Abstract
Abstract This article analyses the conception of history or ‘regime of historicity’ structuring the ideology of the Norwegian fascist party, Nasjonal Samling (1933–1945). It highlights the value of the theory of palingenetic ultranationalism to the understanding of fascist temporality generically and specifically. Generically, because the findings show how Nasjonal Samling’s regime of historicity followed the same structure of revolution and eternity, decay and rebirth, as other fascist movements did. Specifically, because it also shows how Nasjonal Samling drew heavily on Norwegian national myths. The ideologues of ns recoded these myths, and integrated them into their own palingenetic, apocalyptic, and – after 1935 – antisemitic grand narratives. These crystallized in a triadic scheme, forming a fascist regime of historicity, structured around the myth of past greatness, followed by decadence, combined with a fantasy of a future revolutionary rebirth of the nation.
Highlights
Did fascism represent a revolutionary or a counter-revolutionary movement? According to American historical sociologist Dylan Riley, ‘[t]his question has
It highlights the value of the theory of palingenetic ultranationalism to the understanding of fascist temporality generically and
Like Alexander and Smith, Griffin takes the cultural ‘foreground’ and speech acts seriously as testimony of an ideology rooted in passionately held beliefs and ideals inferable from primary sources, and on this premise he suggests that fascism is best defined as a revolutionary (‘palingenetic’) form of populist ultranationalism.[13]
Summary
The inspiration that this present article draws from the cultural sociology of Alexander and Smith, derives from their focus on the processes of meaning-making, and their commitment to hermeneutical reconstruction and interpretation of ‘the codes, narratives, and symbols that create the textured webs of social meaning’.6 Focusing on the ‘culture structures’ and ‘domains of meaning’ underpinning social behavior, Alexander and Smith treat the cultural ‘foreground’ of ideologies seriously, seeing them neither as window dressing or as a reflection of a ‘false consciousness’ in the Marxian sense, but as symbolic systems that provide ‘meaning and motivation’.7. Like Alexander and Smith, Griffin has taken a more ‘cultural’ approach to the study of society,[11] and launched an understanding of fascism that focuses on the three mythic components that he considers to make up its ‘minimum’: ultra-nationalism, the myth of decadence, and the rebirth myth.[12] Like Alexander and Smith, Griffin takes the cultural ‘foreground’ and speech acts seriously as testimony of an ideology rooted in passionately held beliefs and ideals inferable from primary sources, and on this premise he suggests that fascism is best defined as a revolutionary (‘palingenetic’) form of populist ultranationalism.[13] While such an understanding of ‘fascism’ is widely used, it is still contested and divides opinion: Christopher Clark has for instance rejected the idea that it is possible to identify a ‘generic “fascist” temporality’,14 arguing that Italian Fascism and German Nazism each had their own ‘distinctive’ temporal orders. The leader of ns, Vidkun Quisling (1887–1945), imagined that his movement, if given power, would reverse the effects and values of the French Revolution[23] and recreate
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
