Fags and Fascism

The following is copyrighted by me, Drew Francis Linne

…

Over time, one idea that was conceived out of the depths of a mind, which has been long since removed from the status of “celebrity,” can still evolve, warp, transform, and continue to have a hidden influence over contemporary society. Whether that idea helps in shifting the world toward its original intention, or acts as a warning to venture in the opposite direction is completely unpredictable, and probably goes far beyond its idealizer’s own imagination. Despite what they may seem like at first glance, modern gay culture and fascist beliefs have a surprising amount of similar roots. For example, it is obvious that the word “faggot” is considered offensive to quite a few people in the gay community, but it is lesser known that the root of the word “fascism” in Italian is fascio, which can be translated as “fagot.” Even though these two words do not actually mean anything at all similar to each other, they can still be very easily mistaken. Likewise are the radical ideas involved in fascism, and the still controversial aspects of modern gay culture.

In 1933, Benito Mussolini published The Doctrine of Fascism, written by Giovanni Gentile in 1932. The Doctrine is the official text for Italian Fascism, which was influenced by the ideas of several philosophers throughout history. Like most philosophical essays and manifestos, The Doctrine is really just another brick of paper, thickly printed with words that the common man would rather not waste his time reading when he can more easily pick up Harry Potter or re-watch DVD episodes of Lost. But then again, The Doctrine was not written for the purpose of a simple, common man. It is not something that Gentile wrote with the expectations of his work becoming a part of The New York Times Best Seller List or to be used as the basis for a popular television show. No. The Doctrine is an intricate, societal blue-print, that would only be endorsed by a man like Benito Mussolini for the common good, and the benefit of all mankind. Even if that means there are a few sacrifices along the manufactured, asphalt express-way that leads to Utopia.

One of the main ideas behind fascism is the importance of unity. Mussolini believed strongly in the force-of-many working towards a common goal; specifically towards a brighter future for the nation. This is the most major theme throughout The Doctrine, and it reappears in different forms across nearly every page. The first statement of this is immediate, “Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, …instinctively urg[ing] him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure” (Mussolini, 1). He then goes on to say that fascism focuses on the nation, and how a man serving his country leads to a higher life for the individual, only to be reached through self-sacrifice and sometimes even death. This easily goes along with the basic fascist lifestyle, which, according to Mussolini, is highly structured, un-emotional, and only worthwhile if that life is a constant struggle. “The Fascist disdains an ‘easy’ life” (2). Therefore, if life is not a constantly impending obstacle-course, then one is not fulfilling his duty to the nation and the whole, and must be leading a selfish and cowardly existence. This is the type of existence not tolerated in a fascist society.

Existence itself is not necessarily important in fascist beliefs, since the life force of the individual is only relevant as long as it benefits the group. “… [M]an is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation…” writes Mussolini (2). Furthermore, according to his Doctrine, Mussolini communicates the relative insignificance of an individual’s unique beliefs compared to that of the State. Acceptance is dependent on this. If one simply does not agree with, opposes, or refuses to follow and support the ideals of his fascist nation, he will basically be shunned from society. In fascism, conformity is the key. On the one hand the individual is a piece of a larger whole that can be shed like dead skin if the need arises, but on the other hand Mussolini often argues that the individual is essential to the existence of the nation which would crumble without its faithful disciples. To make this point he states that “…Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State” (3). Even though he consistently reiterates the importance of the individual, the actual individuality that can exist in a fascist society is of the lowest form. He writes of acceptance of all cultures and races, and yet follows up by making statements about molding different ethnicities and cultures into a common form in both in spirit and body.

Continuing with this theme of a nation-wide mind-meld is his belief that fascism (although incredibly narrow and unwavering in its structure) “…sums up all the manifestations of the moral and intellectual life of man” (5). In other words, Mussolini believes that his form of thought is wide enough to encompass an entire society, despite every slight or drastic diversity of opinion among his fellow man. This form of thought is one that rejects peace, and encourages war as the means to reach a universal good that most common men could scarcely imagine. To support this, again, is the idea that a happy life for a true fascist is only attainable through the intense struggle of reaching toward the common good of the nation. But despite all of this required hardship, “[t]he Fascist accepts and loves life…” (8). Thus, another important theme of The Doctrine is the true happiness which forever lies beyond a halo of thorns. Especially in the sections reflecting on the spiritual aspects of mankind, Mussolini’s text reads very much like any religious or philosophical text throughout history. He re-enforces this comparison when he admits that “[n]o doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected… with those which preceded it and those which will follow it” (13). Subsequently, Mussolini’s ideals behind fascism greatly influenced the life of the most famous mass-murderer of all time, Adolf Hitler.

About twenty years after The Doctrine of Fascism was published, Hitler had grown to such immense power and wrath that he sparked and ignited the second World War. Feeding enormously off of Mussolini’s ideas that the whole of society should be venturing towards the goal which he called “the common good,” Hitler sought to eliminate those groups which opposed his ideal society, and managed to succeed in the systematic murder of over 17 million innocents. This diabolical action would certainly re-enforce Mussolini’s philosophy that “[i]nactivity is death” (5). Hitler is most well-known for attempting the genocide of the Jewish people, but he also attempted the destruction of several other cultural populations including Poles, Roma, Soviet civilians, people with disabilities, and homosexuals.

