to lead toward fascism without quite fully developing into it) or para-fascist (meaning they adopt the external trappings of fascism and may use fascist support, but reject fascism's radicalism), but it's hard to say when you don't know for sure what fascism is. As strange as it sounds, prior to the "new consensus," you couldn't get two political scientists or historians in a room without them arguing over the basic ingredients necessary to define fascism. Several authors (eg: Eatwell, Gregor, Sternhell, Nolte) had attempted to provide definitions which were, for various reasons, not entirely satisfactory. Griffin finally gave us something heuristically useful to sink our teeth into.
Second, what’s that weird word, “palingenetic?” It has nothing to do with the Genealogy of a former Vice Presidential candidate, actually. It is a word that comes from Theology, and Griffin in his Glossary defines it as “Expressing the myth of rebirth, regeneration. In a political context, embodying the aspiration to create a new order following a period of perceived decline or decadence.” In a specifically fascist context, it tends to be expressed in terms of the phoenix-like rise of the national community from the degradation its enemies have subjected it to. These enemies are often internal as well as external, and may include (but are not limited to) Jews, homosexuals, Communists, Socialists, liberals, capitalists, large landholders, or immigrants. It is important to realize that palingenetic imagery is not unique to fascism, it is common to all Utopian, revolutionary, and often even reformist movements, but that its placement as central to a mythic core of populist ultra-nationalism is a very specific expression.
Finally, it’s worth talking about that concept of a “mythic core.” Griffin’s argument is that there is an element of irrationalism to all forms of political ideology, and the degree to which irrational impulses are tied to real political aims and actions determines ideological appeal in the broader body politic. A liberal democratic “mythic core” might express the concept of the social contract or the validity of “one man, one vote.” The Communist “mythic core” could perhaps be found in “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The fascist mythic core, as Griffin has identified it, is palingenesis.
The book itself takes us through this definition in considerable detail, along with historiographic analysis of previous attempts to identify the essential characteristics of fascism. Subsequent chapters explore the Italian and German examples within the context of the new thesis, followed by historical Inter-War and Post-War expressions, and then chapters discussing the conditions for the success of fascism and its contingencies. Griffin concludes that, contrary to its own propaganda and its apparent ascendancy in certain periods, fascism is a comparatively frail thing that requires very specific political circumstances to come to power un-assisted from the outside, and which contains the seeds of its own destruction in its basic philosophy. Nevertheless, he also finds that its basic vision of palingenesis is remarkably adaptable to historic conditions, and capable of producing nearly endless variations of violent if ultimately ineffective opposition movements.
This study is an excellent starting point for anyone interested in fascism and in the direction of fascist studies in the past quarter century. Griffin’s style is engaging and enjoyable, and his attention to detail remarkable. I strongly recommend this book to all who are interested in the field, whether you agree with Griffin’s thesis or not. It is the point of departure for most current discussions of the subject.
December 22, 2014
We use words all the time that we don't really understand, no wait we assume we have a sense of what they mean but when we stop and think, we realize the explanation can be a bit shaky and unclear. This is especially so in the case of political terms and ideology. what is socialism, anarchism, democracy and so on? For the last few months I had been living with this feeling that my opinion on and knowledge off fascism was based on inadequate information. I did not feel like I really got it and the fact that fascist has become a classic leftist insult to anything from the right regardless of actually fascist or not left me at best confused and at worst annoyed. Finding a book to read was tricky to say the least due to the massive amount of literature on fascism and Nazism built up over the years. In the end I settled for Roger Griffin's book the nature of fascism.
The book is structured as follows, he goes in the first chapters trough (perhaps a bit too much) much length to explain what he means when talking about ideology and every part of his definition of fascism is explained in great detail. The middle of the book is dedicated to comparing his definition and aspects of fascism to real life fascist regimes (Italy under Mussolini and Nazi Germany) but also too a wide scope of movements active in European, African, Asian and American states and non fascist authoritarian states that adopted fascist aspects and suppressed actual fascist and proto fascist movements if they threatened their rule. The last chapter is dedicated to a psychological approach of analyzing followers of fascism and to explain why people would follow a movement like this regardless of specific country context.All of these parts interact with one another and non are dominating, the result is an interesting mixed approach to fascism. The final part was the most disappointing, here Griffin explains why Nazi Germany killed more people and why it's followers were more fanatic. This last part felt more like an obligation in the genre than adding anything extra to the book.
