Extended Phenotype

I’m catching up on a couple of books I finished earlier in the month — my ability to read is outstripping my ability to write. Or the chair by the window is more comfortable than my desk. One of these is probably the reason I’m lagging in writing about books.

Gray’s book Two Faces of Liberalism refers to the major split in liberal thinking between Enlightenment rationalism and consequent "univeralism" among liberals, and the notion that liberalism must treat all ways of life equally. Levy, Galston, and others have referred to this distinction as one of "autonomy" versus "diversity." Gray’s book can be summarized as an argument for the latter by presenting the contradictions in the former view of liberalism. But his claims go further — that liberal pluralists such as Will Kymlicka and even, it seems, Gray’s hero Isaiah Berlin, don’t go far enough — that "toleration" among different ways of life still contains the seed of the idea that those who "tolerate" still believe in the universal superiority of a single way of life. Gray’s book is an extended argument that even toleration doesn’t capture the very real conflicts that occur between groups, cultures, and ways of life. And thus, the liberal "utopia" is one of modus vivendi, Gray’s Hobbesian term for a tactical agreement between individuals which facilitates the peaceful co-existence of different ways of life.

I suspect that prior to reading Rorty, and internalizing his strain of pragmatism, I’d have been more impressed by Gray. As it was, I spent much of the book thinking that Gray was trying valiantly to carve out a differentiated territory between Rawlsian notions of fairness, the pluralistic liberalism of folks like Berlin, Kymlicka, and Kukathas, and a post-Darwinian notion that no particular way of life is privileged. And in this sense, I was disappointed that the argument wasn’t more original. That said, Two Faces was a valuable read. Gray describes how various notions of the good life, rival freedoms, and competing ways of life work both within individuals and societies. Most valuable, perhaps, is his insistence on the multiplicity of each individual — that we can each hold rival notions of good and proper action, participate in multiple ways of life, and even value freedoms which are mutually exclusive. Liberal theorists who stress rational argument and universal principles would do well to keep in mind Gray’s point about the diversity inherent within single individuals, because it suggests that we do need to think carefully about how to meld our notions of a shared civic "good life" with the realization that conflicts of interest, values, and rival liberties will always be with us.

Paxton’s analysis of fascism was a pretty amazing read. He takes as his central problem the difficulty of precisely defining “fascism,” given the great diversity among the movements bearing that label. Anatomy of Fascism (AoF) is then an extended essay aimed at understanding what fascism is by understanding the diverse ways in which ultra-right wing, popular nationalist movements crystallize, (very) occasionally gain power, and then either moderate (Mussolini) or radicalize (Nazi Germany) while in power.

Paxton’s focus on variability is the key to the present-day value in AoF. If fascism could possibly gain power in a modern democratic state, we should not expect it to look precisely like fascisms of the past, or to resemble the fantasies of marginalized “neo-legacy” fascist groups of the current day. Neither America nor any European country is likely to be overtaken by today’s neo-Nazi fringe, simply because the intervening 60 years have created a strong antipathy to the outward symbols and modalities of 1930’s fascist movements. Paxton’s achievement is to articulate the underlying elements that fascisms of the past have held in common, as a way of understanding the potential pathways that future fascisms — here or elsewhere — could take, and under what circumstances.

If you read one book on fascism this year, I know the temptation will be to read Philip Roth’s Plot Against America, but I’d recommend Paxton instead. It’s that good. More on this subject in the near future, and probably over at Progressive Commons.