Warning: This post is for integral geeks only. Read on at your own peril 
Matthew Dallman brought up this question:
"For you fans and ex-fans out there of Ken Wilber, who’s philosophy he defines as “comprehensive,
inclusive, balanced, not leaving anything out” — short of being actual
fascism (which it is not), nonetheless does his philosophy, by
definition, not exude qualities that might be called “fascistic”?" [read more]
This question was based on Jonah Goldberg’s definition of fascism. Here’s a quote from Goldberg’s Salon Interview (emphasis by Dallman).
"I see fascism as a political religion. That doesn’t mean I think
there’s some book, like a bible, that if you read it you will become a
convert to this political religion. Rather I think it is a religious
impulse that resides in all of us — left, right, black, white, tall,
short — to seek unity in all things, to believe that we need to all work together to go past any of our disagreements and that the state needs to be, almost simply as a pragmatic matter, the pace-setter, the enforcer of this cult of unity. That is what I believe fascism is."
Personally, the first time I’ve read Dallman’s blog post my knee-jerk reaction was, How dare Dallman compare integralism with fascism? Why bring up this comparison? What is Dallman’s intention? Why
even equate integralism with fascism?
My gut reaction stemmed from the negative connotation and generally accepted definition of Fascism. See Wikepedia entry on Fascism.
"Fascism is an authoritarian
political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers
individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious
attributes. The key attribute is intolerance of others: other
religions, languages, political views, economic systems, cultural
practices, etc. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to
fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral
parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
"Historically, there was a period where several countries and leaders
openly accepted the label of "fascist" to describe their political
systems, particularly in the 1930s and 1940s. However, owing to the
historical record and verdict on these past fascist countries, the term
has now fallen largely into disuse as an objective description. It is
now used more as an epithet than as a term for any existing systems.
This is true even in countries where it might legitimately apply."
On the other hand, upon further consideration, I could see why Dallman would even
entertain this line of questioning based on Goldberg’s definition.
Wilber after all had brought up his idea of a World Federation in a
number of essays and interviews. Case in point: Check out Wilber’s The War in Iraq essay. Here’s the relevant quote.
"A
second-tier, integral, World Federation—in my Utopian view—would
therefore prevent any first-tier memes from dominating, attacking, or
exploiting any other populations. If necessary, a World Federation would do so
by using force, just as all democracies today have an internal police force to
curtail murder, rape, robbery, extortion, and so on. Somebody whose center of
gravity is green will not commit murder, rape, or robbery. However, somebody
whose center of gravity is red will do any or all of those, sometimes happily.
And because everybody is born at square one, and must progress through purple,
red, blue, and so on, some sort of police will always be necessary to protect
others from those who do not evolve to a worldcentric level of care and
compassion.
"So
any World Federation would have some sort of police force, of necessity. Call
them the World Cops. Needless to say, the World Cops would be regulated by the
World Federation, not by any country (and certainly not by America, Britain,
France, Germany, etc.).
"This
police force is NOT allowed to tell people what level of consciousness they
should be at; it is NOT allowed to govern what individuals do in the privacy of
their own homes or dwellings; it is NOT allowed to coerce or intimidate people
who are not at the average level of social development. It is, however,
allowed to prevent (or punish) those whose
public
behavior
stems from a less-than-worldcentric stance. For example, in the privacy of my
own home, if I wish to
think
about burning at the stake all people who do not accept Jesus as their personal
savior, that is my right. However, if I actually shoot you because you do not
believe in Jesus, then the State—in this case, the World
Federation—can arrest and incarcerate me.
"The
simple rule, which is
already
implicitly used by
all
worldcentric governance systems (i.e., at orange or higher, including Germany,
France, America, Britain, Japan, etc.), is this: in the Left-Hand domain,
think
what you like; but in the Right-Hand domain, physically
behave
according to worldcentric law or you can be removed from the public sphere."
Although
there will be (always) objections to Wilber’s version of a World
Federation, it’s obvious that it is almost the anti-thesis of what
Fascism (as generally accepted) is.
Granted, Goldberg may want to define the word "fascism" to be more embracing, but as Chris had eloquently argued, Goldberg’s definition is not even a good definition to begin with. Here’s a quote from Chris:
"Now the first thing to say is that I don’t agree with Matthew that this
is a “good definition of fascism”. It’s too abstract imo to be of much
value. [Goldberg, I think, wants, really needs to make his definition
of fascism so broad as to be able to fit “liberals” under its
umbrella]. i.e. Before deciding on Wilber’s definition, the first thing
I think to ask is: is this even a good definition of fascism?"
Chris goes on to say that (I think that this is one of his key points in his rebuttal to Dallman):
"The problem I have with the way Matthew has written his piece is that
he helpfully gives Goldberg’s definition of fascism–and the quotation
is long enough to give him (Goldberg) space to expound on what he means
by certain words. The definition of integral from Wilber is
de-contextualized and gives no reference from him (KW) concerning what
he means by those words quoted."
Exactly. I recommend reading the entirety of Chris’ response to Dallman for it is done with more details and care than Dallman’s original musing (or even what I hope to accomplish with this post.)
For me, redefining the word "fascism" to embrace a much broader,
liberal, and even holistic view is akin to redefining the word "Devil"
to define and include "God." Although it could be done philosophically,
in general, it’s not good in practice, because the mere mention of
"Devil" is a conversation stopper for most people due to its culturally
negative connotation. So, imho, in this case (i.e. Fascism), it’s
better off to invent or use a different terminology altogether than to
salvage the meaning of a word that had already sunked into the
consciousness of the general public.
