Since joining academia, have you become more or less liberal than you were before?

[Solon]

There are respectable studies out there that discuss the similarities between fascism and communism. One that comes to mind is James Gregor's The Faces of Janus. Giovanni Gentile, Mussolini's leading intellectual saw the nationalism that fascism promoted as a means of uniting proletarian (i.e. less developed) nations against the forces of international capitalism and imperialism that would exploit proletarian nations. In a sense, fascism was the socialism of the proletarian nations.

I don't want to encourage JohnnyLingo too much, but suffice it to say there is an ongoing debate with regards to the similarities between fascism and communism. The most recent and credible arguments assert that indeed they were evil twins, so to speak. This consensus could change as some dissenting scholars have objected to this classification, but I cannot offer an opinion as I have read Gregor and others, but the dissenting opinions are so new I haven't had a chance to read them yet. Perhaps next year when I teach my course on 20th century Italian culture I'll have time and interest to digest them.

Interesting. I'll have to delve in a little when I get a chance. My knowledge of these ideologies is pretty superficial. I imagine the difficulties in defining "fascism" leave a lot of room for interpretation.

I'll bet that's a sweet class you teach.

[wuapinmon]

Perhaps next year when I teach my course on 20th century Italian culture I'll have time and interest to digest them.

If that class includes any of Italian East Africa, we can bounce ideas around about His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selaissie I, Jah, Ras Tafari Makonnen.

[pellegrino]

If that class includes any of Italian East Africa, we can bounce ideas around about His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selaissie I, Jah, Ras Tafari Makonnen.

I've never taught much about the colonies, mainly because the elephant in the room is fascism and trying to get a grasp as to where it came from and how it developed. That seems to always take a lot longer than I'd like it to because I find it to be extremely tedious (although it is very pertinent to contemporary political "debates") and some of the most important cultural documents come as a result of latent antifascist sentiment, so in order to understand a book like Ignazio Silone's Bread and Wine we have to do a huge amount of historical background before we begin reading. The rest of the course deals mostly with the Italian diaspora in the Americas and Italian cinema. I'll be writing a new syllabus for it this fall and I'll see if I can't incorporate something into it. When I do, I'll drop you a line.

Interesting. I'll have to delve in a little when I get a chance. My knowledge of these ideologies is pretty superficial. I imagine the difficulties in defining "fascism" leave a lot of room for interpretation.

I'll bet that's a sweet class you teach.

Solon, the difficulties in defining fascism are immense, particularly because Mussolini and his early followers were originally part of the Socialist party, broke with them and eventually consolidated power among emerging fascist squads. Many people don't realize that Italy came very close to becoming a communist state after both world wars. Fascism vied for power against the communists after WWI and because of their brute force in opposition to the communists they gained broad support from the middle class (who had reason to fear a communist revolution). Even so, it was an extremely fragmented movement for the first few years of its existence. Its heterogeneity early on was united in one thing, the fight against communists. One of their favorite campaign songs even had a reference to their hared for communists. It went something like "Arm yourselves! Arm yourselves Fascists, terror of the communists!"

This battle against communism makes it difficult to define them because they went on to nationalize and socialize all branches of industry under various corporations and implement many communistic programs, both social and economic which caused the actual implementation of fascism to resemble in many ways the Soviet experience of communism, yet the path to that nationalization and consolidation of power is based upon different rhetorical premises than the classical Marxist foundation of communist rhetoric.

I've just barely scratched (more like lightly touched) the surface of the issue, which is extremely complex and leaves students (and sometimes myself) scratching their heads with more questions than answers. I'm no expert, I only deal with this as it relates to teaching undergraduates, which means we deal with it in a very superficial manner. If you're interested in the topic you should check out a few different titles. I've listed them below

Griffin, Roger, ed. The Nature of Fascism. New York: Routledge, 1993.
_____. Fascism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995.
Schnapp, Jeffrey, ed. A Primer of Italian fascism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.

Schnapp's volume is all primary documents translated into English and offers a good view of what was actually being said and written about fascism during the interwar years.

ps- thanks for the compliment, I do generally get good reviews on my culture courses.

[byu71]

Since joining this board, I feel like I am in a college setting surrounded by academians and intellects, maybe those words are redundant.

I have become more liberal. I am much more aware of speaking in politically correct language. I really want to be accepted by this group who have vastly superior intelligence to mine. If I can make it here, I can make it anywhere.

[LA Ute]

There is no liberal bias in higher education. What does bias even mean in that context anyway? Higher education is a process by which we turn children into adults, capable of thinking for themselves, and not just parroting back what their parents have told them.

This is an unbelievable statement. We can argue about whether the bias is harmful, but it is undeniable that it exists and is pervasive. (I think it's harmful.) Are you seriously taking this position?

[SeattleUte]

This is an unbelievable statement. We can argue about whether the bias is harmful, but it is undeniable that it exists and is pervasive. (I think it's harmful.) Are you seriously taking this position?

Honestly, I think it depends on what you're talking about when you say "liberal." As to the social conservative issues that appeal to the Christian Right and Mormons, there is definitely a bias against.

On the other hand, bear in mind that you don't get more establishment, more old money, more elitist than do the upper eshelons of universities. A major function of universities is to preserve and enlighten our cultural heritage. This is just one of the ways academics may find themselves drawn into a conservative orientation. It's academics themselves who have decried political correctness among other academics.

