Abstract

Abstract Scholars have recently begun advocating for the application of social movement theory in the analysis of the rise and development of fascist political entities. While representing a welcome effort to increase the theoretical depth in the analysis of fascism, the approach remains hampered by conceptual deficiencies. The author addresses some of these by the help of a critical discussion that problematises the often incoherent ways in which the concept of ‘movement’ is used when describing fascist political activity both within and across national borders. The analysis then turns to the application of social movement theory to the historical example of the Ustašas. While recent research on social movements has begun to explore the role and character of transnationalism, this case study analysis suggests that the lack of supra-national organisations during the period of ‘classic’ fascism prevented the emergence of a ‘transnational public space’ where fascist movements could have participated. The conclusion is that rather than acting and organising on a ‘transnational’ level, fascist entities appear to have limited themselves to state-based international ‘knowledge-transfer’ of a traditional type.

Highlights

  • In a recent article, Kevin Passmore argued for the need to use social movement theory in the analysis of fascism

  • While recent research on social movements has begun to explore the role and character of transnationalism, this case study analysis suggests that the lack of supra-national organisations during the period of ‘classic’ fascism prevented the emergence of a ‘transnational public space’ where fascist movements could have participated

  • Via free access fascism and social movements fascism’, he rebuked scholars for straying from the study of fascism per se to analysing fascist practice in terms of institutional structures, symbolic actions, or violence. He argued that scholars have applied an outdated approach to the analysis of these fascist movements, relying ‘unwittingly on understandings of social action derived from late nineteenth-century crowd psychology, from which social movement theory has—in principle—liberated itself’

Read more

Summary

Theorising Social Movements

It is easy to understand why someone would refrain from venturing into the cumbersome task of defining social movements, considering the plethora of sometimes contradictory definitions. While presupposing the existence of some form of structure, the definition does not restrict itself to movements driven by a reaction of the oppressed and those seeking change He points out that while not being an organisation, a movement can within its network include organisations, ‘even those with a highly formalized character such as a political party’.23. Diani concurs, positing that in ‘[w]hen this happens, as in the instances of the Bolshevik Party in Russia or the National Socialist Party in Germany, it is more important to drop the term “movement” altogether and concentrate instead on the concept of political organization’; Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 9–10. As will be shown below, it would seem that fascists, while using the term ‘movement’ as a way of rhetorically implying a popular support that transcends class and other socio-economic delineations within a national community, were fundamentally opposed to the very principles that provide the basis for how social movements are organised

Distinguishing Between Organisations and Movements
Contentious Politics
Empirical Analysis
Establishment of uhro
Transnational Activities
Independent State of Croatia
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call