Why You Need To Read Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism
Over the last decade, politics has grown significantly more toxic. Fear and anxiety are growing, and each year — especially since 2016 — has felt progressively longer, more exhausting, and more full of tension and division. It feels like every third day there is a new article in newspapers talking about threats to democracy, rising authoritarianism, cults of personality, and increasing hate crimes. The far-right has thrived in this age of fear by creating and then feeding on anxieties about immigration and cultural change in order to achieve electoral and policy success — most prominently Trump, and Brexit (with its associated shit show), though there are other examples, such as Viktor Orban in Hungary, or Lega in Italy. There are now pitched battles in the streets between anti-fascist activists and members of the far-right. Both sides claim the other side is in fact the real fascist, resulting in many non-participants taking a ‘plague on both your houses’ attitude — an attitude that is neither conducive nor productive in the long run. It is in this environment, one of fear and confusion, that Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism has become worryingly relevant again.
In Ireland, we have so far been incredibly lucky in that no neo-fascist/far-right movement has gained the same level of traction that appears to be sweeping many democracies — so far. This is not some predetermined and immutable feature of Irish politics, but instead one maintained through constant vigilance and caution. As Umberto Eco points out, ideologies at their core build on systems of thinking and feeling about the world — pre-existing systems that don’t just magically go away. It is important to be able to spot a burgeoning fascist movement and nip it in the bud. Yet opposing potential fascists movements comes with some risks; if directed at the wrong targets, it overall cheapens opposition. Eventually only a dedicated hardcore antifascist collective would oppose the actual fascists while the vast majority assume it’s all fine, until suddenly it’s too late. This is the main reason why you need to read Ur-Fascism: it provides a handy little guide to identifying fascist movements.
In his essay, Umberto Eco is quick to identify one of the biggest problems with opposing fascism — namely, its fluid nature. Fascism contains, as a political ideology and philosophical worldview, an interlocking series of contradictions that results in something that should be completely inoperable: monarchy and revolution, state control and the free market, etc. These contradictions allow fascism to move between contexts and purposes, always in the pursuit of power and always able to adapt. Eco uses a sequence of letters (abc bcd, cde and def) to compare different variants of fascism, explaining that there are common overlapping features among them, but not necessarily any omni-present similarities. Eco quite forcefully argues that fascism’s ability to mix-and-match features does not mean that it stops being fascism. Just because the Italian Social Movement (a now defunct neo-fascist party) was not overtly anti-Semitic does not mean it was not fascist. Instead, Eco identifies a series of frequent features in fascism that, if enough appear in a given movement, then that movement can, at the very least, be said to be utilising fascist strategies.
Eco identifies fourteen archetypal features of fascism, and while I feel unable to do them all justice without simply plagiarising entire sections from the essay, there are a couple of consistent themes among them. Firstly there is a rejection of the intellectual and of reason. Fascism’s myriad contradictions is not the accidental result of several idiots sitting in a room and thrashing together the most incoherent ideology ever; it is instead an active choice. To fascism, reason and thinking are not important: instead action, passion, and emotion are given priority. Intellectualising issues and engaging in rational discussion is not merely a waste of time but actively damaging and degenerating humanity. This ties into another important theme: the past and modernity. To fascism, modernity has brought wonders but has ultimately destroyed the human spirit and made him (for it is only him that matters ultimately in fascism) degenerate and weak. Instead, the past must be called upon and restored to its former glory.
The final theme that ought to be touched upon is fascism’s obsession with unity. For fascism, strength is key — and for there to be strength, there must be unity. This is what drives fascists’ anti-parliamentarian and anti-pluralist impulses. In any fascist nation, there are a mass of people. However for the nation to be strong they must be united, and only one man can do this. The fascist Leader rules because he is the only one able to channel and wield the nation’s strength correctly; without him the people will once again become disunited and weak. Eco points out that this drive for unity has an equally important corollary — that is, a hatred for difference. It is this hatred for difference that makes fascism by its very nature xenophobic and intolerant — anything or anyone that does not conform to the ideal society is to be scorned, ostracised, and obliterated.
This barely scratches the surface of Eco’s work, however. Despite being remarkably short (a mere nine pages long), the essay covers a whole host of aspects of fascism. More features are covered in greater detail, he (successfully) predicts the people who will be most likely to support modern fascist movements, and he discusses what is was like growing up in Mussolini’s Italy and his first-hand experience with anti-fascist resistance. This comprehensive look at fascism is essential reading, for past and present (and in all likelihood, the future too). To understand one of the most pervasive and potent yet ill-defined ideologies, you need to read Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism.
by Philip O’Hanrahan
