Totalitarianism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:46, 31 July 2006

Totalitarianism is a typology employed by political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.

The most influential scholars of totalitarianism, such as Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, Carl Friedrich, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Juan Linz have each described totalitarianism in a slightly different way. Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the offical state ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, churches or political parties. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.

Critics of the concept say that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments which may be classified as totalitarian often lack characteristics said to be associated with the term. They may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit pluralism through the involvement of several groups in the political process.^[1]

Usage of the term

The term, employed in the writings of the philosopher Giovanni Gentile, was popularized in the 20th century by the Italian fascists under Benito Mussolini. The original meaning of the word as described by Mussolini and Gentile, was a society in which the main ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to them, thanks to modern technologies like radio and the printing press, which the state could and probably would use to spread its ideology, most modern nations would naturally become totalitarian in the above stated sense.

While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Poverty of Historicism (1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of liberal democracy with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws. During the Cold War period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).

Cold War-era research

The political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin as well as fascist regimes. For Friedrich and Brzezinski, the defining elements were intended to be taken as a mutually supportive organic entity comprised of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; a single mass party, typically led by a dictator; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction and control of the economy through state planning. Such regimes had initial origins in the chaos that followed in the wake of the World War I, at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power in Italy, Germany, and Russia.

Criticism and recent work with the concept

In the social sciences, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, or even in class terms (using the concept of the nomenklatura as a vehicle for a new ruling class). These critics pointed to evidence of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere formality of supposed popular participation. Its proponents do not agree on when the Soviet Union ceased to be describable as totalitarian.

The notion of "post-totalitarianism" was put forward by political scientist Juan Linz. For many commentators, such as Linz and Alfred Stepan, the Soviet Union entered a new phase after the abandonment of mass terror on Stalin's death. Discussion of "post-totalitarianism" featured prominently in debates about the reformability and durability of the Soviet system in comparative politics.

As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, and later the total and sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, demonstrated that the totalitarian model had little explanatory value for researchers. Several decades earlier, for example, Bertram Wolfe in 1957 claimed that the Soviet Union faced no challenge or change possible from society at large. He called it a "solid and durable political system dominating a society that has been totally fragmented or atomized," one which will remain "barring explosion from within or battering down from without." Many classic theories of totalitarianism discounted the possibility of such change; however, later theorists not only acknowledged the possibility but in fact encouraged and welcomed it. Any suggestions of the indefinite stability of states labeled totalitarian among proponents of the term were largely discredited when the Soviet Union fell by the wayside.

Political usage

While the term fell into disuse during the 1970s among many Soviet specialists, other commentators found the typology not only useful for the purposes of classification but for guiding official policy. In her 1978 essay for Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards" (later expanded upon), Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that a number of foreign policy implications can be drawn by distinguishing "totalitarian" regimes from "authoritarian" ones. According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes are primarily interested in their own survival, and as such have allowed for varying degrees of autonomy regarding elements of civil society, religious institutions, court, and the press. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology. Therefore, U.S. policy should distinguish between the two and even grant support, if temporary, to authoritarian governments in order to combat totalitarian movements and promote U.S. interests. Kirkpatrick's influence, particularly as foreign policy adviser and United Nations ambassador, was essential to the formation of the Reagan administration's foreign policy and her ideas came to be known as the "Kirkpatrick Doctrine."

Notes

^ Peter Burnham "Totalitarianism" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

