I returned to this essay when I saw the photo of the Jake Angeli in the Capitol - a Q-supporter wearing an Indian buffalo mask and a tattoo of Odin, storming the capitol alongside evangelical Christians. Relevant quote:
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
[...]
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
The fascist bit (in Ur-Fascism) is the resistance to reconciliation. Bits are taken on piecemeal due to historical accident or on a whim. There is no notion of consistency or inconsistency - no notion of tolerating inconsistency for a reason, even. There's just "our way" with no room for reason.
(The essay is taking the concept of syncresis to an extreme to make a polemical point)
Syncretism is part of what makes these movements appealing, though. Same as for conspiracy theories: it gives a broad appeal because everyone can come with their pet theory which will find a neat niche within the arch-conspiracy framework. There needs to be some flexibility otherwise everything crumbles under the weight of the contradictions and cognitive dissonance.
There is a trend, where persons religion is treated as evidence of stupidity and root of evil. If it would have a name it would be called ultra-atheist.
I humbly disagree! Although most folks on HN seem to swing atheistic, I have found them to be comparably respectful, considerate, and open-minded.
Just because someone disagrees doesn't make them close minded. Perhaps your experience has been different than mine. But whenever I've brought up my (ever evolving) beliefs, I've found people to more respectful here than in the world at large, and certainly more respectful than the web at large.
I am not sure I understand your use of the word "symptom". Being syncretistic, by itself, is clearly not indicative of fascism (as you point out all religion is syncretistic to some extent, so is art, etc.), but if you see many of the symptoms that Eco describes - not just syncretism, but also traditionalism, irrationalism, uniformity of thought, fear of difference, populism, nationalism, etc. - then syncretism becomes part of your "fascism" diagnosis. By themselves these things can be part of various strands of political thought, only together are they Ur-Fascism.
Just like a headache, by itself is not indicative of a disease, but can be a clue in combination with other symptoms.
I was just replying to the last line of the comment:
But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
That, to me, is just an unacceptable statement that is clearly wrong. Plenty of modern pagans, for example, draw some ideas from Christian writers like Augustine and combine them with symbols like Stonehenge. That certainly doesn’t make them fascists.
The medical analogy is useful. Tons of disease cause headache, or joint pain, or fever, or rashes, or stomach pain, or runny nose, or cough.
Some combinations of symptoms help diagnosing a specific disease. It's not the parts taken in isolation, it's the sum of it, and how it evolves over time. Some symptoms that worsen suddenly should be taken seriously.
> And again, I have a deep problem with the idea that only “pure” religious beliefs are somehow less likely to lead to fascism.
And you should be deeply suspicious of anything linking religious purity with anything. But he does not say that it leads to fascism, just that fascism feeds on it. Also, I think in this specific instance he lets his own religion cloud his argument, and that he should have said "ideologies" instead of religious beliefs. People do not need religion to be terrible to other people.
No it doesn't make them fascist, and that's not what Eco is saying. Combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge is syncretism, which is a symptom of Ur Fascism (as discussed) above. Symptom does not equal implication.
They seem to have an axe to grind against syncretic cultures like India’s “Ganga-Jamni tehzeeb” and Eco in particular is conflating it with behavior of people like Savitri Devi
New Age has been a broad band of beliefs for decades and without central tenets or leadership it just hasn’t gotten that dangerous.
The thing about this era is more contrarian cultism. Lots of disparate groups that are syncretic seem to be able to mold Trump as a central figurehead. They really haven’t had anyone else to attach to (Jimmy Carter, H. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Palin maybe).
QAnon is a sort of syncretism for conspiracy theories. It's managed to bring every conspiracy theory into its fold. (And conspiracy theories themselves were already very syncretic!)
Funny enough, the design of Deus Ex was built from researching real conspiracy theory at the time.
> We did a vast amount of research into "real" conspiracies -- the Kennedy assassination, Area 51, the CIA pushing crack in East L.A., Dwight Eisenhower's UFO connection, and of course Freemasons tunneling below the Denver airport and building abducted-baby cafeterias for alien invaders at George Bush's direction. Only a fraction of this stuff ended up in the game, but it gave us a peek into the minds of conspiracy buffs that was both scary and useful.
Conspiracy theories tend to encourage syncretism. It's as easy to disbelieve the official narrative on one subject and to substitute it for a theory, as it is to do the same to another. Different theories are but different crimes from the same culprits.
I watched a little mini-documentary on QAnon the other day, and I was struck by how diverse the adherents are. I figured it'd be mostly older, middle-class white people, but footage of some of their protests revealed them to be a cross-section of all kinds of ages and races. It really does seem to have some kind of universal appeal.
Intersectionality is at its root a similarly syncretistic idea and praxis, though obviously it sits on a radically different "side" of the political spectrum than the Qanon nutcases.
Intersectionality is different and it’s really disappointing how little general understanding there is of the other side of the political spectrum.
Intersectionality isn’t about making any disparate set of things singular, it’s about making solidarity a core principle. Solidarity being inherently an expression of valuing other.
Sure, the other side of the political spectrum has a lot of unifying language but if you spend any time in it you’re quite likely to experience sharp division and disagreement, likely insurmountable. But its center of gravity is solidarity and that keeps even violent threats to bonds at bay.