It is ironic that one of Hitler’s greatest influences was The Doctrine of Fascism, which sees suicide as the coward’s escape from hardship, and yet he himself committed suicide to evade the Soviet forces and his imminent capture. But of course that was not the only point in Hitler’s career where his actions contradicted his philosophy. Throughout his reign he commissioned countless posters of Nazi propaganda to fuel his cause. Most of these depict a strong male figure, usual a soldier or worker of some kind, and these men are often shirtless and embracing one another in celebration of their service to their homeland. Although it was probably unintentional and possibly overlooked during the time in which they were used, an inhabitant of contemporary society cannot deny the quite obvious theme of homo-eroticism in several of these propaganda poster which were specifically designed to discourage any type of sexual, man-to-man affection. This just goes to show that despite how powerful one man or nation can be, their own ideals and goals will most likely fail to take hold if based on hatred and war. The world just simply cannot allow such un-balance and therefore something has to happen to even things out in the right direction.

Fortunately for the modern society, acts of hate have never reached as large scale a scale as were present during World War II. As the years pass, these more pacifistic ideals are continuously reflected in pop culture as society learns to evolve and accept those that are different. This is especially apparent in gay culture. Forty years ago it would probably be impossible to find any kind of story with a positive depiction of gay society, or even any representation at all. Even ten years ago it would have been rare to come across a prominent gay character in a television series or a movie. And then just in the past five years there has been an explosion of homosexual presence in main-stream pop culture.

It seems that in the entertainment area, society has passed a speed bump and is hopefully continuing over the speed limit towards a more peaceful mindset and an exceptionally more accepting world view. Themes of love and acceptance are particularly noticeable in primetime television shows like True Blood and Modern Family. Both shows are incredibly different basis of plot, with True Blood being primarily about the civil, social and political rights of vampires, and Modern Family focusing on the contemporary version of a typical family group, they each hold a very consistent and similar opinion when it comes to the acceptance of homosexuals and their lifestyles.

In True Blood, the character named, Lafayette, is a gay man. Many years ago that would be his label; it would be what his character is known for. But because of the way society has positively developed being homosexual is not his defining characteristic but is actually only one of many beautiful qualities that make up a very interesting and thought provoking character. Lafayette’s role on the show is a friend to most of the characters, and as the cook at the bar known as Merlotte’s which is one of the primary settings for the show and usually houses a good amount of the cast at one time. Since he works at Merlotte’s, he is able to interact with most of the characters in every episode, typically with a positive outcome in the plot, due to his criticism or advice. One might that think that his character would be obnoxious or even a nuisance to the story line, but the exclusion of Lafayette would be a sad loss indeed. Besides being a regular input in the other main characters’ lives, the bar environment allows Lafayette the opportunity to have interactions with minor characters and guest stars as well. His sexual identity is definitely not something that is being attempted to hide, but is right out there and occasional acts a catalyst for dramatic scenes that could even be seen as controversial at times.

There is one scene in the first season where a customer at the bar complains about his burger being “served with AIDS,” and he demands that someone else besides Lafayette be the preparer of his food. Lafayette, you could say, actually follows some of the values of fascism because he confronts the disgruntled customer instead of possibly hiding behind a strong, heterosexual male lead. He takes the fight when it comes to him, delivers it back at twice the force, and wins. The most triumphant thing about the scene, though, is the way in which he retaliates. After walking right up to their table, Lafayette shouts at the customer that had insulted him, saying that all of their burgers come with AIDS, and if he does not like it he can go eat somewhere else. Even if Lafayette had not won the fight, everyone else at the bar, including his co-workers and customers, were behind him with the kind of support and love that society should have reached centuries ago.

Following a similar theme as True Blood, but with a much different approach, is Modern Family. Modern Family is about a large group of extended family members and their interactions in day to day life. Two of the characters are Mitch and Cameron who are a gay couple who just adopted their first child; a daughter named Lily. The pair of them are a contemporary portrayal of a the family unit with parents of the same sex. This is a family dynamic that is more and more common these days, but in a lot of places it is still very controversial, even if that fact is no longer outspoken like how it used to be in Hitler’s days.

Another controversial issue that Modern Family does a wonderful job of tackling, is homophobia. Mitch and Cameron are not the kind of gay couple to try and hide their true relationship, but Mitch’s father who has known and accepted Mitch, since he was a child, is still slightly uncomfortable with the idea of his son being with another man. Over the first season this issue was touched upon occasionally, but they went for a new level of development of the topic in the most recent episode, which aired on October 6th, 2010. One of the focuses of the episode was Mitch’s discomfort with showing Cameron public displays of affection. It finally resolved in a scene at the end with the full cast when Mitch spilled the fact that his father had not shown him any real affection since he was a young boy, at which point he and his father hugged and kissed for the first time in thirty years.

One thing that must always come into consideration when analyzing particular themes of a television show, is the show’s target audience. Modern Family has a broad focus on homosexuality for a mainstream show on ABC primetime, which usually is not as risky with its subject matter. But because of the very recent awareness of discrimination and mistreatment of homosexuals, people have grown to be much more accepting, even if they are not yet completely comfortable with it.

Change takes time. When one thinks of how long the journey has been for women, African-Americans, or immigrants to travel the road towards equal treatment and equal rights, it is actually quite surprising how fast the acceptance of homosexuality seems to be spreading these days. Instead of hiding or trying to exterminate certain cultural minorities, like Mussolini or Hitler did, just to make the people who agree with you feel more secure about their way of life, people absolutely need to have more exposure to controversial issues like homosexuality.

In conclusion, fascist beliefs and modern homosexual culture are not really comparable even one bit. Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism was written over seventy years ago with the purpose of guiding a nation toward a utopian society. But this was a utopia that focused solely on the grand purpose of the nation and gave no room for spiritual or social growth, whatsoever, among the common man, or the outcast who is never even mentioned in the text. Sacrifice is no issue in fascism, and life is not valued except for the benefit of the whole. In gay culture the focus is love and acceptance. This all adds up to the point that over time most people will come to the conclusion that life is better when filled with beautiful, and even common emotions and ideals, rather than the thought of “greater good” which seems to always divide rather than unite.