I found the book to be very good both in content, questions it raises, overview of the debate on fascism, approach, examples and so on. The style left me with some mixed feelings. Some parts are a bit tedious and at times the need of the author to show as many opinions on the matter as possible should have been tempered a bit. At times it is difficult to make out Griffin's opinion out off all the other opinions and authors mentioned. It is however clear from the start that Griffin does not agree with the leftist habit of calling a wide array of rightist movements and thinkers fascist without second thought and the presentation of fascism as a strictly reactionary movement as a tool or in league with large corporations and ancien regime conservative elites. To him fascism is a revolutionary path and equal to liberalism and marxist socialism in aspirations of generating a political homo novus and does not have as goal sustaining capitalist society or ancien regime hierarchies as leftists claim even if in practice fascist regimes and movements have chosen to occasionally ally themselves to both. According to Griffin it is an ideology based on ultra nationalism, obsession with perceived decadence and the need to generate a reborn purified unified soviety beyond both liberal capitalism and materialistic (marxist) socialism. It is capable off using extreme violence, contradictory methods(leftist and rightist) and totalitarianism to reach this mythic new reborn society.
As said everything is well done but there are some complaints most of which are found in the details but some are bit more problematic. For instance at times it feels like fascism is presented as a natural byproduct of modernization and based on this premise he argues that societies not modern enough can not generate a mass movement fascism. At times this feels like bot a deterministic and eurocentric approach, for modernity in this work is firmly linked to western european style statehood and society even if the mythic utopian pure core can easily be non western. It seems however that non-european non western examples of fascism are limited if one would use his definition. For griffin as long as the religious sentiment traditional elites remain strong, it prevents real fascism to develop regardless of all other elements a movement may have in common with his idealtype model of fascism. On other moments it felt like he is way to optimistic, it boils down to the point that too him fascism had it's change and lost and will not rise again to power because the conditions are no longer there and even if it did the contradictions within fascism would destroy it eventually. If one takes into account the rise of golden dawn and the national front in France one has to conclude that Griffin was perhaps a bit to confident in his belief that the conditions of fascist mass movements are gone for good and his claim of implosion of fascist regimes is plausible but not definitive.
Finally what made this book so interesting for me is that it made me uncomfortable. He succeeded in shattering the shell of evil that surround the concept of fascism and to point out basic and universal human emotions and sentiments lying at the origins of fascism. He makes the reader question him or herself and wonder if one does not have some fascist sentiments one was not even aware off. Fascism is not an evil force lurking in the dark, it was born, grew and was sustained by societies of regular people looking for a way to make sense of the world, provide a coherent solution to a wide array of problems and to fill a need of raison d'être. The book however does end on a more positive note, Griffin points out that the sentiments, emotions and crisis (socio, cultural, political and economic) that grew into fascism could also generate and fuel a political movement based on humanistic universalism, above and below politics and ecologically motivated anti consumerism, in other words the same conditions that gave birth to the most violent and dangerous of ideologies could, give birth to sort of new hope for mankind.
So for anyone looking for a radical book on fascism that goes beyond a simple explanation, this is the perfect book for you.
The book is structured as follows, he goes in the first chapters trough (perhaps a bit too much) much length to explain what he means when talking about ideology and every part of his definition of fascism is explained in great detail. The middle of the book is dedicated to comparing his definition and aspects of fascism to real life fascist regimes (Italy under Mussolini and Nazi Germany) but also too a wide scope of movements active in European, African, Asian and American states and non fascist authoritarian states that adopted fascist aspects and suppressed actual fascist and proto fascist movements if they threatened their rule. The last chapter is dedicated to a psychological approach of analyzing followers of fascism and to explain why people would follow a movement like this regardless of specific country context.All of these parts interact with one another and non are dominating, the result is an interesting mixed approach to fascism. The final part was the most disappointing, here Griffin explains why Nazi Germany killed more people and why it's followers were more fanatic. This last part felt more like an obligation in the genre than adding anything extra to the book.