References

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958, new ed. 1966)
Carl Friedrich and Z. K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (2d ed. 1967)
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and reason in politics (1982)
Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Consolidation (1996)
J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, (1952)
John A. Armstrong, The Politics of Totalitarianism (New York: Random House, 1961)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Totalitarianism''' is a term employed by [[political science|political scientists]], especially those in the field of [[comparative politics]], to describe modern [[regime]]s in which the [[state]] regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.
+'''Totalitarianism''' is a [[ideal type|typology]] employed by [[political science|political scientists]], especially those in the field of [[comparative politics]], to describe modern [[regime]]s in which the [[state]] regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.
-The most influential scholars of totalitarianism, such as [[Karl Popper]], [[Hannah Arendt]], [[Carl Friedrich]], [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]], and [[Juan Linz]] have each described totalitarianism in a slightly different way. Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious [[ideology]], and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with [[labour union]]s, [[church]]es or [[political party|political parties]]. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in [[political power]] by means of [[single-party state]], [[secret police]], [[propaganda]] disseminated through the state-controlled [[mass media]], [[personality cult]], regulation and restriction of [[freedom of speech|free discussion and criticism]], the use of [[mass surveillance]], and widespread use of [[Terrorism|terror]] tactics (political purges and persecution of specific groups of people).
+The most influential scholars of totalitarianism, such as [[Karl Popper]], [[Hannah Arendt]], [[Carl Friedrich]], [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]], and [[Juan Linz]] have each described totalitarianism in a slightly different way. Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the offical state [[ideology]], and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with [[labour union]]s, [[church]]es or [[political party|political parties]]. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in [[political power]] by means of [[secret police]], [[propaganda]] disseminated through the state-controlled [[mass media]], regulation and restriction of [[freedom of speech|free discussion and criticism]], the use of [[mass surveillance]], and widespread use of [[Terrorism|terror]] tactics.
-Critics of the concept contend that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments which may be classified as totalitarian often lack characteristics said to be associated with the term. They may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence <ref> See for example [[Hannah Arendt]]'s ''[[Eichmann in Jerusalem]]'', chapter IX on the Reich's deportations. [[Functionalism versus intentionalism|Functionalists]] in particular have argued in favor of this thesis. </ref>.  In this sense, these regimes may exhibit [[pluralism]] through the involvement of several groups in the political process.<ref>Peter Burnham "Totalitarianism" ''The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics''. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.</ref>
+Critics of the concept say that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments which may be classified as totalitarian often lack characteristics said to be associated with the term. They may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit [[pluralism]] through the involvement of several groups in the political process.<ref>Peter Burnham "Totalitarianism"  ''The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics''. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.</ref>
 ==Usage of the term==
-The term, employed in the writings of the philosopher [[Giovanni Gentile]], was popularized in the [[20th century]] by the [[Italy|Italian]] [[fascism|fascists]] under [[Benito Mussolini]]. Gentile ghostwrote Mussolini's ''[[Doctrine of Fascism]]'' (1931), which used the term "[[statolatry]]" (formed on [[idolatry]]) and "totalitarianism". The original meaning of the word as described by Mussolini and Gentile, was a society in which the main ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to them, thanks to modern technologies like radio and the printing press, which the state could and probably would use to spread its ideology, most modern nations would naturally become totalitarian in the above stated sense.
+The term, employed in the writings of the philosopher [[Giovanni Gentile]], was popularized in the [[20th century]] by the [[Italy|Italian]] [[fascism|fascists]] under [[Benito Mussolini]]. The original meaning of the word as described by Mussolini and Gentile, was a society in which the main ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to them, thanks to modern technologies like radio and the printing press, which the state could and probably would use to spread its ideology, most modern nations would naturally become totalitarian in the above stated sense.
-While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. [[Karl Popper]], in ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]]'' (1945) and ''The Poverty of Historicism'' (1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of [[liberal democracy]] with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws. During the [[Cold War]] period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of [[Hannah Arendt]]'s ''[[The Origins of Totalitarianism]]'' (1951).
