fascism - a definition

Historians have tried to define fascism for a long time, but whenever they came up with a definition which they thought was universal, other historians argued against it successfully. This essay is going to examine different definitions of different historians and dictionaries. It will argue that the definitions of different historians are at least questionable or incomplete. Further, this essay will try to show the reasons for the difficulty, historians have in defining fascism. Therefore this essay is split in to two parts.

            Firstly is there going to be an exanimation of diverse definitions of different aspects of fascism, like the question if fascism is an ideology or when fascism originates. This essay is going to show some common definitions of fascism, and this essay is going to try to explain why they failed or why they are not perfect. In the second part this work is going to discus about the possible reasons of the difficulties of defining fascism.

The difficulty of different definitions

It is very common to describe fascism as ideological. Passmore for example explains that fascism was defined as a set of ideologies rather than a movement.[1]  Barnes as well as Passmore defines fascism as a political and social movement rather than an ideology,[2] which is controversial compared with other historians. Passmore gives a second definition of fascism. He argues that fascism first appeared as a political movement, but he himself defines it as an ideology.[3] Mosse defines fascism as a political movement.[4] Hitler himself defined fascism as a world-view.[5] Finally, Kitchen does describe fascism as a movement which uses an ideology to spread.[6] Out of this wide variety of different definitions and opinions, this essay does conclude that there is not one common and widely accepted definition of the form of fascism. This proves to be a great difficulty if it comes to narrowing down the very nature of fascism.   

Another good example for the difficulty of define fascism is the origin of this movement or this ideology. Webster’s New World Dictionary describes fascism as a movement of the Facisti[7]. Facisti here defines the Italian fascists. Therefore the dictionary suggests that fascism is a movement just defined by Italian nationalists. The Oxford dictionary of 1982 agrees with this definition. It defines Fascism as a principle of Italian nationalism.[8] Barn’s does not agree with this definition. He sees the first expression of fascism in the Pagan Renaissance, in the French Revolution, in the Industrial Revolution and in capitalism.[9] The dictionary of International Relations describes fascism as a part of the political system of Italy and Germany.[10] Passmore argues that fascism appears for the first time in the form of the Ku Klux Klan in Tennessee.[11] Therefore there is a big disagreement of the scholars about the question where and when did this movement or ideology started or firstly appeared. This concludes that it is impossible to explain the origin of fascism or to define if fascism as an ideology or a movement. This discussion also shows that if scholars do not know when fascism originated and where it started the nature of fascism or the base of its definition is unknown as well.

            Scholars always found a definition of fascism, but these definitions were never specific enough or too widely described. Nobody could ever give a clear definition of the nature of fascism. For example, the definition of Passmore was concentrated on the ultra nationalist nature of fascism.[12] He though that ultra nationalism is the main feature which defines fascism. Kitchen sees this feature of fascism just as a tool of the movement to gain support.[13] Barnhart and Stein define fascism as a governmental system with strong centralized power which controls all affairs and does not permit an opposition.[14] This is standing in contrast to the definition of Passmore. Simpson and Weiner define fascism as a rightwing authoritarian view of a nationalist organization.[15] This is a definition clearly too superficial to serve as a definition of fascism. Barnes definition of fascism concentrates on the restoration aspect of old values and social order.[16] In the definition of Kitchen’s fascism, he includes expansionistic goals, which are not mentioned in the definition of Barns.[17] This shows that there is not a clear character of fascism which all historians agree on.

This discussion shows that it is nearly impossible to have a definition of fascism which is wildly accepted. Whenever scholars tried to define fascism, they were told by other historians that there was something missing or that their definition was so specific that some features of fascism simply had to be ignored. All these points mentioned above about the definitions of fascism come from different angles of view. Every historian shows a feature of fascism and tries to prove that this specific angle is the most important aspect which characterizes fascism. This definition is usually not shared by other scholars. 

But there is as also a clear difference between the definition in a common dictionary like the Oxford Dictionary and the writings of a historian. This essay tries not to lift these definitions on the same level. It just tries to show that the complete confusion about the definition of fascism is not just in the specific and complex sector of historians, but it is as well in the sector of a common and general definition for a normal person. To discuss the difficulty of a definition of fascism, it is important not just to look at the complex understanding of historians and their struggle, to define fascism. It is similar important to show that there is not even a general definition which is widely accepted. Like Renzo de Felice was arguing. “Nothing is for sure.”[18]   But why is it impossible to define fascism?

The reason for the difficulty of definition

In the second part of this essay the author will discuss what made it so difficult to define fascism. There are a number of reasons why it is hard for historians to define fascism today.

The first reason why it is difficult to define fascism is that the word fascism is still used today. AN example was that policeman were described as fascist by countercultural travelers up to the 80`s.[19] Because of this recent use of the word fascism it is impossible for historians to define a word while it is still used to today and which character is changing over the times. Therefore every definition of fascism needs a link to the different meanings of the word fascism which it had over different time periods. A good example is given by Graham and Newnham in their Dictionary of International Relations. They begin by saying that fascism is now a multi-purpose term of abuse and furthermore try to define what the word fascism originally meant.[20] Most attempts of defining fascism failed to create a definition of fascism which might be used through out all time periods. This is impossible because the term fascism is still used up until today. Therefore one of the biggest issues of defining fascism is the actuality of the term itself.

