Bad Anarchism: Aestheticized Mythmaking and the Legacy of Georges Sorel PDF
Preview Bad Anarchism: Aestheticized Mythmaking and the Legacy of Georges Sorel
155 155 AnarchistDevelopmentsinCulturalStudies Art&Anarchy 2011.2 Bad Anarchism: Aestheticized Mythmaking and the Legacy of Georges Sorel Mark Antliff * Abstract Thisarticleconsidersthevariedimpactofthenotionofrevolutionary consciousnessfirstdevelopedbytheFrenchpoliticaltheoristGeorges Sorel(1847–1922)onproponentsofanarchismandMarxism,includ- ingWalterBenjamin,BartdeLight,FrantzFanon,AntonioGramsci and,mostrecently,ErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe.Iquestionthe strategyamongstthesethinkerstodrawselectivelyfromSorel’swrit- ingsinanattempttocreateacordonsanitairearoundthoseaspectsof histhoughtthatareproblematicbyvirtueoftheirimpactonproto-fas- cistandfascistideologuesthroughoutEurope.Inaddressingthisissue IexaminehowSorel’sanarchisttheoryofanti-Statism,constructed aroundthepowerofmyths,ledhimtoendorseanti-capitalistanti- Semitismasanextensionofclassstruggle;andIcritiquehisJanus- facedconceptofaestheticizedviolenceasitrelatestohisquestfor moralregenerationthroughrevolution. Amongthosetheoristswhoseideasservedasacatalystfortwen- tieth-centuryanarchism,GeorgesSorel(1847–1922)(Fig.1)remains themostcontroversial,primarilyduetohisowntroubledpolitical MarkAntliff,ProfessorofArtHistoryandVisualStudiesatDukeUniversity,isauthor * ofInventingBergson:CulturalPoliticsandtheParisianAvant-Garde(1993);co-editor withMatthewAffronofFascistVision: ArtandIdeologyinFranceandItaly(1997); andco-authorwithPatriciaLeightenoftwobooks,CubismandCulture(2001)andA CubismReader:DocumentsandCriticism,1906–1914(2008).In2010–11heco-curated theexhibitionTheVorticists:RebelArtistsinLondonandNewYork,1914–1918,which openedattheNasherMuseumofArtatDukeUniversityandthentraveledtothe PeggyGuggenheimCollectioninVeniceandtoTateBritain.Thepresentstudyderives inpartfromhisbookonGeorgesSorel’smyriadimpactonFrenchpolitics,artand culture,Avant-GardeFascism: TheMobilizationofMyth,ArtandCultureinFrance, 1909–1939(2007). 155 155 156 156 156 MarkAntliff Figure1 GeorgeSorel trajectoryandthatofhisself-proclaimedfollowers,manyofwhom weredrawntofascismfollowingBenitoMussolini’sriseofpower in1922,theyearofSorel’sdeath.1DespitesuchassociationsSorel’s notionofrevolutionaryconsciousnessandtheroleheascribedto mythinconstitutingandfomentingpoliticalactivismcontinuedto attracttheoristsamongtheleftinEurope,includingtheMarxistAn- tonioGramsci,whoseconceptionofanintellectualandmoral“bloc” wasindebtedtoSorel,andtheprominentchampionofNégritude, FrantzFanon,whoseseminalbooksBlackSkin,WhiteMasks(1952) andTheWretchedoftheEarth(1962)drewonSorel’stheorytoinstill revolutionaryconsciousnessamongblacksinEuropeandAfrica.2 WalterBenjamininhisimportantessay“OntheCritiqueofViolence” (1921)interpretedSorel’sconceptofthegeneralstrikeintermsof theabolitionnotonlyofthestateapparatusthroughnon-violent resistance(therefusaltowork)butalsothedestructionofthelegal 1 See Avant-Garde Fascism: The Mobilization of Myth, Art and Culture in France, 1909–1939(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2007). 