Intellectuals are a heterogeneous lot and I don't think you can draw such facile generalizations. It smacks of anti-intellectualism. I will agree that intellectuals are usually critics and antagonists of crass populism such as our last Republican president was a purveyor. They also challenge power in whatever form. Why do you think the authoratarian regimes always kill or imprison the intellectuals?

[SeattleUte]

I am going to vote because I hold a juris doctor. My vote is with Sooner's. I've become more conservative.

[UtahDan]

I am going to vote because I hold a juris doctor. My vote is with Sooner's. I've become more conservative.

We should never feel second class about this. It is the oldest variety after all. I actually got more conservative in college too, but not because of anything I was exposed to in a classroom.

[FMCoug]

I'm thinking exie probably become more liberal when he got his MD.

[LA Ute]

Honestly, I think it depends on what you're talking about when you say "liberal." . . . A major function of universities is to preserve and enlighten our cultural heritage. This is just one of the ways academics may find themselves drawn into a conservative orientation. . . . Intellectuals are a heterogeneous lot and I don't think you can draw such facile generalizations. It smacks of anti-intellectualism. I will agree that intellectuals are usually critics and antagonists of crass populism such as our last Republican president was a purveyor. They also challenge power in whatever form. Why do you think the authoratarian regimes always kill or imprison the intellectuals?

This is a hoary subject and I won't delve too deeply into it. I am not attacking intellectuals (and there are both conservative and liberal intellectuals, as you know). I am simply saying that it is an accepted fact that the halls of academe are overwhelmingly populated by people of a left-of-center orientation. ("Liberal," in modern political science parlance.) Just as an example, if you walked around Orson Spencer Hall at the U. of U. and asked the Poli Sci profs their party affiliation you might find one Republican in the whole lot.

You can find the evidence everywhere. Studies have shown that something like 85% (or more) of donations to presidential candidates from college professors went to Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008. The bias is richly documented. The question is not whether the bias exists, it is whether the bias harms anyone or anything.

[byu71]

This is a hoary subject and I won't delve too deeply into it. I am not attacking intellectuals (and there are both conservative and liberal intellectuals, as you know). I am simply saying that it is an accepted fact that the halls of academe are overwhelmingly populated by people of a left-of-center orientation. ("Liberal," in modern political science parlance.) Just as an example, if you walked around Orson Spencer Hall at the U. of U. and asked the Poli Sci profs their party affiliation you might find one Republican in the whole lot.

You can find the evidence everywhere. Studies have shown that something like 85% (or more) of donations to presidential candidates from college professors went to Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008. The bias is richly documented. The question is not whether the bias exists, it is whether the bias harms anyone or anything.

Maybe it is because they deal in theory and when you deal more and more in reality, you become more conservative.

[SeattleUte]

This is a hoary subject and I won't delve too deeply into it. I am not attacking intellectuals (and there are both conservative and liberal intellectuals, as you know). I am simply saying that it is an accepted fact that the halls of academe are overwhelmingly populated by people of a left-of-center orientation. ("Liberal," in modern political science parlance.) Just as an example, if you walked around Orson Spencer Hall at the U. of U. and asked the Poli Sci profs their party affiliation you might find one Republican in the whole lot.

You can find the evidence everywhere. Studies have shown that something like 85% (or more) of donations to presidential candidates from college professors went to Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008. The bias is richly documented. The question is not whether the bias exists, it is whether the bias harms anyone or anything.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Academics are social critics. They are not partison in the same way, say, you or Hallelujah are. It just so happens that the substantive current issues they care about (e.g., gay rights, the environment, human rights, free speech) tend to go against the grain, including the religious grain, and are therefore the ones pigeonholed as liberal. They push the envelope. They may have overwhelmingly voted for Kerry and Obama, but they will be the first to make credible (non-partisan, non-populist) criticisms of Obama. They are truth hounds!

[SeattleUte]

Maybe it is because they deal in theory and when you deal more and more in reality, you become more conservative.

Typical. No. Academics don't just deal with theory. They apply their field all the time in REAL situations. Even the business schools are filled up with people who have had successful business careers and still do on the side. Scientists do reasearch. Humanities professors criticize. Archeologists go to Egypt and South America. In fact academics deal with reality at the most rarified levels. That's certainly true of law profs at the best schools. They argue to the Supreme Court, etc. They're basically our best and brightest.

[UtahDan]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Academics are social critics. They are not partison in the same way, say, you or Hallelujah are. It just so happens that the substantive current issues they care about (e.g., gay rights, the environment, human rights, free speech) tend to go against the grain, including the religious grain, and are therefore the ones pigeonholed as liberal. They push the envelope. They may have overwhelmingly voted for Kerry and Obama, but they will be the first to make credible (non-partisan, non-populist) criticisms of Obama. They are truth hounds!

FOUL!!! I insist you remove that dagger from LA's back. Poor form!

[byu71]

Typical. No. Academics don't just deal with theory. They apply their field all the time in REAL situations. Even the business schools are filled up with people who have had successful business careers and still do on the side. Scientists do reasearch. Humanities professors criticize. Archeologists go to Egypt and South America. In fact they deal with reality at the most rarified levels. That's certainly true of law profs at the best schools. They argue to the Supreme Court, etc. Theyre' basically our best and brightest.

OK, I should have used the word "most". Kinda of ironic you calling me out for talking in "absolute" terms.