BY JAMES TARANTO Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:11 p.m. EDT
Academentia Watch The American Political Science Association is holding its annual convention Labor Day weekend in Washington, and it features a panel discussion on the subject "Is It Time to Call It Fascism"? The Web page announcing the event leaves unclear the antecedent of that second it, but reader Jay Cost forwarded an e-mail that explains it:
The panel, which is cosponsored by the Conference Group on Theory, Policy, & Society, the Latino Caucus, New Political Science, and the Women's Caucus, emerged from a question that Kathy Ferguson started asking last winter-spring (at ISA and WPSA) to focus on both substantive aspects and strategic/tactical ones: is there theoretical-definitional grounding to make a claim for the present US administration as fascist, and is it useful, critically, to use that language at this point in time? One of the original intentions was also to create a teaching tool out of this discussion--a handout that presents these questions and offers relevant information to students to think about it for themselves.
Kathy Ferguson directs the "women's studies" program at the University of Hawaii, where she boldly goes where no man has gone before (i.e., she teaches a course titled "Political Theory in Star Trek").
When we heard about this panel, we suspected the APSA of partisanship--after all, would the group have entertained the notion that President Clinton was a fascist or a communist? Well, maybe it would have. The "chair" of the panel, Dvora Yanow of Cal State Hayward, turns out to have written a book chapter in 2002 (with co-author Hugh Willmott) that seems to argue just that:
In the arena of national politics, for example--Clinton in the US, Blair in the UK, and others--a postmodern play of images offers competing representations of, and promises to, the middle ground as established divisions between "left" and "right" have been de-differentiated, with attendant confusion and uncertainty for those wedded to their respective (individualistic and collectivistic) beliefs and values.
This loss of established bearings and associated ethical disorientation can produce a moral vacuum in which a fascism of the centre can take hold. Fascisms of the right and left are well documented. Their seductive and destructive power has been demonstrated repeatedly during this century. Currently, both stand discredited, lending greater appeal to the seemingly moderate ideas of the centre--the Third Way. The door is then opened to an authoritarianism, if not a fascism, of the centre, in which ideas of moderation and progress, based upon commonly accepted, uncontested (and uncontentious) values, become the new, and seemingly the only, basis for government.
This is not exactly deathless, or even clear, prose, but it's not bad work for a piece of furniture. In any case, fascism seems to have become the academic equivalent of another well-known F-word: a generalized expletive that only infrequently bears any relationship to its original meaning, though it retains the power to shock those who are unaccustomed to its overuse.
For our part, we are not shocked. Then again, we pretty much stopped taking the academic left seriously while we were still in college. -------------------------------------------------------------- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.