2 OnGramsci,seeEnricoAngelliandCraigN.Murphy,“Consciousness,mythand collectiveaction: Gramsci,SorelandtheEthicalState,”inInnovationandTransfor- mationinInternationalStudies,eds.StephenGillandJamesMittleman(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),25–38,JackRoth,TheCultofViolence:Soreland theSorelians(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1980),175–178,andchapter sixofWalterAdamson,HegemonyandRevolution:AStudyofAntonioGramsci’sPo- liticalandCulturalRevolution(Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1980);on Fanon,seeGeorgesCiccariello-Maher,“ToLoseOneselfintheAbsolute:Revolution- arySubjectivityinSorelandFanon,”HumanArchitecture:JournaloftheSociologyof Self-Knowledge(Summer2007),101–112. 156 156 157 157 BadAnarchism 157 ordermaintainedbytheStatetojustifyitsoppressiverule.3Acompa- rableviewwastakenupbytheanarchistBartdeLightwholikewise endorsedSorel’stheoryinthecontextofhismonumentalstudyof “directnon-violentaction,”TheConquestofViolence: AnessayonWar andRevolution(1937).4MorerecentlytheMarxistsErnestoLaclau andChantalMouffehavesoughttoresuscitateSorel’sconceptof mythinthecontextoftheirtheoryofhegemony,andtheconstitutive roleofantagonisticstruggleasacatalysttoatheoryofrevolution nolongerpremisedontheoutmodedMarxistconceptofhistorical necessity.5BybreakingwithorthodoxMarxism,whichpositedclass conflictandrevolutionasthepre-determinedoutcomeofeconomic inequality,LaclauandMouffefollowSorel’sexampleinseekingto establish class identity and class antagonism by other means. In endorsingSorel’stheoryofmythasan“anti-essentialist,”anti-deter- ministtoolforpoliticalactivismLaclauandMouffearguethatthe laterappropriationofSorel’sthoughtbyadvocatesoffascismwas “merelyoneofthepossiblederivativesfromSorel’sanalysis”andby nomeansa“necessaryoutcome”ofhisideas. Thustheendorsement ofmythmakingbySorel’sfascistfollowers,andtheircelebrationof warasamythiccatalystforethicalrenewalandproletarianheroism was not “necessarily determined by the very structure of Sorel’s thought”whichreportedlyremained“indeterminate.”6 What Laclau and Mouffe fail to address is the extent to which Sorel’stheoryofradicalsubjectivitycontainedwithinittheseeds forsuchideologicalvolatility,asevidencedbythewritingsofSorel himself. Suchfindingsshouldstandasawarningtoanyendorse- mentamongcontemporaryanarchistsofSorel’sprognosisonhow toachieverevolution,howeverattractivehistheoryofagitational mythmakingmightfirstappear. InmanyrespectsSorel’scritique oftheEnlightenmentastheideologicalmeansbywhichEuropean democraciesestablishandmaintainpowerandhisrelatedadvocacy 3 OnBenjamin’sdebttoSorel,seeWernerHamacher,“Afformative,Strike:Benjamin’s ‘CritiqueofViolence’,”ineds.AndrewBenjaminandPeterOsborne,WalterBenjamin’s Philosophy:DestructionandExperience(London:Routledge,1994),110–138. 4 BartdeLigt’sbookwasfirstpublishedinFrenchin1935underthetitlePourvaincre sansviolence:réflexionssurlaguerreetlerévolution;theexpandedandrevisedEnglish translationappearedinLondonin1937andintheUnitedStatesin1938.SeeBartde Ligt,TheConquestofViolence:AnEssayonWarandRevolution(NewYork:E.P.Dutton, 1938) 5 SeeErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe,HegemonyandSocialistStrategy:Towardsa RadicalDemocraticPolitics(London:Verso,1987),36–42. 6 Ibid.,41. 