droqen's forum-shaped notebook

[AB]

i started reading this book because someone suggested that something about "kill gameplay" was fascist in nature
this lead me down a path of thinking - was it? in what way? can i avoid this?
- which, in turn, lead me down another path of thinking! what does it mean to indict an action as fascist at all? is there even a particularly good definition, or is fascism merely a good tool for disagreeing with what someone is doing, especially when you consider it to be harmful?
-- which (of course(?)) lead me to, is 'fascism' as poorly-defined as my 'gameplay'?
and, is that a bad thing?

and so, i sought out a bit of light reading to help me through this labyrinth.

here are my questions:

1. is there anything fascist about "kill gameplay"?
in particular, in any of these three arenas:
- my ideals (internal)
- my representation of my goals (external)
- others' taking up of the banner

2. what is fascism, and as a term whose meaning is so vague,
how is it used? how is it useful? how is its use harmful? and
how, if they do, do these uses and harms map to the vague-
ness of "kill gameplay"?

1  The 'Nature' of Generic
    Fascism

i think i'm being transparent enough with my motivations (above); i'm not yet focusing on what the book says the definition of fascism is or what it says others think is the definition. this chapter is about the plurality of ideas of what it is anyway. there are probably points in this chapter where it says "here's kind of a definition" and i ignore them because i'm not interested in a half-assed understanding of the thing.

ultimately i do hope to get an understanding of the concept, but right now i don't have faith that one or more definitions will get me there.

with that said, here we go.

Quotep4-

The Continuing Search for a Consensus Definition

In the academic 'Free World' where market forces prevail as much in intellectual as in commercial matters, the concept of a generic fascism has suffered . . . a process which is . . .  damaging for the precision and usefulness of a concept. To stay within the register of commercial English we might call it 'diversification'.

Quotep5-6

. . . did fascism, if its generic existence is accepted , have a 'real' ideology, or is it right to say that it had 'the form of an ideology but without the specific content'? . . . If it had a specific content, was this a 'positive' one . . .or basically negative, . . . definable primarily in terms of what it opposed rather than what it stood for[?]

Quotep9

. . . a book entitled 'the nature of fascism' must offer its own map to enable readers to extricate themselves from methodological issues in order to concentrate on the particularity of social and historical events. The clue to finding a 'way out' of the fascist debate is to recognize that any new theory of fascism must take full account of how the existing maze of diverging definitions first came into being.

cool, i'm here for this. lay it on me, Griffin.

ok i want to be dismissive of this next section as waffling and refusing to make a point, but it kinda rules. it's talking about the phenomenon of summarizing history:

Quotep9

Just as some stars are revealed by powerful telescopes to be entire galaxies made up of millions of stars, so individual historical events consist on closer inspection of countless interacting personal and supra-personal sstems of 'facts'. Each of these dissolves into yet small or even larger patterns of phenomena . . .

. . . the seamless web of history is woven in fibres which are highly synthetic . . . It is language-based thought which organizes complex constellations of data into a single entity by means of a verbal expression which allows the imagination to 'get hold of' them . . . and so investigate them.

p10

   Singularities such as 'the Renaissance', 'the French Revolution' or 'the democratization of the Eastern bloc' are thus code words for entities [about which] insights can only be generated . . . if the individual episodes or events embraced by such terms are shorn of the countless elements which make them unique, and we concentrate instead on the common properties, the shared patterns when make them case studies in a recurring 'genus' or type of phenomena.

re: Weber's 'Ideal Types', definition not quoted here

Quotep11

The immediate inference to be drawn from this way of approaching conceptualization in the social sciences is that no definition of any key generic term used in them can be 'true' in the descriptive sense, but only useful. . . . Ideal types are misused if they are treated as definitive taxonomic categories for their value is purely 'heuristic': they serve not to describe or explain facts as such but to provide tentative conceptual frameworks with which significant patterns of facts can be identified, causal relationships investigated and phenoma classified.

oh wow, okay, this is good. page 12-13 lays out the premises and goals of this book very  plainly.

Quotep12

Now that our ruminations on basic methodological issues have been aired we are in a position to be more precise about the way the problems of defining fascism will be approached in this book. The main premises are:

[a list of just four items]

p13

The aim of what follows, then, is to offer a new ideal type of fascism with which to identify what constitutes its 'family' trait in response to recurrent appeals for a more satisfactory definition than is currently available.