+While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. [[Karl Popper]], in ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]]'' ([[1945]]) and ''The Poverty of Historicism'' ([[1961]]) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of [[liberal democracy]] with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws. During the [[Cold War]] period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of [[Hannah Arendt]]'s ''[[The Origins of Totalitarianism]]'' ([[1951]]).
-Hannah Arendt argued that while [[Italian fascism]] constituted a classical case of [[dictatorship]], [[Nazism]] and [[Stalinism]] fundamentally differed from such forms of [[tyranny]], in that the [[single-party state]] was completely subjected to the [[political party|party]], either a representative of the [[nation]] (conceived by Nazism as a ''[[Volksgemeinschaft]]'' - a Nazi neologism for "National community" -, which could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life - ''[[Gleichschaltung]]'') or of the [[proletariat]]. To the contrary, according to Arendt's controversial thesis, Mussolini's fascism still respected the authority of the state on the party. Arendt also underlined the role of [[pan-Germanism]] and [[pan-Slavism]] in both Nazism and Stalinism, which she described as "continental [[imperialism]]s" whom connected themselves to the [[racism|racist discourse]] born during the [[New Imperialism]] period. Hannah Arendt's thesis on the totalitarian identity between Nazism and stalinism has inspired a generation of thinkers, and has been also widely contested. It has been argued that fascism shared more traits with Nazism, including a common ideology, which set these two regimes apart from [[communism|communist]] regimes such as the [[USSR]].
 ==Cold War-era research==
@@ Line 19: / Line 17: @@
 ==Criticism and recent work with the concept==
+In the [[social science]]s, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of [[interest group]]s, competing elites, or even in [[social class|class]] terms (using the concept of the ''[[nomenklatura]]'' as a vehicle for a new ruling class). These critics pointed to evidence of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere formality of supposed popular participation. Its proponents do not agree on when the Soviet Union ceased to be describable as totalitarian.
-The concept of totalitarianism was at its outset controversial, and has been accused of being more of an ideological instrument than a descriptive tool. In the context of the [[Cold War]], the identification between stalinism and Nazism was obviously aimed against the [[Soviet Bloc]], and has been therefore accused of being mainly used for [[anti-communism]] purposes. The first criticisms thus arose in the [[socialist]] movement. Political scientists later argued that the "totalitarianism" concept didn't cover the real functioning of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, aside from the question of when [[Stalinism]] ended, this concept didn't account for the dissolution of the [[USSR]] in the 1990s.
-The edition of ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' (1997), under [[Stéphane Courtois]]' direction, lit up again the controversy concerning Stalinism and Nazism alleged identification under the concept of totalitarianism. Besides, [[François Furet]]'s earlier thesis about Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR being "totalitarian twins" was exposed to various criticisms. In ''[[The Nation]]'', [[Daniel Singer]], for instance, acknowledged the "totalitarian nature" of Stalin's Russia while finding "the thesis of "totalitarian twins" both wrong and unproductive. [http://ssl.thenation.com/doc/19991213/singer/3]. Others authors, among whom is historian [[Eric Hobsbawm]], reacted to Furet's continued identification in the 1990s of both regimes as a sure sign of [[anti-communism]]. Indeed, the political context of the creation of this concept &mdash; the very beginning of the [[Cold War]] &mdash; would tend to accredit such a thesis. However, other authors have argued that despite this essential ideological difference and thus explicit goals shared by the rival ideologies (namely, Nazism and [[Communism]], which is here identified with Stalinism despite the existence of other models), their functional working and the use of [[concentration camps]] in both Nazi Germany and [[Stalin]]'s [[USSR]] proved their essential similarity.
-However, this technical similarity between both regimes itself has been contested. In the [[social science]]s, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of [[interest group]]s, competing elites, or even in [[social class|class]] terms (using the concept of the ''[[nomenklatura]]'' as a vehicle for a new ruling class). These critics pointed to evidence of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere formality of supposed popular participation. Its proponents do not agree on when the Soviet Union ceased to be describable as totalitarian.
 The notion of "post-totalitarianism" was put forward by political scientist [[Juan Linz]]. For many commentators, such as Linz and [[Alfred Stepan]], the Soviet Union entered a new phase after the abandonment of mass terror on Stalin's death. Discussion of "post-totalitarianism" featured prominently in debates about the reformability and durability of the Soviet system in [[comparative politics]].