The bottom line is: Dallman
bringing this up (i.e. "integral exuding qualities that might be called
‘fascistic’") is intellectually acceptable. But the way he presented it
was done in poor taste.
Comments (4)
Dallman’s analysis of fascism as “feminine” and “masculine” is flawed. In fact, Goldberg’s fascisms are national socialism and international socialism, which clearly maps much better to Amber-Orange and Orange-Green respectively, i.e. fascism that’s ethno/nation-centric and fascism that’s worldcentric. From an integral perspective, fascism is best understood as a political philosophy that emphasizes the feminine principles of community, mutuality, connectedness and responsibility for others (the “we are all together” politics), at the expense of the masculine principle of freedom, liberty, independence, separateness and responsibility toward oneself (the “leave me alone” politics). It’s no surprise that Goldberg describes the modern archype of fascism as “a female grade-school teacher”, that government is described as a “nanny state, “bleeding-heart” liberals is a common epithet, etc.
This is fine as far as it goes, and Goldberg is correct that what motivates fascism exists in the New (post-modern) Left as well as the Old (Christian, aristocratic, traditional, US-Southern) Right, i.e. the feminine principle, though it seems silly to call it fascism. If Goldberg’s point is that the Goldwater Republicans, i.e. US-Western, libertarian conservatives don’t have much love for the feminine principle that undergirds fascism, then that is a point worth taking. Libertarians, and libertarian-leaning conservatives and liberals are the opposite of fascists, because they exclusively emphasize the masculine principle.
So to Matthew’s question, does Wilber’s philosophy entail some elements of fascism, assuming the understanding of fascism given above? Yes. And any truly integral theory that includes the feminine principle along with the masculine will be seen as fascistic from the perspective of (non-integral) libertarianism — it will be insufficiently dogmatic in its rejection and marginalization of the feminine principle in politics.
MrTeacup said: “So to Matthew’s question, does Wilber’s philosophy entail some elements of fascism, assuming the understanding of fascism given above? Yes. And any truly integral theory that includes the feminine principle along with the masculine will be seen as fascistic from the perspective of (non-integral) libertarianism — it will be insufficiently dogmatic in its rejection and marginalization of the feminine principle in politics.”
exactly! and yep, it seems silly to call the feminine principle, fascism. to be more blunt with my comparison: it’s like redefining the *N* word to include all Non-caucasian people (i.e. to seek unity of all non-white people).
labels are not by themselves bad or evil. what makes them bad or evil is the meaning of labels as accepted by the collective consciousness/unconsciousness of culture. and due to its historical context, fascism is like the *N* word. nowadays, even fascist states refuse to be labeled as fascist.
thanks for your comment.
~C
Well, whatever all of you talking heads say, someone will still have to be the tie-breaker, and the definer of fuzzy things.
Perhaps “Fascism” is the wrong word. Maybe “Monarchy” would be better. What about “Despotism”? What about “Tyrrany”, what about “Kingship”?
I guess it all depends on whether we like the guy or not.
You know, the Law (ANY law) is not going to get up and judge itself, people! You still need somebody to call the shots when it`s hard.
So stop whining about it, and just accept the fact that Wilbur is the Integral William Wallace, the King of Consciousness Studies, the Non-dual Caesar, and render unto him that which is his.
Namely, that he is 1000% smarter than all of us put together.
No matter how many beer cans you throw at your flatscreen, you still are not the frakking quarterback.
You just have to know when to defer to someone who is clearly better than you at something.
I`m guessing that`s what Wilbur really meant by his invitation to suck his cock, although I have gay friends who remain unconvinced, and are still planning their respective pilgrimmages to Denver.
Well, we`ll see if that famous fly will drop, or not, won`t we?
I`m predicting widespread disappointment.
Good insights about the masculine and feminine principles. However, the main problem with Goldberg’s definition of fascism is that it is counter to the actual experience of fascism in both Italy and Nazi Germany, as well as almost all fascist movements since. It’s not the socialist, feminine nanny-state that has dominated fascistic movements, but the masculine, father-figure authoritarian state that has done so. Hitler and Nazi Germany personified the masculine leader, they worshipped the “Fatherland”, and their authority stemmed not from their desire to nurture and protect, but from the desire to dominate through force of will and military might.
The kind of “fascism” Goldberg seems hung up is, indeed, the feminine type, as present in FDR’s New Deal, and progressive political movements throughout Europe that have created elaborate safety nets and used government as an agency of protection and guidance – sometimes to an extreme that bothers many people, especially conservatives.
I sympathize with that. It’s certainly possible to achieve a feminine form of authoritarianism that snuffs out individuality and growth. Jung certainly warned about that aspect of overt identification with the Mother archetype. But the term “fascism” is so identified with masculine nationalistic and militaristic forms of authoritarianism I think it’s pointless to try to change the definition now. The other posters are right that a different term needs to be created to define the feminine forms of authoritarianism that can stiffle the growth of the individual.
One other thing is that I can see where Goldberg is coming from. His primary concern seems to be to preserve the autonomy of the individual in the face of the power of the State. He is perhaps more sympathetic to the masculine forms of authoritarianism than to the feminine forms, but in general he’s simply trying to express the needs of the individual to preserve autonomy in the face of both tendencies towards totalitarian dominance.