| Revision as of 04:12, 26 June 2006 view source61.121.210.70 (talk) Minor typgraphical/grammatical tweaks.← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:14, 29 June 2006 view source 172 (talk | contribs)24,875 edits rolling back some recent edits, restoring a clearer, more focused versionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | '''Totalitarianism''' is a ] employed by ], especially those in the field of ], to describe modern ]s in which the ] regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. | ||
| <!--'''Totalitarianism''' refers to modern ]s in which the ] regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. They are ]s which maintain themselves in ] by means of ], ] disseminated through the state-controlled ], regulation and restriction of ], the use of ], and widespread use of ] tactics. | |||
| ⚫ | The most influential scholars of totalitarianism, such as ], ], ], ], and ] have each described totalitarianism in a slightly different way. Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize of entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ], and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with ]s, ]es or ]. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in ] by means of ], ] disseminated through the state-controlled ], regulation and restriction of ], the use of ], and widespread use of ] tactics. | ||
| ] argues that the two genuine forms of totalitarian government in the first half of the twentieth century found their expression in ] and ] ]. Both cases, Arendt asserts, involved the transformation of classes into masses, the use of ] in dealing with the non-totalitarian world, and the use of ], essential to this form of government. | |||
| The most influential scholars of totalitarianism, such as ], ], ], ], and ] 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 ], and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with ]s, ]es or ]. | |||
| The term "totalitarianism" is classified as an ] (or "typology") by ], especially those in the field of ].--> | |||
| ⚫ | '''Totalitarianism''' is a |
||
| ⚫ | The most influential scholars of totalitarianism, such as ], ], ], ], and ] 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 ], and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with ]s, ]es or ]. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in ] by means of |
||
| 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. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit ] through the involvement of several groups in the political process. | 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. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit ] through the involvement of several groups in the political process. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 7: | ||
| ==Usage of the term== | ==Usage of the term== | ||
| The term, employed in the writings of the philosopher ], was popularized in the ] by the ] ] under ] |
The term, employed in the writings of the philosopher ], was popularized in the ] by the ] ] under ]. 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. ], in '']'' (]) and ''The Poverty of Historicism'' (]) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of ] 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 ] period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of ]'s '']'' (]). |
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. ], in '']'' (]) and ''The Poverty of Historicism'' (]) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of ] 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 ] period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of ]'s '']'' (]). | ||
| Hannah Arendt argued that while ] constituted a classical case of ], ] and ] fundamentally differed from such forms of ], in that the ] was completely subjected to the ], either a representative of the ] (conceived by Nazism as a '']'' - a Nazi neologism for "National community" -, which could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life - '']'') or of the ]. 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 ] and ] in both Nazism and Stalinism, which she described as "continental ]s" whom connected themselves to the ] born during the ] 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 ] regimes such as the ]. | |||
| ==Cold War-era research== | ==Cold War-era research== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 15: | ||
| The political scientists ] and ] were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the ] under ] as well as ] 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; ], typically led by a ]; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction and control of the economy through ]. Such regimes had initial origins in the chaos that followed in the wake of the ], at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power in ], ], and ]. | The political scientists ] and ] were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the ] under ] as well as ] 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; ], typically led by a ]; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction and control of the economy through ]. Such regimes had initial origins in the chaos that followed in the wake of the ], at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power in ], ], and ]. | ||
| <!-- This section is redundant. The discussion of scholars applying the concept to both fascist and communist regimes already appears in this aritcle. | |||
| ⚫ | ==Criticism and recent work with the concept== | ||
| ==Communism and Fascism== | |||
| 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 ], the identification between stalinism and nazism was obviously aimed against the ], and has been therefore accused of being mainly used for ] purposes. The first criticisms thus arose in the ] movement. Hence, ] called the ] a "]", while ] would argue in the '']'' (published in 1967, a year before ] and the ]) that Western ] constituted a form of "soft spectacle" while the Soviet Bloc represented a "condensed form of the spectacle". Apart of criticism from 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 ] ended, this concept didn't account for the dissolution of the ] in the 1990s. | |||
| Authorities differ sharply about whether the ''totalitarianism'' may properly be applied to both ] and ]: | |||
| The edition of '']'' (1997), under ]' direction, lit up again the controversy concerning stalinism and nazism alleged identification under the concept of totalitarianism. Besides, ]'s earlier thesis about Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR being "totalitarian twins" was exposed to various criticisms. In '']'', ], for instance, acknowledged the "totalitarian nature" of Stalin's Russia while finding "the thesis of "totalitarian twins" both wrong and unproductive. . Others authors, among whom is historian ], reacted to Furet's continued identification in the 1990s of both regimes as a sure sign of ]. Indeed, the political context of the creation of this concept — the very beginning of the ] — 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 ], which is here identified with Stalinism despite the existence of other models), their functional working and the use of ] in both Nazi Germany and ]'s ] proved their essential similarity. | |||
| *], borrowing from ], describes ] and Nazis as totalitarian twins, conflicting yet united. | |||
| *] called the totalitarian nature of Stalin's Russia is "undeniable"--> | |||
| ⚫ | ==Criticism and recent work with the concept== | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | In the ]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 ]s, competing elites, or even in ] terms (using the concept of the '']'' 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 ]. For many commentators, such as Linz and ], 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 ]. | The notion of "post-totalitarianism" was put forward by political scientist ]. For many commentators, such as Linz and ], 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 ]. | ||
| As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late ] and early ], opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under ], 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, ] in ] 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 ] and early ], opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under ], 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, ] in ] 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. | ||
| In ''State of Exception - ]'' (2003), philosopher ] argued that the ] enforced during the Third Reich (beginning with the ] which suspended — instead of repealing — the ]) has now become "general" and "permanent". In a sense, Agamben questions not only the legitimity of the totalitarianism concept, but the legitimity of a political typology itself. Instead, he claims, on ]'s steps, that we have passed from the "] state" to the "] state", with the instauration of ] as dominant governmental technology . The extension of ] to various categories of the population, including ]s and ]s, is considered by Agamben a crucial sign of the generalization of the state of exception. | |||
| ==Political usage== | ==Political usage== | ||
| Line 43: | Line 36: | ||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| *], ''State of Exception - ]'' (2003) | |||
| * ], '']'' (1958, new ed. 1966) | * ], '']'' (1958, new ed. 1966) | ||
| * C. J. Friedrich and ], ''Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy'' (2d ed. 1967) | * C. J. Friedrich and ], ''Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy'' (2d ed. 1967) | ||
| Line 49: | Line 41: | ||
| * Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, ''Problems of Democratic Consolidation'' (1996) | * Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, ''Problems of Democratic Consolidation'' (1996) | ||
| * ], '']'', (1952) | * ], '']'', (1952) | ||
| * ], ''Die Diktatur'' (1928) | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| {{Ideology-small}} | {{Ideology-small}} | ||
| ⚫ | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| ⚫ | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| </strike> | </strike> | ||
| {{Authoritarian}} | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 79: | Line 69: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 90: | Line 79: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 03:14, 29 June 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 of 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 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 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. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit pluralism through the involvement of several groups in the political process.
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."
References
- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958, new ed. 1966)
- C. J. 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)
See also
- Colonialism
- Authoritarianism
- Ethnocide
- Police state
- Single-party state
- Typology
- Economic totalitarianism
Categories: