Pynchon and fascism

Paul Nightingale isread at btopenworld.com
Wed May 28 12:48:55 CDT 2003


Paul Mackin wrote:

"Did Orwell believe that political parties of the democracies were as
fascistically minded in their way as Germany, Italy, and Spain? Pynchon
seems to think Orwell was not far from such a position. Perhaps Pynchon
is not far from agreeing with him. He doesn't really say but if he does
agree is he correct in doing so?"

I think the danger is, the questions above presuppose that we know what
fascism is. Perhaps we do, and perhaps we'll know it when we see it.
Once again, I think it more productive, when discussing the Foreword, to
consider how P writes about how we know what we (think we) know.

For example, in what I have called phase 2 (ix-xv) of the Foreword P
mentions fascism several times. On each occasion I think he aims to
challenge the reader to think about what the word means: meaning is
elusive, context-bound, a matter of perception ... and not to be taken
for granted. Just as Orwell's identity, and that of the novel, are
elusive, so is that of the concept 'fascism'.

This isn't an abstract exercise (although I've no doubt some will see it
as that and no more). Political rhetoric is heavily dependent on the
labelling of one's enemies. Such labelling only works if and when we
don't think about it.

Anyway, the references:

"... the difference between real and phony antifascism" (ix)
specifically in Spain (but the distinction of course has a wider
application than that). Commitment to a principle vs a pose.

Hence O's view of the Official Left/Labour Party "as potentially, if not
already, fascist" (ix) because it only pretended to fight against
capitalist: "... professing" (ie political rhetoric) vs "in reality
concerned only with ..." eg Parliamentary politics.

In the first two references above, then, the pose adopted by phonies and
Official Left masks a commitment to something other than socialism, the
pursuit of power as an end in itself. Political activity that serves a
goal (socialism) vs political activity that is/becomes its own goal
(achieving power, then keeping it).

Time out ... and a story that features two Labour politicians of the
time. Ernest Bevin (working-class, on the right of the Party) has
clashed with Stafford Cripps (from an upper-class background, on the
left). Cripps says: "You and I, Ernie, have one thing in common - we're
both traitors to our class". 

Then, "those of fascistic disposition" are juxtaposed to "merely those
who remain all too ready to justify any government action" (ix). Hence
the latter are not necessarily fascist, although their acquiescence will
lead them to support/justify fascist measures, even if they don't
recognise said measures as being fascist.

Finally, Churchill's cabinet might act "no differently than a fascist
regime" (x). Note that P does not say the cabinet was fascist, simply
that its actions might, on occasion, be so described.

In the first two refs, P discusses the pursuit of power; in the latter
two refs, the way power might be exercised. In the latter refs we can
distinguish between the individual whose mindset is always 'fascist' as
opposed to anything else (assuming such a person exists) and the fascist
gesture or act that an individual (or govt) might choose (or which might
be the result of their actions). Hence the discussion has moved from
political activism per se to the relationship between govt and
electorate.







More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list