157 157 158 158 158 MarkAntliff oftheanti-rationalpowerofmythasthecatalystforrevolutionary consciousness, finds an echo in the recourse to mythmaking still operative in the work of contemporary anarchist theorists.7 This unfetteredembraceofirrationalismasameansofconstitutingapol- iticsofrevolutionaryidentityformationcarrieswithittheperilsof formingamovementlackinginanycriticalself-reflection,inwhich mythitselfhasthepotentialtobecomeaplianttoolinthehands of a self-styled revolutionary — or reactionary — elite. To probe thisissue,weneedtoconsiderhowSorel’sanarchisttheoryofanti- Statism,constructedaroundthepowerofmyths,ledhimtoendorse anti-capitalistanti-Semitismasanextensionofhistheoryofclass struggle;andhisJanus-facedconceptofviolence,asitrelatestohis questformoralregeneration. Sorel’sPoliticalTrajectory GeorgesSorelwasaprolificauthorwhosetumultuouspolitical evolutionaccountsforthefactthat, followinghisdeath, activists across the full political spectrum laid claim to his philosophical legacy.8BorninCherbourgasthesonofabankruptwinemerchant, SorelreceivedtechnicaltrainingattheÉcolepolytechniqueinParis beforebecominganengineerin1870. From1879tohisretirement in1892,SorelwasensconcedinPerpignanintheEasternPyrénées, anditwasthere,in1889,thathepublishedhisfirstbooks,LeProcés 7 See,forexample,GavinGrindon,“TheBreathofthePossible,”ConstituentImagination: MilitantInvestigationsCollectiveTheorization,StevphenShukaitisandDavidGraeber withErikaBiddle,eds.(SanFrancisco:AKPress,2007),94–107. 8 NotablemonographicstudiesofSorelandhisinfluenceinclude, MichelCharzat, GeorgesSoreletlarévolutionauXXesiècle(Paris: Hachette, 1977); YvesGuchet, GeorgesSorel,1847–1922:“Serviteurdésintéresséduprolétariat”(Paris:L’Harmattan, 2001);IrvingLouisHorowitz,RadicalismandtheRevoltAgainstReason: TheSocial TheoriesofGeorgesSorel(NewYork:HumanitiesPress,1961);J.R.Jennings,Georges Sorel:TheCharacterandDevelopmentofhisThought(NewYork:St.Martin’sPress, 1985);GeorgesSoreletsontemps,eds.JacquesJulliardandShlomoSand(Paris:Editions duSeuil,1985);JamesMaisel,TheGenesisofGeorgesSorel:AnAccountofHisFormative PeriodFollowedbyaStudyofHisInfluence(AnnArbor: GeorgeWahrPublishing Company,1951);JackJ.Roth,TheCultofViolence:SorelandtheSorelians(Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress);ShlomoSand,L’Illusiondupolitique:GeorgesSorelet ledébatintellectuel1900(Paris:EditionsLaDécouverte,1985);andJohnL. Stanley, TheSociologyofVirtue: ThePoliticalandSocialThoughtofGeorgesSorel(Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1981).ThejournalCahiersGeorgesSorel(1983–1988), nowtitledMilneufcent: Revued’histoireintellectuelle(1989-present)alsocontains valuablestudiesofSorelandhislegacy. 158 158 159 159 BadAnarchism 159 deSocrateandtheContributionàl’étudeprofanedelaBible. These texts laid the ground work for the “sociology of morals” that be- came the central preoccupation of all his later writing.9 After his retirement he moved to Paris, where he first embraced orthodox MarxismbeforeembarkingonarevisionistinterpretationofMarx thatwouldculminateinhisconversiontorevolutionarysyndicalism. Between1893and1897Sorelcontributedtotheephemeraljournal L’ÉreNouvelle(1893–94)andtothemoresuccessfulDevenirSocial (1895–1898). Concurrentlyhecontinuedtoreflectonmoralissues, publishingaMarxianinterpretationofearlyChristianitytitledLa Ruinedumondeantique(1901),andanimportantstudyoftheEigh- teenth-centuryphilosopherGiambattistaVico’snotionofhistorical processesof“corsi”(decline)and“ricorso”(rebirth)(1896).10Having becomedisappointedwithLeDevenirSocial’sadherencetotheor- thodoxMarxismofKarlKautsky,Sorelresignedfromtheeditorial boardin1897,beganreadingMarxintheoriginal,andsidedwith EduardBernstein’sattempttorestoremoralintegritytoMarxism.11 After1902Sorelpartedwayswithparliamentarysocialismalto- gether, claimingthatthetruelegacyofMarxresidedintheagita- tional,directactionpoliticsoftheFrenchsyndicats,andtheirbourses