Quotep15-17

. . . the following premises are implicit in the way ideology is conceived in the present investigation . . .

(i) Ideology embraces any expression of human thought . . .
(ii) Ideology can assume a reactionary, progressive or revolutionary aspect . . . all ideologies have an 'anti-' dimension . . .
(iii) The utopia of an ideology can never be fully realized in practice . . .
(iv) Ideologies are lived out as truths, being perceived as ideologies only when observed with critical detachment from outside. . . .
(v) An ideology is intrinsically irrational . . . it owes its power to inspire action and provide a sense of reality to the fact that it is rooted in pre-verbal, subconscious feelings and affective drives . . .
(vi) There are many levels of commitment to an ideology . . .
(vii) Commitment to an ideology is largely determined by self-interest . . .
(viii) Ideologies are not homogenous at a lived level, for every individual will rationalize them in a unique way. . .
(ix) Ideologies are not located in individuals as such and can never be incarnated in, or fully expounded by, any one ideologue . . .
(x) Each ideology can be defined ideal-typically in terms of a core of values and perceptions of history . . .

Quotep17

All ideologies may seem rational and coherent when articulated by a major theorist or reconstructed by an outside observer.

2  A New Ideal Type of
    Generic Fascism

QuoteA Concise Definition of Fascism

Since this book has so far done little more than emphasize the lack of consensus over the term 'fascism' and establish certain methodological premises, then it is high time we out our own stall. We propose to do so by offering a concise definition, the major implications of which for the understanding of the nature of fascism will then be discursively 'unpacked' in the course of the chapter:

Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its
various  permutations  is  a  palingenetic  form  of  populist  ultra-
nationalism.

love this way of doing things. say what you mean as concisely as possible, then explain it. 10/10.
(10/10 regarding the proposed structural approach, anyway. we'll see how i feel about the explanation.)
quote of chapter introduction continues below, with added formatting:

QuoteThe following exegesis of this as yet cryptic characterization of generic fascism falls into four sections:

(i) implications of the assertion that it is
   'a political ideology' containing 'a mythic core';

(ii) explanations of the key definition components of this core:
   'palingenetic' and 'populist ultra-nationalism',
   and of their repercussions for fascism's viability as a political ideology;

(iii) an extended definition of fascism;

(iv) conclusions to be drawn from the new ideal type
   for several recurring questions concerning the 'nature of fascism'.

for my part, i could care less about what the author describes ahead of time as 'an extended definition of fascism'; it strikes me that this will simply be a restatement of the relevant bits in a way that flows more nicely. i say, give me the chaos! give me the bullet points! here are the questions which i want answered with cutthroat efficiency:

- what does it mean to say that fascism is a political ideology?

- what does it mean for a political ideology to have a mythic core?

- what is populist ultra-nationalism, and

- what is a 'palingenetic form' of same?

- what does it mean for a political ideology to be viable?

the next section breaking down fascism's nature as ideology, political ideology, is fascinating and really puts those ten properties in focus. this is a hard bit to quote because each point about fascism is like an answer to a question given in the previous chapter. quoted bits are all the author's words, but from different places, and then the larger text not wrapped in quotes is my attempt to summarize my newly synthesized understanding of what is being said about ideologies.

   (i)
"Ideology embraces any expression of human thought"
". . . fascism . . . will be expressed not only in theoretical writings, speeches, propaganda and songs but in the semiotic language of rallies, symbols, uniforms: in short, the whole style of its politics"
an ideology will be expressed in every medium. art, music, fashion, essays, tweets, tiktoks, podcasts...

   (ii)
"Ideology can assume a reactionary, progressive or revolutionary aspect [depending on its role in a situation]"
"Fascism will exhibit a utopian revolutionary aspect when attempting to overthrow the existing order but proceed to assume a reactionary, oppressive one if ever installed in power"
an ideology transforms depending on its role in a larger context. during a rebellion an ideology may be revolutionary, but it cannot remain revolutionary after it seizes victory. one ideology may be a 'better' basis than another at, for example, managing power--however, the revolutionary aspect is not inherent to the ideology, but to its position.

