European History Quarterly The transnational co-production of interwar ‘fascism’: on the dynamics of ideational mobility and localisation Journal: European History Quarterly Manuscript ID EHQ-19-0028.R1 Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript fascism, diffusion, transnational, norm localisation, authoritarianism, Keywords: Formobilities Peer Review Interwar fascism achieved sensational international reach through the appeal and circulation of a set of generic ideological norms and political practices. Therefore models of interpretations must accommodate alternative local interpretations, adaptations, and a wide range of varied outcomes in the process of its diverse local translations. In this article, I propose the new trans-discplinary mobility paradigm as a productive methodological extension of the transnational approach in fascism studies. I focus on the fluid dynamics of trans-national circulation of ‘fascist’ ideas and political innovations, as well as on how these were perceived, (re-)interpreted, adopted/adapted by a wide set of local Abstract: agents in interwar Europe. I employ a decentred, anti-literarist, and multi-directional mobility approach that analyses the history of interwar ‘fascism’ as the messy net force of diverse, multivalent agencies, of interactions and frictions, in the end of creative translation and trial-and- error. I argue that a focus on this mobility dynamic offers three advantages: first, it promotes the re-integration of diverse fragmented histories of interwar fascism; second, it is capable of exposing the dynamic co-production of the political history of ‘fascist’ over time and space; and third, it fosters a far better understanding of the reasons for the ideological travel and political traction of radical ideas and politics in interwar years. https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ehq Page 1 of 36 European History Quarterly 1 2 3 4 5 6 The transnational co-production of 7 8 interwar ‘fascism’: on the dynamics of 9 10 11 ideational mobility and localisation 12 13 14 15 16 17 ABSTRACT 18 19 Interwar fascism achievedFor sensational Peer international Review reach through the appeal 20 21 and circulation of a set of generic ideological norms and political practices. 22 Therefore models of interpretations must accommodate alternative local 23 interpretations, adaptations, and a wide range of varied outcomes in the process 24 25 of its diverse local translations. In this article, I propose the new trans-discplinary 26 mobility paradigm as a productive methodological extension of the transnational 27 approach in fascism studies. I focus on the fluid dynamics of trans-national 28 29 circulation of ‘fascist’ ideas and political innovations, as well as on how these 30 were perceived, (re-)interpreted, adopted/adapted by a wide set of local agents 31 in interwar Europe. I employ a decentred, anti-literarist, and multi-directional 32 33 mobility approach that analyses the history of interwar ‘fascism’ as the messy net 34 force of diverse, multivalent agencies, of interactions and frictions, in the end of 35 creative translation and trial-and-error. I argue that a focus on this mobility 36 37 dynamic offers three advantages: first, it promotes the re-integration of diverse 38 fragmented histories of interwar fascism; second, it is capable of exposing the 39 dynamic co-production of the political history of ‘fascist’ over time and space; 40 41 and third, it fosters a far better understanding of the reasons for the ideological 42 travel and political traction of radical ideas and politics in interwar years. 43 44 45 46 47 Mobility and fascism: between the generic and the dynamic 48 49 Fascism studies are at a fascinating intersection. After decades in the 50 51 wilderness of untheorised survey studies and of conceptual laxity, George 52 L Mosse’s important early theoretical insights were subsumed into 53 54 sophisticated conceptual and analytical frameworks in the eighties and 55 nineties by a fresh generation of scholars spearheaded by Stanley Payne 56 57 58 59 1 60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ehq European History Quarterly Page 2 of 36 1 2 3 4 and Roger Griffin.1 This eventually led Griffin, who had formulated a 5 6 concise and hugely influential definition of the ‘fascist minimum’ in the 7 early 1990s, to claim that a ‘new consensus’ had finally emerged in the fray 8 2 9 of fascism studies around a definition of the fascist ideological minimum. 10 By reducing fascism to its ‘bare essentials’ – a distinct ideological amalgam 11 12 of ‘populist ultra-nationalism’ and the ‘myth of palingenesis/rebirth’ -, 13 Griffin extrapolated its ineliminable core that distinguished it from other 14 3 15 preceding and contemporary adjacent political ideologies. Both the 16 definition and the claim of a consensus did not go unchallenged of course;4 17 18 but such was the clarity, efficacy, and heuristic power of Griffin’s premise - 19 as well as the willingnessFor of Peer a considerable Review number of subsequent 20 21 historians to adopt the term ‘fascism’ in generic terms, however 22 conditionally5 - that even its fiercest critics made extensive references to it 23 24 as a central plank of their alternative interpretations. 