dutravail(ameetinghall,culturalcenterandlaborexchange),which guaranteedtheirclassautonomy. From1902to1909Sorelwasanad- vocateofanarcho-syndicalism,publishingarticlesinthesyndicalist journal Mouvement socialiste (1899–1914) and its Italian counter- part,Diveniresociale(1905–1911). DuringthisphaseSorelbecame enamoredoftheanti-rationalistphilosopherHenriBergson,andreg- ularlyattendedhislecturesattheCollègedeFrance. Subsequently headaptedBergson’scritiqueofscientificdeterminism,andhisal- ternative theory of creative intuition to his own radical revision ofMarxism. Bergsonianthought,inconjunctionwiththatofVico, inspiredSorel’sinterpretationofthesyndicalistgeneralstrikeasa “myth”thatwouldawakentheintuitivecapacityoftheproletariat andsparktheirethicalwaragainstadecadentThirdRepublicandits 9 SeeStanley,TheSociologyofVirtue,foracomprehensiveexaminationofSorel’stheory ofmorality. 10 JeremyJennings,GeorgesSorel,36–55;andJohnL.Stanley,“Sorel’sStudyofVico:The UsesofPoeticImagination,”TheEuropeanLegacy(September,1998),17–34. 11 Seethechapterstitled“TheDecompositionofMarxism,1897–1901”inStanley,The SociologyofVirtue;andZeevSternhell,withMarioSznajderandMaiaAsheri,The BirthofFascistIdeology: FromCulturalRebelliontoPoliticalRevolution(Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress,1994),36–91. 159 159 160 160 160 MarkAntliff plutocraticsystemofgovernance,parliamentarydemocracy. Sorel outlinedthisnewtheoryinthreeinterrelatedbooks,allpublished in1908: LaDécompositionduMarxisme(whichextricatedMarxism frompoliticalreformism),LesIllusionsduprogrès(acritiqueofthe Enlightenmentanditslegacyinthecultureandpoliticsofthebour- geoisie),andRéflexionssurlaviolence(hisBergsonianapologiaof proletarianviolence,whichoutlinedhistheoryofmythandrevolu- tion).12 Theperiodfrom1909totheoutbreakofWorldWarOneinAu- gust1914constitutesthemosthotlydebatedphaseinSorel’sdevel- opment.13FollowingthefailureofstrikeactivityinbothItalyand France,andestablishmentofanalliancebetweenparliamentaryso- cialistsandfactionswithinthesyndicalistmovement,Sorelentered intoatroubledalliancewithagroupofwritersandactivistsaffiliated withtheanti-democraticroyalistorganizationActionfrançaise. Sorel, alongwithhissyndicalistallyEdouardBerth,joinedthemonarchists Georges Valois and Jean Variot in planning a national syndicalist journal,LaCitéfrançaise(1910);whenthateffortfailed,Valoisand Berthcarriedthenationalsyndicalistprojectforwardbyestablish- ingtheCahierduCercleProudhon(1912–1914). Berthdefinedthe group’sideologicalpositionin1914inLesMéfaitsdesIntellectuels (The Misdeeds of Intellectuals), a theoretical tract that praised the disciplinedmilitancyofself-styledRoyalistsandtherevolutionary energyofanarcho-syndicalistswhomBerthcalledontojoinforces incombatingtheplutocraticState. AlthoughtheCercleProudhon groupclaimedSorelastheirmentor,hedeclinedtoparticipate,pre- ferring instead to join Variot in founding a journal appropriately titledL’Indépendance(1911–13). InL’Indépendance,andrelatedarti- clespublishedinthenewspaperL’Actionfrançaise,Sorelcelebrated theresurgenceofFrenchpatriotismandtheregenerativeeffectsof classicalcultureandtheChristiantraditiononFrenchsociety. Sorel endorsedthesenew-foundmythstogetherwiththatofthegeneral 12 JeremyJenningscogentlysummarizesthisphaseofSorel’sdevelopmentinJennings, GeorgesSorel,116–142. 