Interview with Angelica De Fusco: A study on the consensus of fascism

How much does politics influence our lives? And how much can people legitimize a non-democratic regime? We often look to other countries and ask ourselves these questions. Rarely, however, have we had the courage to examine our own history. Investigating the characteristics and objectives of Fascism during the years of consensus was the goal of Angelica De Fusco 's thesis , "The Years of Consensus in the Fascist Regime," a graduate in Sociology from the Faculty of Political Science, Sociology, and Communication at Sapienza University of Rome.

Studying fascism

• A thesis that contributes to enriching historical and sociological research on Fascism. How important, in your opinion, is it to study the social and political history of our country, considering its strengths and weaknesses?

ADF: "Very important, in my opinion. Every country has its own political and social history, different from that of others, which makes it unique and distinctive; it represents the starting point of the process that allows us to understand the mechanism that gave rise to a particular phenomenon. Specifically, studying society from all its perspectives and investigating the social dynamics characterizing a given historical era are two fundamental processes for reconstructing a social, historical, and political phenomenon."

The political religion of fascism

• How and why did your interest in studying the years of consensus arise? Why the aspect of political religion in fascism in particular?

ADF: "I'm interested in understanding how authoritarian regimes gain consensus . I've always wondered how a phenomenon like the Holocaust came to be and what responsibility our country had at the time. To answer this question, I thought it appropriate to start from the foundations of the fascist phenomenon, and so in my study I wanted to explore how the regime managed to gain the consensus that allowed it to remain in power for two decades. My interest in these studies was definitely fueled by my sociological training and passion for history, so I believed that bringing together the two disciplines would allow me to develop a more complex reflection, enriched by different perspectives."

In fact, the perspectives I incorporated into my thesis draw on three illustrious historians of Fascism, Renzo De Felice, Philip V. Cannistraro, and Emilio Gentile, who were vital to my study. The aspect of political religion immediately captured my attention, as it encompassed the ways in which faith in Fascism manifested itself. In this case, it's more accurate to speak of faith rather than consensus, as Emilio Gentile emphasized the religious nature of the regime, specifying the existence of a consensus based on the faith the faithful felt in their God and their religion. The importance of highlighting this political-religious dimension in which Italians lived at the time clearly emerges.

The methodology adopted

• Briefly, how was the research set up from a methodological point of view and why?

ADF: “The research was initially characterized by studying the perspectives and analyses conducted by the historians already cited. In particular, works such as Mussolini the Duce. 1. The Years of Consensus 1929-1936 by Renzo De Felice, The Manufacturing of Consent. Fascism and the Mass Media by Philip V. Cannistraro , Fascism. History and Interpretation , and The Cult of the Littorio. The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy by Emilio Gentile were fundamental to my research.”

After studying them thoroughly, I selected the passages that best guided me in answering the question at the root of my thesis: whether consensus for Fascism actually existed. Throughout this process, the assistance of my historian and advisor, Professor Alessandra Tarquini , was crucial . By framing my research in this way, I was able to consider different approaches to the same phenomenon, thus building a broader perspective.

What do religion and politics have in common?

• How much do religion and politics have in common? And above all, today, in your opinion, is there was it an evolution of the concept of mass/s?

ADF: "They're very similar, in my opinion. Both have a social dimension composed of individuals who, by aggregating, form the mass. Their strength lies in the following they manage to gain from it. A religion is such if it has a group of believers who support it and believe in it. Likewise, it's unthinkable to engage in politics without a group of voters ready to vote in its favor. Or rather, it's possible, but certainly not effective.

Both religion and politics require charismatic personalities at their helm, capable of captivating the masses and establishing a relationship of mutual trust and respect. This creates a social space where individuals can gather, find fulfillment of their purpose, share an interest, and share a part of their being. Undoubtedly, the concept of the masses evolves in tandem with society and its changes.

What doesn't change, in my opinion, are the mechanisms by which the crowd functions, that is, what explains how individuals move within it. Its psychology predicts that, having become part of the crowd, they become subject to mechanisms of de-responsibility, seeming to possess a sense of invincibility that encourages them to engage in behaviors they wouldn't have engaged in alone. The individual enters a dimension in which they feel irresponsible and almost completely anonymous. I believe these characteristics of the crowd are immutable. However, interests and goals can change as the social environment evolves.

Fascism and political communication today

• The propaganda method so dear to the fascists of the time—"Tell lies, tell them many times, and it will become common knowledge"—can be associated today with the much-discussed mechanism of fake news on the internet. Given your studies, what should we pay attention to in order to respond to these new forms of distorted political communication? What, if any, can we learn more about to ensure we can—at least—defend ourselves?

ADF: " We need to pay attention to the media that convey information, not blindly trust it, and learn to be more critical. This applies to many areas, in my opinion. We live in an era where it's easy to make mistakes in judgment, and this is facilitated by the multitude of sources at our disposal, many of which are valid but just as many are not. I believe that to be less susceptible to potential distortions of reality, we need to be curious. Curiosity fosters information, knowledge, and discovery through the consultation of valid sources. Delving into the social history of one's country can teach us a lot . Criticism and curiosity are our tools against distortions of all kinds."