I found the book to be very good both in content, questions it raises, overview of the debate on fascism, approach, examples and so on. The style left me with some mixed feelings. Some parts are a bit tedious and at times the need of the author to show as many opinions on the matter as possible should have been tempered a bit. At times it is difficult to make out Griffin's opinion out off all the other opinions and authors mentioned. It is however clear from the start that Griffin does not agree with the leftist habit of calling a wide array of rightist movements and thinkers fascist without second thought and the presentation of fascism as a strictly reactionary movement as a tool or in league with large corporations and ancien regime conservative elites. To him fascism is a revolutionary path and equal to liberalism and marxist socialism in aspirations of generating a political homo novus and does not have as goal sustaining capitalist society or ancien regime hierarchies as leftists claim even if in practice fascist regimes and movements have chosen to occasionally ally themselves to both. According to Griffin it is an ideology based on ultra nationalism, obsession with perceived decadence and the need to generate a reborn purified unified soviety beyond both liberal capitalism and materialistic (marxist) socialism. It is capable off using extreme violence, contradictory methods(leftist and rightist) and totalitarianism to reach this mythic new reborn society.
As said everything is well done but there are some complaints most of which are found in the details but some are bit more problematic. For instance at times it feels like fascism is presented as a natural byproduct of modernization and based on this premise he argues that societies not modern enough can not generate a mass movement fascism. At times this feels like bot a deterministic and eurocentric approach, for modernity in this work is firmly linked to western european style statehood and society even if the mythic utopian pure core can easily be non western. It seems however that non-european non western examples of fascism are limited if one would use his definition. For griffin as long as the religious sentiment traditional elites remain strong, it prevents real fascism to develop regardless of all other elements a movement may have in common with his idealtype model of fascism. On other moments it felt like he is way to optimistic, it boils down to the point that too him fascism had it's change and lost and will not rise again to power because the conditions are no longer there and even if it did the contradictions within fascism would destroy it eventually. If one takes into account the rise of golden dawn and the national front in France one has to conclude that Griffin was perhaps a bit to confident in his belief that the conditions of fascist mass movements are gone for good and his claim of implosion of fascist regimes is plausible but not definitive.
Finally what made this book so interesting for me is that it made me uncomfortable. He succeeded in shattering the shell of evil that surround the concept of fascism and to point out basic and universal human emotions and sentiments lying at the origins of fascism. He makes the reader question him or herself and wonder if one does not have some fascist sentiments one was not even aware off. Fascism is not an evil force lurking in the dark, it was born, grew and was sustained by societies of regular people looking for a way to make sense of the world, provide a coherent solution to a wide array of problems and to fill a need of raison d'être. The book however does end on a more positive note, Griffin points out that the sentiments, emotions and crisis (socio, cultural, political and economic) that grew into fascism could also generate and fuel a political movement based on humanistic universalism, above and below politics and ecologically motivated anti consumerism, in other words the same conditions that gave birth to the most violent and dangerous of ideologies could, give birth to sort of new hope for mankind.
So for anyone looking for a radical book on fascism that goes beyond a simple explanation, this is the perfect book for you.
July 19, 2019
One of the best, if not the best book on fascism that there is. This book does not only analyze fascism with many points of view, but presents a consisted model for the germination of fascism in future societies, based on historical examples and in religious, folkloric, sociological and psychological studies. But also this book present a consistent and clear political taxonomy of different strains and elements of fascism that are manifested in different far-right groups and parties.
In this book fascism is presented not as an ideology, but as a pathological mind virus that needs certain sociological conditions to grow and spread in a society. In a healthy society the psychological elements that create fascism are separated from each other and are discharged in healthy communal activities. Few people are predisposed to full blown fascism, but they only form a core activist group that creates around them a mass movement and gain power, if a highly developed, but still weak liberal society enters a deep crisis.