13 See,forexample,thefollowinganalysesofthisphaseofSorel’sdevelopment:Guchet, GeorgesSorel,191–226;Jennings,GeorgesSorel,143–159;Maisel,TheGenesisofGeorges Sorel, 203–215; Paul Mazgaj, The Action Française and Revolutionary Syndicalism (ChapelHill: UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress, 1979), 96–127; Stanley, TheSo- ciologyofVirtue,270–292;andchapterseightandnineinZeevSternhell,LaDroite révolutionnaire:LesOriginesfrançaisesdufascisme,1885–1914(Paris:EditionsduSeuil, 1978). 160 160 161 161 BadAnarchism 161 strikeasabletogenerateoppositiontotheperniciouseffectsofEn- lightenmentrhetoric,whichshoredupsupportamongallclassesfor parliamentarydemocracy. Atthesametime, whilehelaudedthe Actionfrancaise’stenaciousoppositiontotheThirdRepublic,hewas carefulnottoendorsetheirvisionofmonarchicalgovernment,or theallianceofsyndicalistsandnationalistsdevelopedbyhisCercle Proudhondisciples. SorelandBerthalsowroteanti-Semitictexts, whichattackedthe‘Jewishintellectual’astheenemyofFrenchcul- tureandthechiefapologistfortheEnlightenmentanditsplutocratic offspring,theThirdRepublic. WiththeoutbreakofWorldWarOne,Sorelwithdrewfromthe publicarenawhilereaffirminghisanarchist-inspiredoppositionto parliamentary politics. It is in this context that he published his last two books: Matériaux d’une théorie du prolétariat (1919) and Del’utilitédupragmatisme(1921). FollowinghisdeathinOctober 1922,EdouardBerth,whohadreturnedtorevolutionarysyndical- ism,publishedacollectionofSorel’searlywritingsunderthetitle D’Aristote à Marx (1935), while Jean Variot, now a convert to fas- cism,publishedhisownreminiscenceofconversationswithSorel thesameyear,ProposdeSorel(1935). MythsandRadicalSubjectivity CentraltoSorel’stheoryfollowinghisbreakwithorthodoxMarx- ismwashisnotionofmyth-makingastheprinciplemeansbywhich oppressed groups establish a radical subjectivity among the rank and file in their ongoing battle against their oppressors. Thus in hisReflectionsonViolence(1908),14Sorelconcludedthattherevolu- tionarytransformationsinstigatedbyreligioussectsandpolitical movementsarisefromtheemotiveimpactoftheircoremyths,de- finedasthosevisionaryprinciplesthatinspireimmediateaction.15 ForSorel,mythsweredecidedlyinstrumental;ratherthanproviding peoplewithasocialblueprintforafuturetobecreatedincrementally 14 Sorel’sReflectionsonViolencefirstappearedinanabbreviatedforminItalianinthe RomanjournalIlDivineresociale;itwasthenpublishedasLoScioperogeneraleela violenzain1906.Thisvolume,combinedwithadditionalessaysfromthesyndicalist journalLeMouvementsocialisteandanewintroduction,appearedinFrenchunder thetitleRéflexionssurlaviolencein1908. ForasurveyofSorel’smyriadimpactin FranceandItaly,seeJackRoth,TheCultofViolence:SorelandtheSorelians. 15 GeorgesSorel,ReflectionsonViolence,(1908,authorizedtranslationbyT.E.Hulme; reprint,London:Collier-Macmillan,1961),28. 161 161 162 162 162 MarkAntliff throughpoliticalreformandrationalplanningmythspresentedthe publicwithavisionaryidealwhosestarkcontrastwithpresentreal- itywouldagitatethemasses. ForSorelmythswereatthecoreofthe directactionstrategiesoftheanarchistsandthepsychologicalcata- lystforrevolution. InhisReflectionsonViolence,Sorelunderscored theemotiveandintuitivenatureofmythbydefiningitas“abodyof imagescapableofevokingallthesentimentswhichcorrespondtothe differentmanifestationsoftheWarundertakenbysocialismagainst modernsociety.”16Havingcondemnedparliamentarysocialistsfor employingrationalargumentationtopromotesocialchange,Sorel laudedthemythicpoweroftheFrenchanarcho-syndicalistvisionof