   (iii)
"The utopia of an ideology can never be fully realized in practice"
"The utopia which fascism seeks to implement will never be realized in practice, only a travesty of it."
i suppose that ideology in fact depends upon irrational belief in an impossible ideal. is that not exactly the place from which the name comes?

"ideologues" would do well then to hold both concepts in mind - the ideal, AND its impossibility. pursuing the ideal as reality is as flawed as treating an ideal type as a 'definitive taxonomic category' as opposed to a 'useful' 'heuristic'.

maybe "kill gameplay" is not an ideology, at least within me, for this reason? i am well aware that to actually kill gameplay would be a destructive and useless act. perhaps such is not visible to others? am i not therefore an ideologue?

   (iv)
"Ideologies are lived out as truths . . . Their carriers experience them 'from within' as an integral part of their world-view . . . ideologies embrace both the spoke and unspoken assumptions which ensure that all behaviour and actions 'make sense' subjectively to their protagonists (that is, ideologies have a normative function without which life and all activity is experienced as absurd)."
"No matter how 'propagandistic' fascist thought will appear [from the outside], its most committed activists and supporters will find in it an outlet for idealism and self-sacrifice."
i'm in this picture and i don't like it -- i'm not talking about fascism here, i mean that i think that this book is helping me to understand and perceive ideology in general. still not sure how i feel about ideology, but comparisons of "kill gameplay" to ideology (as opposed to fascism) make sense to me.

not sure how to summarize this one. as someone experiencing this from the inside: yes! it's nice to be equipped with a "normative function" which makes life and all activity less absurd.

i'm interested in what was said in an earlier chapter about fascism's relationship to nihilism; how can fascism both have this function, and serve nihilism?

   (v)
"An ideology is intrinsically irrational"
". . . [the fascist world-view's] affective power is rooted in irrational drives and mythical assumptions."
ideology's affective power is rooted in irrational drives and mythical assumptions.

i suppose that i believe this is the value, too, of ideologies in general: they satisfy humans' irrational drives and mythical assumptions. rather than rejecting them, they accept them. (it's not clear to me yet what the author believes regarding these drives & assumptions, if anything. perhaps it is not relevant.)

   (vi)
"There are varying levels of commitment"
i don't care about this one

   (vii)
"Commitment to an ideology is largely determined by self-interest"
"Genuine (as opposed to feigned or tactical) support for fascism stems . . ."
interrupting Griffin, here: i think his use of 'Genuine' is Scotsman-ish. let me edit his words.
". . . support for fascism stems in each individual case from . . "
1. "tactical" goals, or
2. "a largely subliminal elective affinity to it based on material and psychological interests."
honestly i dont really know what he's saying here. like, what is the alternative i guess?

   (viii)
"Ideologies are not homogenous at a lived level"
"Though a fascist movement may appear a cohesive ideological community and present itself as such, on closer inspection its support will prove to derive from a myriad personal motivations for joining it and idiosyncratic conceptions of the movement's goals."
there is no such thing as a cohesive ideological community.
- everyone has different personal motivations for joining the "community"
- everyone has an idiosyncratic personal conception of the "community's" goals
- and finally, everyone has their own idea of what the "cohesive ideological community" even is.

   (ix)
"Ideologies are not located in individuals as such"
"Fascist ideology . . . is not reducible to the theories and policies of any one ideologue or leader. . . [its] emergence and success are conditioned by its interaction with other structures both ideological and non-ideological."
it's this last bit that hits me. the ideology "emerges" only in interaction with 'other structures', as in, other collective structures, which may or may not be ideologies themselves. the ideology is a thing with its own shape and it is not only constructed of the beliefs of one individual. the ideology interacts with the world at large, and changes outside of our control.

   (x)
"Each ideology can be defined ideal-typically in terms of a core of values and perceptions of history"
"Generic fascism . . . [has an] ideological core."

[AB]

(summarize the 'political ideology' aspect, what is an ideology? feel like i learned a lot, but need to revisit)

what is fascism's MYTHIC CORE?

