How Does Aspirational Fascism Inform American Democracy?

How does Aspirational Fascism inform American democracy? How

This paper is not supposed to be analytic papers and NOT opinion pieces or book reviews. You are not simply to summarize readings or give your opinion about the readings but rather to provide an argument and take a position. The student should be sure to provide a clear, concise, and coherent argument for the position they take and not engage in demagoguery or political activist grandstanding. The reader will not care about the student’s political views or which positions s/he takes, but rather how well that position is argued. Finally, all papers should cite properly.

APA or Chicago style is usually appropriate for the humanities and social sciences but any recognized style will do. It must be 8 pages. How does Aspirational Fascism inform American democracy? How would Foucault’s understanding of power and discipline help us understand the role of Aspirational Fascism in American society? In your essays consider the following: The U.S. is usually considered immune from the kinds of authoritarianism present in other parts of the world. Do you think this is the case? How do Foucault and Connolly speak to this issue? Do you think authoritarianism can be present in spheres that are not political (say, in the economic and cultural spheres)? Do you think Connolly has a point? How would you introduce Foucault’s notion of power to further elucidate or refute Connolly’s position?

Paper For Above instruction

In examining how aspirational fascism informs American democracy, it is essential to understand the conceptual frameworks provided by Michel Foucault and William E. Connolly. Aspirational fascism, as a form of ideological aspiration rooted in nationalist and authoritarian ideals, manifests subtly within democratic societies, often masquerading as patriotic aspiration. This paper explores how such fascist tendencies can infiltrate American democratic institutions and cultural narratives, especially through the lens of Foucauldian power and discipline theories.

First, the concept of aspirational fascism refers to the tendency of societies to aspire towards authoritarian ideals under the guise of democratic or nationalist goals. It encapsulates a desire for uniformity, supremacy, and strong centralized authority, which can be latent within democratic processes, especially when national identity is invoked to justify exclusionary or oppressive policies. This aspiration becomes dangerous when it erodes democratic norms, leading to a subtle encroachment of authoritarian practices. For example, nationalist movements in America, such as those emphasizing a singular cultural identity, can inadvertently nourish fascist tendencies by valorizing internal homogeneity and external enemies, thus undermining pluralism.

Foucault’s theories on power and discipline offer substantial insights into understanding this phenomenon. Foucault posited that power is not merely repressive but productive, operating through disciplinary mechanisms that normalize certain behaviors and exclude others. Within American society, disciplinary institutions—schools, media, corporations—serve to produce a compliant citizenry that internalizes and reproduces dominant narratives. When aspirational fascism is projected onto national ideals, these disciplinary regimes can be co-opted to reinforce authoritarian values under the veneer of patriotism. For example, the surveillance culture enabled by technological advancements echoes Foucauldian discipline, further consolidating power and conformity.

William E. Connolly's critique centers on the idea that authoritarian tendencies are not confined strictly to political spheres but extend into cultural and economic realms. He argues that these spheres are interconnected, and authoritarianism can manifest in economic policies favoring corporate interests that suppress dissent or in cultural productions that valorize exclusionary identities. This perspective aligns with Foucauldian notions of power as diffuse and omnipresent, operating across various societal domains rather than being centralized solely within state apparatuses.

Addressing the question of whether the United States is immune from authoritarianism involves examining historical and contemporary evidence. While the U.S. has maintained democratic institutions, it has experienced moments of authoritarian flirtation, such as during McCarthyism or the post-9/11 security measures. Foucault’s concept of biopower, where the state exerts control over populations through regulation and normalization, helps explain how these moments of authoritarianism can occur without overtly dismantling democratic structures. Connolly’s emphasis on culture and economics underscores that authoritarian tendencies are not always overt but can be embedded within societal practices and discourses.

Introducing Foucauldian power into this discussion clarifies how authority operates beyond explicit political regimes. Power is pervasive, working through norms, discourses, and institutions that shape individual and collective identities. For instance, cultural narratives that equate national strength with suppression of dissent serve to normalize authoritarian practices. At the same time, Foucauldian resistance—counter-narratives and solidarities—can challenge these power structures.

In conclusion, aspirational fascism informs American democracy by subtly embedding authoritarian ideals within national aspirations and cultural norms. Foucauldian perspectives on power elucidate how these tendencies are reinforced through disciplinary mechanisms across society. Connolly’s focus on the interconnectedness of cultural and economic spheres emphasizes that authoritarianism is multifaceted, requiring vigilance across all domains. Recognizing these dynamics is crucial for safeguarding democratic values amidst persistent fascist temptations disguised as patriotic aspirations.

References

• Foucault, M. (1978). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon Books.
• Connolly, W. E. (2002). The Ethos of Pluralization. Duke University Press.
• Miller, J. (2017). Fascism and Democracy. Routledge.
• Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.
• Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford University Press.
• Freeden, M. (2016). Political Ideologies and Political Ideologies. Oxford University Press.
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.
• Morozov, E. (2013). The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs.
• Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Bloomsbury Publishing.