Page 137 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 137
b. vezjak ■ radical hate speech: the fascination with hitler and fascism ...
Hitler may be distinguished, though they may not necessarily be »fascist
discourse«. Below, these are treated summarily. The first includes modern
attempts at reinterpreting fascism as an expletive; the assumption under-
pinning this thesis is that either the examined social phenomenon does
not constitute fascism since it serves to obfuscate real social antagonisms,
or that the marker “fascism” is only used to disqualify a political or any
other opponent. Such a potentially dangerous “reductive” thesis is pro-
mulgated, among others, by Žižek (2018: p. 39):
Their function is to obfuscate actual social antagonisms – people are
magically united against some demonized ‘fascist’ threat… The de-
monized image of a fascist threat clearly serves as a new political fetish,
in the simple Freudian sense of a fascinating image whose function is to
obfuscate the true antagonism. Fascism itself is inherently fetishist, it
needs a figure like that of a Jew, condemned as the external cause of our
troubles – such a figure enables us to obfuscate the immanent antago-
nisms that cut across our society. My claim is that exactly the same holds
for the notion of ‘fascist’ in today’s liberal imagination: it enables us to
obfuscate immanent deadlocks which lie at the root of our crisis.
In an interview, Žižek (Forstnerič Hajnšek, 2016) pointed out: “It
is fashionable to speak about Europe becoming fascist. When I hear the
word, I clench. Fascism usually replaces thinking. Instead of analysing an
adverse situation, slap the fascism sticker on it, and it all gets clear.” It
seems that to Žižek the search for the fascist as an enemy functions to ob-
fuscate real social antagonisms. The more we look for the fascist, the blind-
er we are to real social problems. Therefore, the fascist threat is an unnec-
essary demonization practice: a fascist is demonised so as not to have to
face real issues. The image of the fascist threat serves as a new political fet-
ish, in the simple Freudian sense of a fascinating image whose purpose is
to obfuscate true antagonisms; while fascisms is inherently fetish – hence
the need for the figure of the Jew as the external root cause of our plight;
however, such a character obfuscates the immanent antagonisms that gov-
ern our society. In the theory of fallacies, the ad Hitlerum line of argu-
mentation comes with the same caveat: drawing analogies with Hitler
will usually result in ensnaring the counterpart in a fatal analogy. A sim-
ilar conclusion has been drawn by Mike Godwin, the author of the com-
monly referred to Godwin’s law: as a discussion grows longer, the proba-
bility of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Since the
Nazi leader has become a traditional metaphor to epitomise evil on on-
line fora, any comparison drawn with Hitler is always simple, yet highly
efficient, as noted by Erk (2012: p. 97). On the other hand, what is always
135
Hitler may be distinguished, though they may not necessarily be »fascist
discourse«. Below, these are treated summarily. The first includes modern
attempts at reinterpreting fascism as an expletive; the assumption under-
pinning this thesis is that either the examined social phenomenon does
not constitute fascism since it serves to obfuscate real social antagonisms,
or that the marker “fascism” is only used to disqualify a political or any
other opponent. Such a potentially dangerous “reductive” thesis is pro-
mulgated, among others, by Žižek (2018: p. 39):
Their function is to obfuscate actual social antagonisms – people are
magically united against some demonized ‘fascist’ threat… The de-
monized image of a fascist threat clearly serves as a new political fetish,
in the simple Freudian sense of a fascinating image whose function is to
obfuscate the true antagonism. Fascism itself is inherently fetishist, it
needs a figure like that of a Jew, condemned as the external cause of our
troubles – such a figure enables us to obfuscate the immanent antago-
nisms that cut across our society. My claim is that exactly the same holds
for the notion of ‘fascist’ in today’s liberal imagination: it enables us to
obfuscate immanent deadlocks which lie at the root of our crisis.
In an interview, Žižek (Forstnerič Hajnšek, 2016) pointed out: “It
is fashionable to speak about Europe becoming fascist. When I hear the
word, I clench. Fascism usually replaces thinking. Instead of analysing an
adverse situation, slap the fascism sticker on it, and it all gets clear.” It
seems that to Žižek the search for the fascist as an enemy functions to ob-
fuscate real social antagonisms. The more we look for the fascist, the blind-
er we are to real social problems. Therefore, the fascist threat is an unnec-
essary demonization practice: a fascist is demonised so as not to have to
face real issues. The image of the fascist threat serves as a new political fet-
ish, in the simple Freudian sense of a fascinating image whose purpose is
to obfuscate true antagonisms; while fascisms is inherently fetish – hence
the need for the figure of the Jew as the external root cause of our plight;
however, such a character obfuscates the immanent antagonisms that gov-
ern our society. In the theory of fallacies, the ad Hitlerum line of argu-
mentation comes with the same caveat: drawing analogies with Hitler
will usually result in ensnaring the counterpart in a fatal analogy. A sim-
ilar conclusion has been drawn by Mike Godwin, the author of the com-
monly referred to Godwin’s law: as a discussion grows longer, the proba-
bility of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. Since the
Nazi leader has become a traditional metaphor to epitomise evil on on-
line fora, any comparison drawn with Hitler is always simple, yet highly
efficient, as noted by Erk (2012: p. 97). On the other hand, what is always
135