ageneralstrikeforitsabilitytoinstillrevolutionaryfervoramong theworkingclass. Ifeachworkerbelievedtheirstrikeactionwould sparksimilaractsthroughoutFranceandthattheproliferationof suchstrikeswouldresultinthedownfallofcapitalism,thentheevo- cationofsuchanapocalypticgeneralstrikewouldinspireworkers toengageinheroicformsofviolentresistancetothecapitaliststatus quo. Sorelviewedthegeneralstrikeasonlythelatestmanifestation ofthepowerofmythicimagestotransformindividualconsciousness andultimately,wholesocieties. OtherexamplesincludedtheChris- tianbeliefinChrist’simminentreturn;thevariousutopicimages thathadinspiredthecitizen-soldiersofFrancetodefendtheRevolu- tionof1789;andGiuseppiMazzini’svisionarycallforaunitedItaly whichhadmotivatedthecommonpeopletotakeuparmsduringthe Risorgimento(1861–70). Ineachcase,mythmakersdrewastrong contrastbetweenadecadentpresent,rifewithpoliticalandethical corruption,andtheirvisionofaregeneratedfuturesociety,premised, innosmallpart,onthespiritualtransformationofeachindividual withinthebodypolitic. AttheheartofSorel’stheoryofmythwasanotionofaestheticized violence which served to distinguish his proletarian insurrection fromtheState’sbarbaricuseof“force.”“Proletarianviolence,”wrote Sorel,“carriedonasapureandsimplemanifestationofthesentiment 16 Sorel,ReflectionsonViolence,127.Sorelrelateshisdefinitionofmythasa“bodyof images”expressiveofourfacultyof“intuition”toHenriBergson’stheoryofintuitive perception,definedbythelatteras“empatheticconsciousness,”oraformof“instinct” thathadbecome“disinterested.”Bergsonwishedtostresstheroleofhumanwillin thisstateofconsciousness,whichherelatedtoourcapacityforcreativeactionand thought. ForasuccinctanalysisofBergson’simpactonSorel,seeRichardVernon, CommitmentandChange:GeorgesSorelandtheIdeaofRevolution(Toronto:University ofTorontoPress,1978),50–61. 162 162 163 163 BadAnarchism 163 ofclasswar,appearsthusasaverybeautifulandveryheroicthing; itisattheserviceoftheimmemorialinterestsofcivilization... it maysavetheworldfrombarbarism.”17Proletarianviolencewasmo- tivatedbyadesireforjustice,itwasadisciplinedactivity“carriedon withouthatredoraspiritofrevenge.”Bycontrastthe“essentialaim” behindtherepressiveviolencemetedoutbymonarchs,orbourgeois JacobinsduringtheTerrorin1793,“wasnotjustice,butthewelfare oftheState.”18Syndicalistviolence,therefore,“mustnotbeconfused withthoseactsofsavagery,”andSorelfeltjustifiedinhoping“that a Socialist revolution carried out by pure Syndicalists would not be defiled by the abominations which sullied (souillée) bourgeois revolutions.”19 Sorelianviolence,toquotehistorianDavidForgacs,was“moreim- agethanreality,”andsupposedlyminimalinitsbloodshedbyvirtue ofthesenseofdisciplineandjusticeanimatingitspractitioners.20 In effect Sorel displaced the violent act from an infliction of bod- ily harm to an imaginary realm described as an act of heroism, a formofbeauty,acivilizingforceabletohealsociety. Forgacsseesa comparableoperationatworkinItalianFascism,citingforinstance Mussolini’sdeclarationin1928thatfascistviolence“mustbegen- erous,chivalric,andsurgical.”21DespitethefactthatSorelsought tominimizeviolencewhileItalianFascismexaltedit,bothformsof violenceoperated“attheleveloftheimaginary”whereinviolence wasdisplaced“intosomethingother: asocialmedicine,acreation oforder,arevolution-recomposition.”22Suchhistoricalprecedents shouldgiveuspausewhenwereadstatementssuchasthefollowing fromCrimethInccallingonustoembrace“myth”asacatalystforrev- olutionaryinspiration: “Whenwetelltalesaroundthefireatnight 17 Sorel,ReflectionsonViolence,99;andRéflexionssurlaviolence(1908;reprintParis: MarcelRivière,1946),130. TheEnglishtranslationusestheword“veryfine”for Sorel’s“trèsbelle.”Ihavesubstitutedtheword“beautiful”whichisclosertothe originalFrench. 