Another problem with the definition of fascism is the vagueness of the term. This essay outlined above, how difficult it is even to tell when fascism appeared and where it all started. This shows that nobody really understands fascism. Even if the brightest scholars provide a definition there will always be another scholar who challenges the definition because “Fascism is probably the vaguest of contemporary political terms”.[21]  Because of its vaguest appearance is it hard to define a clear border to other political ideologies, methods or movements. It seems that fascism is so vague, that even the relationship with other political terms is difficult and undefined.

Payne mentions another reason, why fascism is impossible to define. He argues that the problem in naming fascist movements’ lies in the fact that most fascist movements did not described themselves as fascist movements.[22] Many of the fascist movements were fascistic but never described themselves this way. So whenever a scholar claims that the Nazi movement in Germany was a fascist movement, other scholars may argue that it was a Nazi movement and just had fascist features. This results in a big problem for scholars. If a regime did not define itself as fascist, how do we know that this regime was fascistic? The regime might have the same features as a fascist regime but there might be other features which gives the system a complete new classification.  Knowing that the term itself is vague, makes it even harder to separate it from other forms of regimes and ideologies.

The problem of defining fascism is that the history is not completely known. Firstly, the events and governments which are known as fascist are quite recent events. Secondly, the appearances of fascism today are a result of these events. So the complete history of fascism is not written yet. Therefore, it is important to follow the suggestions of De Felice and to first write down the history of fascism, before the historians can interpret it.[23]

One problem with the definition of fascism is the misunderstanding about the minimum determent. Historians need to further study the history of fascism in order to define the minimum determent of fascism.[24] The nature of fascism is so hard to define that the logical consequence is that a definition of fascism in whole is nearly impossible. The missing common definition or understanding of historians about the nature of fascism is one problem for a widely accepted definition of fascism.

The main problem of the definition of fascism today is the abstraction of fascism from the national frame. It is best put by Breuilly when asked about the problem in understanding fascism: “My answer would be that fascism is exceptional in that it cannot be understood outside a national frame of reference and, unlike liberal or radical or conservative nationalism, cannot be seen as a particular application of a more general set of values which could be detached from a nationalist frame of reference.”[25] The problems most historians have with defining nationalism are that they want to see and define it outside its national frame. This is not possible because part of the main features of fascism lie inside the national frame itself and are therefore lost if the historians try to define nationalism outside the national frame. Fascism varies depending in which nation it appears. There are similarities between all the sorts of fascism after historians took them out of the national frame but these similarities are not enough to define fascism. Therefore is always the national frame needed to define fascism in a country and can not be generalised.

Conclusion

Do historians have problems with defining fascism? Yes they do. Each of them has their own idea of the specific marks and features of fascism. Most of them are right about their definition if they have one. But all these definitions mentioned above are either inaccurate, or are so specific that it is arguable that these definition are broad enough. Most of the definitions scholars have today are mostly concentrated on one specific feature which they perceive is the main-feature of fascism, but this makes their definition vulnerable to the critique of other scholars. It is always arguable which feature is the main feature of fascism or which attribute is just a aspect of the specific regime or movement we are taking as historical example.

 So why do historians’ have difficulties in defining fascism? There are many answers to this question: Firstly the term is still being used. What we call fascist today is not the same what was called fascist 50 years ago. Secondly the term fascism is very vague in itself. The third reason is that many movements did not describe themselves as fascist. The fourth reason is the lack of knowledge about the minimum determiner of fascism. It is hard to define something if the base is unknown or difficult to define. The fifth reason and main issue of defining fascism which scholars face, is to define fascism outside the national frame where fascism appears. Put together all these factors makes it impossible to have a widely accepted one sentence definition of fascism of today and of past. Time needs to pass so that scholars see fascism from a bigger distance which will make them realize what fascism really is.

Bibliography

A. Heywood, Political Ideologies: An Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)

A. McMillan and L. McLean, Oxford concise dictionary of Politics (England: Oxford University Press, 2003)

C.L. Barnhart and J. Stein, The American College Dictionary (New York: Random House Inc.,

1959)

D. B.  Guralnik, Webster’s New World Dictionary (U.S.A.: The New American Library Inc.,         1974)

E. S. C. Weiner and J.A. Simpson, The Oxford English Dictionary Vol.5 (England: Oxford             University Press, 1989)

F. G. Fowler and H.W. Fowler, The Concise Oxford Dictionary (England: Oxford University

Press, 1982)

G. Evans and N. Jeffrey, Dictionary of international Relations (England: Penguin Books Ltd.,

1998)

G. L. Mosse, The fascist revolution (U.S.A.: Howardt Fertig, Inc., 1991)

J. Barnes, The universal aspects of Fascism (England: Willams and Norgate, 1928)

J. Breuilly, Nationalism and the state (Great Britain: Redwood Books, 1993)

K. Passmore, Fascism: A very short introduction (Oxford: University Press, 2002)

M. Kitchen, Fascism (England: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1978) 

R. De Felice, Fascism: An Informal Introduction to Its Theory and Practice (U.S.A.:          Transaction, Inc., 1977)

S. G. Payne, Fascism (England: University of Wisconsin Press, Ltd., 1980)

T. Dalzell and T. Victor, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (Britain:      Bell and Bain Ltd., 2006)