In this book fascism is presented not as an ideology, but as a pathological mind virus that needs certain sociological conditions to grow and spread in a society. In a healthy society the psychological elements that create fascism are separated from each other and are discharged in healthy communal activities. Few people are predisposed to full blown fascism, but they only form a core activist group that creates around them a mass movement and gain power, if a highly developed, but still weak liberal society enters a deep crisis.
February 15, 2017
As an Israeli, and a Jew, a Jew of European origin at that, I grew up hearing all about the atrocities committed by the Nazis in WW2, while the stories are horrifying, I always felt like I was missing something, I was missing an understanding of who these murderers(the Nazis) WERE.
Who were these people? were they just insane nationalists who hated all things Jewish because of old stereotypes? why do people(some even in Israel) forget that much of the western(and especially Israeli) status quo is(or atleast was) nationalist without the need to commit such atrocities(although, mostly leftists would disagree even to this)?
should we hate the Nazis for thier ideology or thier actions? what is thier ideology anyways?
Why were there Zionist fascists? wasn't this ideology linked to these enemies of ours?
Over time, I learnt that the world isn't black and white, there is no supreme evil or supreme good, it flows in a human pattern, IE a pattern that we can all understand and also feel so bad for not really being able to provide practical answers for.
Fascists came on the scene when communism was threatening to take europe under its grip, and we know now in modern times how "well" communism turned out to be, so are we being hypocritical in rejecting fascists outright as a plausible solution to this crisis? What is worse anyways, Stalinist or Hitlerian dictatorship? And for who? Could a weak Weimar republic filled with pluralism survive againts the commies?
thank you, Michael, one of the reviewers of this book for recommending this book to us, I think that I finally understand what fascism is, to its supporters it is the entire nation rising up like a Phoenix from the ashes of the old to a new horizon of a world that only 25 years later put a man on the moon, and for its enemies, it is a flamethrower held by a pyromaniac who believes in some sort of cult that his destruction will make it all better in the end.
The book is great, I base myself on Micheal in the hope that it is a serious and important book in its field.
The book provides a great(although small, as another reviewer, libertas, said) background on the history of the 2 state controlling fascist movements, Fascism and Nazism and of all sorts of different political movements, be they fascist or not in the last 150 years or so.
It provides a great heuristic for what fascism is and what makes it grow or decline and well by also inserting(pretty much) jokes along the way that make you giggle and kick the humanity of the situation back to you.
However, I give this book 4 stars instead of 5 because:
1. I felt like some points were repeated quite a few times(although expected from an academic book)
2. I dislike the author's constant shaming of the movements he was talking about, although I'm a big boy and can manage to hear some personal opinion thrown at me, I felt that if this book was really supposed to be purely academic, then it failed atleast in the sense that it took a general anti-fascist perspective throughout it.
Ah and a final note, this book is also just a bit outdated, it was published in 1991 and so it missed some recent(and with current US elections, some very recent) developments that occurred concerning the topic of the book, although this isn't really a negative in my eyes, I was, after all, aware that I was going to read something from 25 years ago from the start.
December 18, 2017
I've read several books over the past year attempting to discuss fascism or fascist-inspired political movements, and this one is unequivocally the best.
Griffin is concise (fewer than 250 pages), yet rigorous. Academic yet readable. Gives appropriate context without getting bogged down in internecine debate. Most importantly, Griffin succeeds where many have failed before him: he creates a plausible, usable, concise definition for fascism. Fascism, he says, is comprised of a mythic core of palingenetic ultra-nationalism.
This means that fascist movements wish to see the world "made anew" with a new society rising, Phoenix-like from the ashes of the old. The society will be animated by an ultra-nationalist impulse which inspires the "new man" to create the vital, reinvigorated society which is the ultimate end envisioned by the fascist.
Griffin thoroughly explores each aspect of his definition, and then uses that lens to view the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler, as well as fascist-sympathetic movements of the inter-war era. Unlike other prominent theories (ahem, Payne) he takes great pains to note that fascism is not strictly confined to the 1918-1945 era, and continues to hang around the edges of liberal democracies up until the present day. He also properly identifies fascism as a political ideology aligned with (illiberal) right-wing movements.
