Fascism - Special Issue: Architectural Projections of a ‘New Order’ in Interwar Dictatorships – Part 2 “edited by [Roger Griffin and Rita Almeida de Carvalho]”, Oct 2018

This article challenges the common assumption of the fascist nature of the Portuguese Estado Novo from the thirties to mid-forties, while recognizing the innovative, modernizing dynamic of much of its state architecture. It takes into account the prolix discourse of Oliveira Salazar, the head of government, as well as Duarte Pacheco’s extensive activity as minister of Public Works, and the positions and projects of the architects themselves. It also considers the allegedly peripheral status of architectural elites, and the role played by decision makers, whether politicians or bureaucrats, in the intricate process of architectural renewal. The article shows that a non-radical form of nationalism has always prevailed as a discourse in which to express the unique Portuguese spirit, that of a people that saw itself as transporting Christian morality and faith across the world, a civilizing role that the country continued to fulfil in its overseas colonies. Taking the architectural legacy of the Estado Novo in its complexity leads to the conclusion that, while the dictatorship did not dismiss modernization outright, and though it adopted what could be superficially considered fascist traits, the language of national resurgence disseminated by the Portuguese regime did not express a future-oriented fascist ideology of radical rebirth. The country’s futural orientation would be accomplished by adopting a restrained policy of moderate modernization that lacked the dynamism and utopian ambition of fascism, a conservatism reflected in its architecture.

This article considers key developments in Brazilian architecture which occurred under the ambiguous and contradictory Vargas’ regime (1930–1945), when it was exposed to both internal and external political contingencies, including the crisis of liberalism, which affected its ability to expand and consolidate itself. This situation was not unique to Brazil, since many interwar dictatorships, including the Soviet and fascist regimes, shared the same characteristics. In the Brazilian twentieth century, both during democratic and dictatorial times, whether dominated by left-wing or right-wing ideologies, architecture and the State constantly sought to take advantage of the relationship between them. The demands, projects and interests of both spheres set up an intricate web of relationships that shaped national identity and embodied its material representation. Investigating the place of architecture within a broader context, that of the Brazilian nation-building process, the article establishes that the architectural representation of the Brazilian state was never straight forward, combining a set of breakthroughs and setbacks, and always leaving the quest for a uniform and coherent aesthetic language unsolved. This anomalous situation has led scholarship to disregard the complex relationship between the State and architecture, between ideology and aesthetics and, simultaneously, to ignore the profound contradictions within Vargas’s government, both in the political and architectural field, and to underestimate the role played by the modernism of European fascism in acting as one of the poles of attraction acting on how building projects were conceived.

Francoism was the product of the sum of all the heterogeneous forces of anti-liberal right, from the most radical fascists to Christian traditionalists even further to the conservative right than the Monarchists and the Carlists, and as a result their architectural response to the problem of rebuilding Spanish society following the Civil war could not be unitary either. Each school of thought, each situation to be solved, and each architect generated a different solution, and as a result we find a wide variety of architectural works in Francoist Spain. Rather than revisit the topics studied in multiple works since the seventies, this article will focus the research on typologies that have hardly received any attention, namely constructions of marked ideological and propagandistic character, such as the monolithic monuments dedicated to the Fallen, the reconstructions of ‘mythological’ places for the discourse of the first Francoism, and the production of monumental civic buildings, such as the Universities of Labor. The core issue to be resolved is whether some cultural discourses under Francoism constructed the new regime as pioneering a modernizing national revolution, rather than installing a reactionary counterrevolution, and whether the architectural works that resulted in fact present outstanding elements of modernity that had nothing to envy, in their physical scale, radicalism of design, and futural temporality, those of National Socialist Germany or Mussolini’s Italy. Such a kinship suggests that many buildings of right wing regimes, at least in Spain, in the first half of the twentieth century should be considered as belonging organically to the fascist era, even if the regimes that promoted or hosted them were not technically fascist in a strict political and ideological sense, a kinship expressed in their ‘rooted modernism’.

With the dramatic rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, we witnessed the revival of the Islamism-fascism comparison. This paper begins with a short history of the Islamism-fascism comparison. It then argues that both Islamism and fascism are coherent political ideologies. The author proposes a four-fold typology of different discourses in respect of the Islamism-fascism comparison, which are called ‘Thou shall not compare’, ‘Islamofascism’, ‘Islamofascism as epithet’, and ‘Dare to compare’. It’s concluded that we should compare Islamism and fascism, but that the two ideologies are distinctive, totalitarian ideologies. Clerical fascism is the closest ideologically to Islamism, although it is also a distinctive political ideology.

This article seeks to intervene in the debate over the legacy of the British Empire, using the British Union of Fascists (BUF) as a case-study. It will argue that, during the interwar period, the BUF drew heavily on earlier constructions of racialized imperial masculinity in building their ‘new fascist man’. The BUF stand out in the period following the First World War, where hegemonic constructions of British masculinity were altogether more domesticated. At the same time, colonial policymakers were increasingly relying on concessions, rather than force, to outmanoeuvre nationalists out in the Empire. For the BUF, this all smacked of effeminacy and they responded with a ‘new man’ based on the masculine values of the idealized imperial frontier. By transplanting these values from colony to metropole, they hoped to achieve their fascist rebirth of Britain and its Empire. This article charts the BUF’s construction of this imperial ‘new fascist man’ out the legacy of earlier imperialists, the canon of stories of imperial heroism, and the gendered hierarchies of colonial racism.