Quotep28

what gives any religious or political creed its power to inspire revolutionary transformations in history are its core myths, namely those simple visionary principles:

which enclose with them all the strongest inclinations of a people, of a party or a class, inclinations which recur to the mind with the insistence of instincts in all the circumstances of life; and which give an aspect of complete reality to the hopes of immediate action in which . . . men can reform their desires, passions and mental activity.

hmm

Quote. . . in each case it 'must be judged as a means of acting on the present; any attempt to discuss how far it can be taken literally as future history is devoid of sense. It is the myth in its entirety which is important: its parts are only of interest in so far as they bring out the main idea'.

Quotep29

. . . both the conservative and transforming power of every ideology resides in its mythic dimension

yes, i knew this, but what is fascism's? ah- we have to get to the next bit. to ask what fascism's mythic core is, of course the answer is "a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism". the next sections will cover what those are.

palingenesis ['palin' (again, anew) + 'genesis' (creation, birth)] "refers to the sense of a new start or of regeneration after a phase of crisis or decline" (p33). pretty simple.

populist is "a generic term for political forces which . . . depend on 'people power' as the basis of their legitimacy" (p36-37)

ultra-nationalism refers to "forms of nationalism which 'go beyond, and hence reject, anything compatible with liberal institutions or with the tradition of Enlightenment humanism which underpins them. . . 'integral' (Alter, 1989) or 'radical' (Eley, 1980) nationalism." (p37) (there is more about nationalism but i'm going to skip them, it's a lot)

Quotep37

Combined into a single expression, 'populist ultra-nationalism' precludes the nationalism of dynastic rulers and imperial powers before the rise of mass politics and democratic forces. . . as well as the populist (liberal) nationalism which overthrows a colonial power to institute representative democracy. . .

In other words, populist ultra-nationalism rejects the principles both of absolutism [monarchy, dictatorship] and of pluralist representative government [democracy]. . . .

. . . it thus repudiates both 'traditional' and 'legal/rational' forms of politics in favour of prevalently 'charismatic' ones

i see here that what's happening is the consequence of what the ideology rejects, rather than of the ideology's positive goal; that is, it isn't the ideological goal of fascism to replace politics with charisma, however the natural consequence of what fascism does want (leadership should be determined by the people, but 'not like that') is this return to a default form of politics; if we remove 'absolutism' and 'pluralist representative government' then what happens to win out is rule by charisma (i.e. "the capacity of their leaders to inspire loyalty and action").

"decadence" as enemy has come up more than once. i think im done trying to exhaustively read this book from cover to cover... i am focusing on the topic which brought me here in the first place, and a major component of that is decadence, and "degenerate art". how does decadence appear worthy of destruction to the fascist ideology?

p201

Quote. . . (iii) the myth of decadence.

Quote. . . there is a degree of consensus on the notion that populist nationalism of a tendentially illiberal or anti-liberal complexion emerged to fill the nomic vacuum left on the lives of millions of 'ordinary' citizens by the decay of traditional religion and community.

Quotep202

. . . the moment populist nationalism coincided with a climate of palingenetic expectancy fascism was 'bound' to appear. Yet [our ideal type [of fascism]] also suggests that it was only likely to gain any sort of mass following in conditions of objective structural dysfunction profound enough to create a wide-spread sense-making crisis.

i learned a new word, "nomic."

so comes to an end my time with this book. i come away with a better understanding, as desired, of what fascism is and what it is not. there are certainly aspects which give me pause; am i perceiving the re-creation of certain undesirable dynamics? but to say "X is like fascism's Y" is not to proclaim its negativity... "rising like bread rises" does not suggest that the thing that rises-like-bread is actually bread-like in any other way.

still, the hazy associations cloud direct meaning with indirect implication.

one may equally describe a riser as "rising like fascism [in such and such a time]", but unrelated to the quality of the rise (did it rise quickly? gradually?), we may also perceive certain other free-floating comparisons.

my reading of this book comes from, and speaks to, disparagement. but words are so weakened when we use them in this way. if i should compare X to Y, then it is on me to provide a justification Z for such comparison and it had better be a good one — a justification which justifies not the usage of Y but the specific usage of Y from among many choices, along every axis.

"it's fascist" as shorthand for "i don't like it, and i don't like fascism, and the two have a quality in common".

not every quality of fascism is bad. this isn't a defense of fascism: it's a simple claim that being capable of relating one quality of fascism to one quality of another thing is insufficient ground upon which to stake a complaint. the quality itself must be flawed in a way that goes beyond "it is associated with fascism."