25 26 The polemic around the merits and demerits of the ‘new consensus’ raged 27 6 28 on for some time. It produced a fair amount of supporting and dissenting 29 literature, the latter criticising Griffin’s ‘fascist minimum’ as essentialist, 30 7 31 inflexible in its adherence to bounded conceptual entities, and static. The 32 criticisms raised by the French sociologist Michel Dobry have been to a 33 34 significant extent shaped by his vehement opposition to the way that 35 arguments about ‘generic’ fascism have been utilized by proponents of the 36 37 so-called ‘immunity thesis’ within the particular French historiographical 38 context.8 Nevertheless they underlined how the obsession with strict 39 40 classificatory models obscured the fascinating histories of mobility and 41 fluidity, intersection and interpenetration, between supposedly different 42 43 categories, as well as different political and social actors that shaped – less 44 through intent than through contingency – the history of radical politics 45 9 46 across interwar Europe. 47 48 49 The ‘new consensus’ polemic has mercifully run out of steam, clearing the 50 path for new perspectives on the multiple histories of ‘generic fascism’. Of 51 52 these the transnational approach has arguably signalled the most exciting 53 re-thinking and re-dimensioning of the field, premised on a shift away 54 55 from the previously dominant idea that historical accounts of fascism had 56 to be mapped onto national boundaries. Instead attention was drawn to the 57 58 59 2 60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ehq Page 3 of 36 European History Quarterly 1 2 3 4 critical role of cross-border nodes, networks, and interactions that 5 6 facilitated the diffusion of fascist ideas and political innovations in Europe 7 and across the world.10 Here the pioneering work of Hans Rogger and 8 11 9 Eugen Weber from the 1960s, and of Martin Blinkhorn in the 10 early-1990s,12 which had engaged in fruitful and nuanced ways with the 11 12 ideological and political intersections between conservative and fascist 13 right in the interwar period, had already suggested a workable interpretive 14 15 framework that embraced the fuzziness of the political boundaries between 16 the two constituencies, albeit still largely understood as bound by national 17 18 histories. But the transnational approach expanded the horizons of enquiry 19 both geographicallyFor and conceptually, Peer Review subsuming previously ignored or 20 21 under-studied dynamics of contact, exchange, and conflict that perforated 22 state borders. 23 24 25 The transnational approach to fascism has not evaded entanglements with 26 the earlier debates about ‘generic’ fascism and the ‘new consensus’. Kevin 27 28 Passmore claimed that “[t]o treat fascism as a social movement in a 29 transnational context is to buck the trend in studies of so-called ‘generic 30 13 31 fascism’”. In contrast, Arnd Bauerkämper and Constantin Iordachi have 32 approached the transnational paradigm in a more nuanced way as a 33 34 productive methodological extension of, rather than departure from, some 35 form of generic understanding of fascism.14 In this article, I seek to extend 36 37 discussion of the inter- and trans-national dynamics of interwar fascism by 38 taking on board trans-disciplinary insights from mobility theories.15 39 40 According to Tim Cresswell, “mobility involves a fragile entanglement of 41 physical movement, representations, and practices”.16 For a long time, the 42 43 most dominant understanding of mobility revolved around the notion of 44 diffusion.17 According to one of its pioneers, Everett Rogers, diffusion is “the 45 46 process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels 47 over time among the members of a social system”.18 The multi-disciplinary 48 49 field of diffusionist research has generated evocative and powerful 50 metaphors, such as the epidemiological notion of ‘contagion’;19 51 52 predominantly spatial categories such as ‘neighbourhood effect’ and 53 'spatial clustering’;20 ‘wave’, ‘cascade’, and 'demonstration effect’ of 54 21 22 55 paradigm change; and ‘domino effects’. In spite of these and other 56 57 58 59 3 60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ehq European History Quarterly Page 4 of 36 1 2 3 4 variations, all genres of the diffusion model highlight patterns of spatial, 5 6 social, political, economic or cultural interdependence and of spatial and 7 temporal clustering,23 be that on a subnational or an international scale. 8 9 10 Theoretically rooted in the social sciences, diffusion models have been 11 applied to the study of policy transfer and regime change in the 19th and 12 13 20th centuries. Juan J Linz was one of the first scholars to connect 14 meaningfully the study of fascism with the broader context of regime 15 24 16 transition and democratic breakdown in the interwar years.