What is the Appeal of Fascism? A Gender Roles Approach

While we all know the classical story of the basic stuff that attracts people to Fascism. On the surface level its all about securing Arian supremacy for white, blond hair, blue eyed individuals. However I feel that it goes a little deeper than that. The first line of the Kühne reading provides some immediate insight into this. “Nicknamed “bloody Walter,” SS Obersturmführer Walter Hauck embodied the Nazi ideal of manly toughness.” (Kühne, p. 390) Nazi soldiers would certainly have been expected to be “manly” and “tough”, and its entirely possible that this has evolved to be expected of any kind of fascist, not just the Nazi’s. The problem with this is that this idea is not necessarily uniform across all walks of life. “for example, generals as opposed to the rank-and-file, war volunteers as opposed to draftees, soldiers as opposed to civilians, blue- as opposed to white-collar workers, black as opposed to white men, Jewish as opposed to Christian men—may adhere to different masculine norms.” (Kühne, p. 395) With this in mind, it might be generalizing to say that all fascists seek to be “tough”, or “manly”. However, I think an argument can be made that fascism seeks to enforce masculinity for men, and femininity for women, which for those who prefer the traditional family structure of a male dominated household, that might create some appeal to those individuals. “Men in the Freikorps radicalized common Western and German norms about male self-control, as well as about cold, tough, and “hard” masculinity, into a perpetual war against women and femininity—especially against femininely coded desires for domesticity, tenderness, and compassion within men” (Kühne, p. 395) The quote makes it abundantly clear that fascism would appeal to men who seek dominance over women. That said, while this post has focused on masculinity and femininity, it does make me wonder what other factors affect why fascism might appeal to certain people? Of course I have no doubt it will be covered by one of my classmates in their posts!

Thomas Kühne, “Protean masculinity, Hegemonic Masculinity: Soldiers in the Third Reich” Central European History Vol 51, Issue 3 (September 2018): 390, 395.

Connecting the Far-Right to Internationalism

Before delving into the readings, my understanding of Internationalism is that it encompasses the idea that states/nations should have greater political and/or economic cooperation amongst each other. With that in mind, how do the readings explore how the far-right has a connection to internationalism? The Hanebrink reading points out that “Across Eu­rope, neofascists similar in age and outlook to white nationalists in Amer­i­ca rally to defend their “own” culture against the forces of globalism, which they associate with Jews.” (Hanebrink, p. 2) Working with this, it would be reasonable to say that rallying transnationally across state and national boundaries under a common viewpoint could be considered internationalist, by nature of seeking greater political cooperation. However by that same logic, if neoliberals sought some form of political cooperation cross state/national boundaries, which certainly does happen, then couldn’t they be connected to internationalism too? That said, Motadel makes a compelling argument on the matter, by stating that, “As nationalist movements across the imperial world gained momentum in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, governments increasingly made efforts to support them in order to undermine the sovereignty of their adversaries’ empires.” (Motadel, p. 844) This is the strongest correlation I was able to find from the readings. It makes sense that imperialist governments would seek to undermine their competitors by supporting cross border nationalist movements which are typically associated with the far-right. This approach can certainly be viewed as falling under what I established earlier as a baseline definition for internationalism.

Reading’s Cited:

Paul Hanebrink, A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism (Harvard University Press, 2018), pp. 1-10, 11-45.

David Motadel, “The Global Authoritarian Moment: The Revolt Against Empire” American Historical Review Vol. 124, Issue 3 (July 2019): 843-877.

Defining Terms – Populism, Fascism, and Authoritarianism

The readings for this week by Brubaker, Finchelstein, Mudde, and Paxton, all question why we label governments, or different classes/groups of people as populist, authoritarian, or fascist. Brubaker questions if the term “populism” is used as a tool for analysis, or if it is just a journalistic cliché that is thrown around as a label for groups and individuals. By extension I feel that this idea applies to the other terms as well. Do we use the terms authoritarian, or fascist to gauge ongoing political issues, or are they just catchy headline terms that garner clicks? In other words, how do we utilize these terms?

In tandem with their utilization, the readings all question and analyze their characterization. These terms generally carry a very negative denotation with them due to their history, (particularly due to the events that transpired throughout the 20th century in Europe) and generally speaking most people would likely not want to be directly associated with them. A major point of contention when discussing these terms is questioning how we identify them? Do we label them as worldviews, ideologies, or can we even put them on the same level as an ‘ism’ like conservatism, liberalism, and socialism? One thing is certain, and that’s that all three terms define a strong political viewpoint regarding governance and equality.

Readings:

  • Rogers Brubaker, “Why Populism?” NUPI Podcast (51 minutes) 
  • Federico Finchelstein, “Introduction: Thinking Fascism and Populism in terms of the Past” in Federico Finkelstein, From Fascism to Populism in History (University of California Press, 2017).
  • Cas Mudde, “Populism in Europe: An Illiberal Democratic Response to Undemocratic Liberalism” (The Government and Opposition/Leonard Schapiro Lecture 2019). Government and Opposition, (2021): 1-21.
  • Robert Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism (New York, 2004), pp 3-23.

HIST4606A Introducing Myself

Max Janousek

Hello everyone! I’m Max and as I have already met most if not all of you, I’m glad to be a part of this course and hope to open my mind to the many concepts and topics that this course will cover! As I mentioned in class I’m a final year history major and a bit of a 20th century military history nerd, but what I didn’t mention was that I’m a huge Halo fan so feel free to hit me up if you wanna play!