18 Sorel,ReflectionsonViolence,111–12;andRéflexionssurlaviolence(1908;reprintParis: MarcelRivière,1946),147. 19 Sorel,ReflectionsonViolence,125;andRéflexionssurlaviolence(1908;reprintParis: MarcelRivière,1946),165–66. 20 SeeDavidForgacsimportantessay,“Fascism,violenceandmodernity,”inTheViolent Muse: ViolenceandtheArtisticImagination, 1910–1939(Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress,1994),5–21. 21 Mussolini’sstatementisreportedbyhisconfidantMargueritaSarfattiinherbiography Dux(1928),andquotedinForgacs,6. 22 Forgacs,”Fascism,violenceandmodernity,”11. 163 163 164 164 164 MarkAntliff ofheroesandheroines,ofotherstrugglesandadventures... weare offeringeachotherexamplesofjusthowmuchlivingispossible.”23 Heroismintherealmoflaborunresthadaconstructivecomple- mentinthecreativityoftheindustrialworker,whoseinteraction withmodernmachinerygalvanizedaworkers’potentialforinven- tion. To Sorel’s mind the ethical violence of the worker merged with the creativity of the industrial producer; Mussolini (and his Frenchfascistcounterpart,GeorgesValois)appropriatedthisaspect ofSorel’stheorywhentheydescribedthefascistmovementasan allianceofcombatantsandproducers.24Atitsmostextremeasociety builtaroundsuchmythswouldnolongersupportinstitutionsstruc- turedonEnlightenmentprecepts;parliamentarydemocracywould cede tothecreationofanewformofpolitics, suchasanarchism. Asbeliefsystemsthatservedascatalystsforactivism, mythsnot onlynurturedsocialcohesionamongdisparateconstituencies,they alsomadesocialandindustrialdynamism,andthepotentialforvio- lentupheaval,coreaspectsofanyideologyemployingsuchmythic imagestoachieveitsobjectives. TheAbstractCitizen ThecreationoftheThirdRepublicproducedaconflictbetween thosefavorabletothedoctrineofuniversalsuffrageandthoseop- posed to it. As Pierre Birnbaum has detailed, political dissidents likeCharlesMaurrasandMauriceBarrèscondemnedtheRepubli- can principle of “one man, one vote” for falsely positing political equality among all citizens on the basis of Enlightenment ideals; theyalternativelycampaignedinfavourofolderformsofcommunal 23 CrimethInc,DaysofLove,NightsofWar,113.Inacogentargument,GavinGrindon haspositionedCrimethInc’smythmakinginthecontextofabroadermovement amongleftiststoharnessmythicmomentsfortheirrevolutionarypotential“from theSurrealiststotheSituationiststoReclaimtheStreets.”IntheprocessGrindon touchesonSorel’simpactonGeorgesBatailleandhisalliesassociatedwiththe “CollegeofSociology.”See,GavinGrindon,“TheBreathofthePossible”inConstituent Imagination:MilitantInvestigations//CollectiveTheorization,eds.StevphenShukaitis andDavidGraeberwithErikaBiddle(Oakland:A.K.Press,2007),94–107. 24 ForadiscussionofSorel’snotionoftheproduceranditsimpactonfascistsinFrance andItaly,seeJamesGregor,YoungMussoliniandtheIntellectualOriginsofFascism (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1979);ZeevSternhell,withMarioSznajder andMaiaAsheriTheBirthofFascistIdeology: FromCulturalRebelliontoPolitical Revolution(Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress,1994). Idiscussedthisthemeat lengthinChapter3ofAvant-GardeFascism,121–143. 164 164
Description:The list of books you might like