I don't agree with all of Griffin's conclusions, especially in the area of under what conditions it is possible for strong fascist movements to arise, but the Nature of Fascism is simply indispensable for someone wanting to start understanding this famously slippery concept.
Griffin is concise (fewer than 250 pages), yet rigorous. Academic yet readable. Gives appropriate context without getting bogged down in internecine debate. Most importantly, Griffin succeeds where many have failed before him: he creates a plausible, usable, concise definition for fascism. Fascism, he says, is comprised of a mythic core of palingenetic ultra-nationalism.
This means that fascist movements wish to see the world "made anew" with a new society rising, Phoenix-like from the ashes of the old. The society will be animated by an ultra-nationalist impulse which inspires the "new man" to create the vital, reinvigorated society which is the ultimate end envisioned by the fascist.
Griffin thoroughly explores each aspect of his definition, and then uses that lens to view the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler, as well as fascist-sympathetic movements of the inter-war era. Unlike other prominent theories (ahem, Payne) he takes great pains to note that fascism is not strictly confined to the 1918-1945 era, and continues to hang around the edges of liberal democracies up until the present day. He also properly identifies fascism as a political ideology aligned with (illiberal) right-wing movements.
I don't agree with all of Griffin's conclusions, especially in the area of under what conditions it is possible for strong fascist movements to arise, but the Nature of Fascism is simply indispensable for someone wanting to start understanding this famously slippery concept.
November 3, 2020
Started off well enough, but bogs down into superficial inventories of countless fascist movements. The psychoanalytical babble about fascists being afraid of female and soft things was the icing on the disappointment cake.
I guess the gist of it is Griffin's definition of fascism as palingenetic ultranationalism, but you can read about that on Wikipedia.
I guess the gist of it is Griffin's definition of fascism as palingenetic ultranationalism, but you can read about that on Wikipedia.
July 31, 2019
Faşizmi ve nazizmi, yeniden anlamak ve özü kavramak bakımından önemli bir kitap. Yer yer Griffin 'in sol - liberallik adına olması gerekeni söylemediğini ve iki yüzlü davrandığını, kendisiyle çeliştiğini düşünsem de, kişisel bağlamda farklı bir perspektif kattığını, terminolojik olarak bilgimi geliştirdiğini düşünüyorum.
November 25, 2020
Doesn't draw on primary resources, makes constant claims with no citations. Pathetically poor work of scholarship.
July 30, 2022
I'm giving this book a rare (for me) five-star review because it accomplishes a great deal in about 230 pages. It's timely, given the proliferation of uninformed "takes" by know-nothing individuals about fascism this or fascism that.
What is fascism? Here is Griffin's heuristic definition.
"Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." p. 26
Disclosure: Roger Griffin recently appeared on my podcast to discuss whether Putin is a fascist, after historian Timothy Snyder boldly declared (in a NY Times op-ed) that both Russia and its dictator are fascist. (Snyder is wrong).
Listen here:
http://historyasithappens.radio.washi...
The most important piece of Griffin's definition is "palingenetic ultra-nationalism." That is because fascism shares commonalities with other forms of right-wing ideologies (and left-wing, too). Militarism, racism, imperialism, authoritarianism, the personality cult of the leader, to name a few.
But what separates fascism from other forms of right-wing politics, is the idea of rebirth (palingenesis). Fascists, no matter whether they actually attain power, and regardless the fact that there is a wide gap between their utopian goals and the reality of their rule where they have attained power (1920s Italy and Germany in 1933), are drawn to the "sense of a new start or of regeneration after a phase of crisis or decline which can be associated just as much with mystical as secular realities." p. 33
Fascists want revolution, not conservation of an old order. They want a mobilized populace in an organic community (that violently rejects internal enemies and undesirables, i.e., Jews). They want a new order -- but fascists also need the right conditions to succeed: a nation in crisis, where liberal politics isn't deeply rooted but is discredited, and also where there isn't a strong authoritarian state capable of subsuming them.
Griffin's seminal work should be read prior to reading everything by Kershaw and Evans. In the end, we will still be left with the question of "why?" no matter how close we come to answering it. Why did fascism result in racial hatred, genocide, and incalculable destruction in Nazi Germany, whereas it did not in Italy (the 20th century's other fascist regime) or anywhere else? Griffin gets us close to an answer -- but his book is only a starting point.
