Fascist Religiosities, IV: Authority and Authoritarianism
wrapping up, for now...
Here we close our discussion of the topics mentioned in Fascist Religiosities III
Perhaps the most evident characteristic of a fascist religiosity is authoritarianism. Hierarchical relations and (unquestioning) obedience to one’s superiors are presumed to be the proper forms of interpersonal relations—whether in the family, or communities, or society at large.
It is, however, important to distinguish between authority and authoritarianism. Authority can mean that someone has a special status, based on factors such as knowledge, skill, or the responsibility of an institutional position. Authoritarianism, however, is using the power of one’s authority to control others. This is the difficult balance in a democracy—authority is a necessary part of the institutions, but can be subverted by those who wish to control others. Commenting on the assertion of authority in some Buddhist meditation groups, Edel Maex suggests that:
“Perhaps we should make a distinction here between natural authority and power, in the sense of ‘authority deserves respect, power demands it’.” (Edel’s Newsletter, Feb 15)
The structures of common discourse enable easy generalizations about religions, claims, for example, that (some) religions are authoritarian, elitist, or both. But of course, “religion,” like “Buddhism,” is just a concept, a social construct, a shared idea. Religions are no more authoritarian than they are peaceful—both are simply interpretations and claims based on biased and partial representations. Religions don’t act in authoritarian or elitist ways, since as concepts they do not have agency—though people who hold those concepts may act on them, either in adherence to the concept or in reaction against.
Agency is first located in people, and secondarily in institutions. And of course, institutions are comprised of people, but as a collectivity. This duality is reflected in how authoritarianism and its relation to fascism are understood.
In some sense or other, all religious traditions employ authority. References are made back to some source of authority—all founders of either a tradition as a whole or of a later revisioning of that tradition are, for example, held to be authorities. Jesus as founder, Luther as reformer. Śākyamuni as founder, Tsongkhapa as reformer. And so on. Likewise, seniority, or initiation, or having sat at the feet of the guru, all both refer back to some foundational source of authority, and bestow some degree of authority on the senior, the initiate, the sitter at the guru’s feet.
The intent to control others through one’s superior authority, even “benevolently,” creates the context for an authoritarian religion. Religious institutions often seem to depend on fear of one thing or another—rebirth in a lower life form, eternity in hell, exclusion from the presence of the guru—as the means of exerting control. This fear may be either direct in the sense of fear of punishment or indirect in the form of fear of benefits being withheld. Max Weber (1864–1920) recognized this authoritarian strain in religion, referring to “psychic coercion”—"the ability [of religious leaders] to remove religious benefits from members who were disobedient” (Ryan P. Burge, “Authority, Authoritarianism, and Religion”).
Ryan Burge points to a basic dichotomy in the scholarly approaches to understanding authoritarianism. On the one hand, there is the idea that it is a personal matter, the psychic characteristics of the individual. What is it about an individual’s personality that leads them to act in authoritarian fashion, or alternatively to submit to authoritarians? This is the orientation that informed so much of the mid-20th century inquiry into “the authoritarian personality,” such as Theodor Adorno’s “F-scale”—F for fascist.
[Parenthetical Aside: Ironically the focus on the individual is also the orientation that today’s right wing takes. Consistent with neo-liberal emphasis on the individual person, they are resistant to notions that society is dysfunctional. The removal of “systemic” from the AP Black Studies curriculum is a consequence (Letters from an American)
Thus, the great and distracting debate about whether Trump is a racist, that is, suffered from a personal failing—because in this view racism is a personal issue (failing), not a societal one. If the problem is systemic, that is societal, then government would have an appropriate role to play in changing the way society works.]
The alternative approach to focusing on authoritarianism (and racism) as a personal matter is institutional (societal, economic, historical). The actions, decisions, and values of people who have an institutional role or identity or function, are molded, guided, informed by the structural values of the institution itself—including, perhaps most importantly, preserving the institution. A situation of collective karma, if you will. Most importantly for our discussion here, it is institutions that establish authority, and deploy it in authoritarian ways. For the institution, authority is a means to maintain cohesion and purpose, instigating collective action.
[Another Parenthetical Aside: Although not directly related to Buddhism or religion, the way that an institution molds the behavior of those who comprise it is evident in the recent revelations of how Fox News became an election denier—Fox News celebrities purposely lied about the 2020 election for the sake of maintaining viewship and stock valuation. See Heather Cox Richardson, Letters from an American, Feb. 16, 2023]
.
As noted above, agency is located first in persons and second in institutions. Both perspectives—psychological and social/economic/historical—are needed for an adequate understanding of authoritarianism in religions.
Pointers beyond this post: As noted previously, the phrase fascist religiosities was motivated by the authority given to the Italian Fascist Julius Evola by members of the present neo-fascist movement. The propagation of Evola’s ideas by neo-fascists such as Steve Bannon has caught the attention of others working on issues of politics and religion, such as J. Richard Marra (“American Fascism: The Men, the Money and the Myth” first published in Hampton, Oct. 17, 2021; revised and corrected version expected to become available on his Academia.edu page). The deeper background is the inquiry into Perennialism and Traditionalism that I undertook several years ago. That resulted in two essays, one of which is available freely from Pacific World <link>. The research was also informed by the work of Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World <link>. Sedgwick also maintains a website and a blog.
Promissory Notes:
Characteristic of modern neo-Fascists is the idealization of “Western Civilization”—code for patriarchal & misogynistic, authoritarian & vengeful, homophobic & gender rigid, racist & White supremacist, neocolonialist & neoliberal values. This is, however, such an important part of the rhetoric that it needs to be given further attention in another post.
The fourth topic mentioned as part of this phase was the failure to distinguish between apologetics and the academic study of religion, metaphorically an inability to move off one’s (ahem) perspective. This topic was added in response to comments made by one reader of the earlier posts, and constitutes a higher order of reflection on the topic to be addressed later.