This Eco fellow is a little sloppy. The same underlying phenomenon often looks very different from perspective to perspective. The history of science has born this out repeatedly. The works of Newton being a superb counterexample to:
"whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning"
He is indeed. Every time I read something by Eco I'm both surprised by how pleasant he is as a writer, and by how handwavy and poorly supported are his arguments and conclusions.
This sort of thing struck me reading gulag archipelago. The courts used the class struggle dialectic to make any enemies of Lenin or Stalin criminals, regardless of what they'd actually done. I see this sort of thing all throughout our culture, not just Qanon.
I agree on the procrustics. I would say the traditionalism is just an accident of the more fundamental problem which is sacrificing truth to the cause. Look at all the crazy things believed by both Nazi and communist regimes, and how maintaining the personality cult at expense of the truth was paramount, e.g. the Nazi belief in an orbiting ice planet that housed the true race, or the communist agriculture theory promoted because a son of peasants came up with the idea. I see this same thing happening in our culture on all sides.
My critique of this essay is that Eco implies that it is a contradiction for there to be an external enemy which is overpowering and humiliating, and yet at the same time easy to defeat if our people would just stand up to them. That is not a contradiction. If a people have been demoralized and degenerated, it is actually very easy for them to be in such a state.
A really great example of this phenomena is China.
A century ago, the Chinese were indeed oppressed by foreigners, who humiliated and dominated them. However, these outsiders were paper tigers, when the people were united and stood against them. The only reason these foreigners were oppressing them was because of the weakness of their leaders, compromising with the outsiders instead of kicking them out and putting up walls.
China is a Fascist success story, and it undermines Eco's essay.
Indeed, many anti-colonial struggles can be described that way. Foreigners ("immigrants") oppressing a local population in collusion with corrupt local elites and chieftains. And an indigenous population too divided to do anything about it. Fascist scholars would say that Fascism would have protected the American Indians. Plenty of Black nationalists like Marcus Garvey were actually self described Fascists, and wanted to use Fascism to resist European colonialism.
Indigenous tribes that have had their social fabric and identities compromised by foreign influence and corrupt elites allow themselves to be colonized. Usually it is capitalism that corrupts them. A flood of cheap goods completely undermines them, and destroys their way of life. They almost always outnumber their oppressors, and if they could just reclaim their sense of national identity, they could easily rise up and take back their country.
Anyway, I'm not saying that I agree with Fascism, but I do think that Eco is presenting a straw man of it, which is not a good thing if you are opposed to Fascism and want to defeat it.
I think it was one of The Exiled writers -- John Dolan, Matt Tiabi, or Mark Ames -- who said something to the effect of:
"All nationalism is, by definition, wounded."
You're either avenging a real or perceived loss, humiliation, or simply taking umbrage at the fact the world isn't kneeling to you as deeply as it should; "Make America Great Again".
> A century ago, the Chinese were indeed oppressed by foreigners, who humiliated and dominated them. However, these outsiders were paper tigers, when the people were united and stood against them. The only reason these foreigners were oppressing them was because of the weakness of their leaders, compromising with the outsiders instead of kicking them out and putting up walls.
This is not a contradiction. In china's case, it did not last long once they realised the actual weakness of their oppressors. They were never in a situation of being both overwhelmed and (perceived as) more powerful than their enemies. Chinese governments were not in a position of force when colonialists were in place. You could argue that it applies to post-colonialist China, and certainly to Maoism, and I think that is a valid point. What Eco describes is broader than just Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany.
The difference with totalitarianism (not only fascism) is that the contradiction is a way of functioning and thinking over the long term. This is actually a fairly common idea and is central to Orwell (both 1984 and Animal Farm), for example.
> Indeed, many anti-colonial struggles can be described that way. Foreigners ("immigrants") oppressing a local population in collusion with corrupt local elites and chieftains. And an indigenous population too divided to do anything about it. Fascist scholars would say that Fascism would have protected the American Indians. Plenty of Black nationalists like Marcus Garvey were actually self described Fascists, and wanted to use Fascism to resist European colonialism.
I don't really see where the contradiction is. There is nothing preventing Black people from being fascists or exhibiting fascist tendencies. Being oppressed at one point in time does not prevent anyone from becoming an oppressor in other circumstances.
> Indigenous tribes that have had their social fabric and identities compromised by foreign influence and corrupt elites allow themselves to be colonized. Usually it is capitalism that corrupts them. A flood of cheap goods completely undermines them, and destroys their way of life. They almost always outnumber their oppressors, and if they could just reclaim their sense of national identity, they could easily rise up and take back their country.
Yes, and plenty did without going all the way to a nationalist, totalitarian regime. Patriotism is not unique to fascism, or even nationalism.
> Anyway, I'm not saying that I agree with Fascism, but I do think that Eco is presenting a straw man of it, which is not a good thing if you are opposed to Fascism and want to defeat it.
I actually think you agree with him more than you might think, but some vocabulary has shifted slightly over the decades. And, as has been pointed out several times, this is not a rigorous equivalence, as in "all fascist regimes do this, and any regime that does this is fascist". It is a spectrum.
This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice”; such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and whenever they seem to say different or incompatible things it is only because all are alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.
As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.
[...]
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled as New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge—that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
reply