-As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], and later the total and sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, demonstrated that the totalitarian model had little explanatory value for researchers. Several decades earlier, for example, [[Bertram Wolfe]] in 1957 claimed that the Soviet Union faced no challenge or change possible from society at large. He called it a "solid and durable political system dominating a society that has been totally fragmented or atomized," one which will remain "barring explosion from within or battering down from without." Many classic theories of totalitarianism discounted the possibility of such change; however, later theorists not only acknowledged the possibility but in fact encouraged and welcomed it. Any suggestions of the indefinite stability of states labeled totalitarian among proponents of the term were largely discredited when the Soviet Union fell by the wayside.
+As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late [[1980s]] and early [[1990s]], opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], and later the total and sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, demonstrated that the totalitarian model had little explanatory value for researchers. Several decades earlier, for example, [[Bertram Wolfe]] in [[1957]] claimed that the Soviet Union faced no challenge or change possible from society at large. He called it a "solid and durable political system dominating a society that has been totally fragmented or atomized," one which will remain "barring explosion from within or battering down from without." Many classic theories of totalitarianism discounted the possibility of such change; however, later theorists not only acknowledged the possibility but in fact encouraged and welcomed it. Any suggestions of the indefinite stability of states labeled totalitarian among proponents of the term were largely discredited when the Soviet Union fell by the wayside.
 ==Political usage==
-While the term fell into disuse during the 1970s among many Soviet specialists, other commentators found the typology not only useful for the purposes of classification but for guiding official policy. In her 1978 essay for ''[[Commentary]]'', "Dictatorships and Double Standards" (later expanded upon), [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] argued that a number of foreign policy implications can be drawn by distinguishing "totalitarian" regimes from "[[authoritarianism|authoritarian]]" ones. According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes are primarily interested in their own survival, and as such have allowed for varying degrees of [[Wiktionary:autonomy|autonomy]] regarding elements of [[civil society]], [[religion|religious institutions]], court, and [[journalism|the press]]. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology. Therefore, U.S. policy should distinguish between the two and even grant support, if temporary, to authoritarian governments in order to combat totalitarian movements and promote U.S. interests. Kirkpatrick's influence, particularly as foreign policy adviser and [[United Nations]] [[ambassador]], was essential to the formation of the [[Reagan administration]]'s foreign policy and her ideas came to be known as the "[[Kirkpatrick Doctrine]]."
+While the term fell into disuse during the 1970s among many Soviet specialists, other commentators found the typology not only useful for the purposes of classification but for guiding official policy. In her [[1978]] essay for ''[[Commentary]]'', "Dictatorships and Double Standards" (later expanded upon), [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]] argued that a number of foreign policy implications can be drawn by distinguishing "totalitarian" regimes from "[[authoritarianism|authoritarian]]" ones. According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes are primarily interested in their own survival, and as such have allowed for varying degrees of [[Wiktionary:autonomy|autonomy]] regarding elements of [[civil society]], [[religion|religious institutions]], court, and [[journalism|the press]]. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology. Therefore, U.S. policy should distinguish between the two and even grant support, if temporary, to authoritarian governments in order to combat totalitarian movements and promote U.S. interests. Kirkpatrick's influence, particularly as foreign policy adviser and [[United Nations]] [[ambassador]], was essential to the formation of the [[Reagan administration]]'s foreign policy and her ideas came to be known as the "[[Kirkpatrick Doctrine]]."
-== Notes ==
+==Notes==
+<div style="font-size:85%">
-<references/>
+<references />
+</div>
 ==References==
-*[[Giorgio Agamben]], ''State of Exception - [[Homo Sacer]]'' (2003)
 * [[Hannah Arendt]], ''[[The Origins of Totalitarianism]]'' (1958, new ed. 1966)
+* [[Carl Friedrich]] and [[Zbigniew Brzezinski|Z. K. Brzezinski]], ''Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy'' (2d ed. 1967)
-*John A. Armstrong, ''The Politics of Totalitarianism'' (New York: Random House, 1961)
-* C. J. Friedrich and [[Zbigniew Brzezinski|Z. K. Brzezinski]], ''Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy'' (2d ed. 1967)
 * [[Jeane Kirkpatrick]], ''Dictatorships and Double Standards:  Rationalism and reason in politics'' (1982)
 * Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, ''Problems of Democratic Consolidation'' (1996)
 * [[J. L. Talmon]], ''[[The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy]]'', (1952)
+* John A. Armstrong, ''The Politics of Totalitarianism'' (New York: Random House, 1961)
-* [[Bruno Rizzi]], ''La Bureaucratisation du monde'' (The Bureaucratisation of the World) (1939)
-* [[Carl Schmitt]], ''Die Diktatur'' (1928)
 ==See also==
 {{Ideology-small}}
-*[[Authoritarianism]]
 *[[Colonialism]]
+*[[Authoritarianism]]
 *[[Ethnocide]]
-*[[Leo Strauss]]
+*[[Police state]]
+*[[Single-party state]]
 *[[Typology]]
-*[[Economic totalitarianism]]
 </strike>
-{{Authoritarian}}
 [[Category:Political philosophy]]