What is fascism? Here is Griffin's heuristic definition.
"Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." p. 26
Disclosure: Roger Griffin recently appeared on my podcast to discuss whether Putin is a fascist, after historian Timothy Snyder boldly declared (in a NY Times op-ed) that both Russia and its dictator are fascist. (Snyder is wrong).
Listen here:
http://historyasithappens.radio.washi...
The most important piece of Griffin's definition is "palingenetic ultra-nationalism." That is because fascism shares commonalities with other forms of right-wing ideologies (and left-wing, too). Militarism, racism, imperialism, authoritarianism, the personality cult of the leader, to name a few.
But what separates fascism from other forms of right-wing politics, is the idea of rebirth (palingenesis). Fascists, no matter whether they actually attain power, and regardless the fact that there is a wide gap between their utopian goals and the reality of their rule where they have attained power (1920s Italy and Germany in 1933), are drawn to the "sense of a new start or of regeneration after a phase of crisis or decline which can be associated just as much with mystical as secular realities." p. 33
Fascists want revolution, not conservation of an old order. They want a mobilized populace in an organic community (that violently rejects internal enemies and undesirables, i.e., Jews). They want a new order -- but fascists also need the right conditions to succeed: a nation in crisis, where liberal politics isn't deeply rooted but is discredited, and also where there isn't a strong authoritarian state capable of subsuming them.
Griffin's seminal work should be read prior to reading everything by Kershaw and Evans. In the end, we will still be left with the question of "why?" no matter how close we come to answering it. Why did fascism result in racial hatred, genocide, and incalculable destruction in Nazi Germany, whereas it did not in Italy (the 20th century's other fascist regime) or anywhere else? Griffin gets us close to an answer -- but his book is only a starting point.
December 7, 2023
Griffin's goal is ultimately significant, and attempt to identify the ideological and revolutionary bases of fascism on its own terms--looking the beast in the eyes so to speak, but he unfortunately spends a lot of time--despite the veritable inventory he provides--philosophizing on fascism without really trying these statements to genuinely deep explorations of these movement's actual writings and actions. Instead, palingenetic slowly becomes an empty tool of analysis--any movement that promises a restoration or return of anything can be twisted into his argument.
What more, he is of a mind that fascism as it existed in the 1930s-40s cannot really exist anymore, which feels more like wishful thinking than any empirically grounded research. I am also always hesitant when scholars of fascism try to make a direct and bizarre psychoanalytical connection between 40s fascism and modern Islamist movements, very unserious period of American political academia.
The first few pages are a worthwhile read for the definitions and framework he suggests, but there are better explorations into the topic elsewhere.
What more, he is of a mind that fascism as it existed in the 1930s-40s cannot really exist anymore, which feels more like wishful thinking than any empirically grounded research. I am also always hesitant when scholars of fascism try to make a direct and bizarre psychoanalytical connection between 40s fascism and modern Islamist movements, very unserious period of American political academia.
The first few pages are a worthwhile read for the definitions and framework he suggests, but there are better explorations into the topic elsewhere.
January 12, 2026
The Nature of Fascism is essential reading for anyone trying to understand fascism. Griffin defines fascism as “palingenetic ultranationalism”. In order for fascism to flourish, three conditions must be met: a society must have 1) completely cut ties with the absolutist, feudal state of the past in exchange for a neoliberalist government, 2) lost faith in institutions, and 3) rebirth (palingenetic) myths floating around.
I think Robert O. Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism and The Nature of Fascism can exist in the same universe, but The Anatomy of Fascism might be a touch too unhelpfully vague and disjointed in comparison to The Nature of Fascism.
Ultimately a thoroughly informative and challenging work—I very much recommend it.
I think Robert O. Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism and The Nature of Fascism can exist in the same universe, but The Anatomy of Fascism might be a touch too unhelpfully vague and disjointed in comparison to The Nature of Fascism.
Ultimately a thoroughly informative and challenging work—I very much recommend it.
September 21, 2023
Interesting.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews