60 Years: Fascism Seminar Revisited, Jan 9th-13th 2025, Sapienza Università di Roma and The American Academy in Rome, On-site and Recorded
The “60 Years: Fascism Seminar Revisited” conference, held 9–12 January 2025, at Sapienza Università di Roma and the American Academy in Rome, brought together leading scholars to reflect on the evolution of fascism studies over the past six decades. Organized by the George L. Mosse Program in History, it revisited the pivotal 1963 Stanford seminar led by historian George L. Mosse, and examined how fascism has been understood, debated, and reinterpreted since then. With over 30 scholars from the U.S., Europe, the U.K., and Israel in attendance, the conference explored fascism’s historiography, transnational networks, gendered dimensions, and ‘post-fascist’ transformations. This report summarizes the key themes and debates, emphasizing the conference’s call to understand fascism not as a relic of the past but as a phenomenon that continues to shape our societies today.
Thursday
The seminar opened with an institutional welcome by SKYE DONEY, conference organizer and Director of the George L. Mosse Program at the University of Madison-Wisconsin and at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; DONATELLO ARAMINI, conference co-organizer and Assistant Professor in Contemporary History at the Department of Political Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome; SILVIA LUCCIARINI, conference co-organizer and Associate Professor of Sociology of Economic and Labour Processes at Sapienza Università di Roma; ALESSANDRA TARQUINI, conference co-organizer and Professor of Contemporary History at Sapienza Università di Roma; ALIZA WONG, Director of the American Academy in Rome and Professor of History and Honors at Texas Tech University; and FRANK MECKLENBURG, Director of Research and Chief Archivist at the Leo Baeck Institute in New York.
After the opening remarks, the first session focused on the conceptual and historical relationships between totalitarianism and fascism. ALESSANDRA TARQUINI (Sapienza Università di Roma) opened the discussion by revisiting the thought of Giovanni Gentile, arguing that Italian Fascism was fundamentally distinct from other European right-wing movements of the 20th century. According to Tarquini, Italian Fascism invented a political religion centered on the myth of the state, which materialized through violence and totalitarian power. This interpretation positioned fascism as a uniquely ideological and transformative force rather than just an authoritarian regime. In response, OLIVIER FORLIN (Pierre Mendès France Grenoble-II University), provided a historiographical overview of the question “whether Italian Fascism was totalitarian?” The divergence in answers, Forlin explained, was contingent upon the historian’s field of study; namely, cultural and intellectual historians, as Tarquini, favoured the interpretation of fascism as totalitarianism whereas social and economic historians pointed to Fascist Italy’s incompleteness and failure of totalitarian construction. ANSON RABINBACH (Princeton University) took a step back to problematize the very concept of totalitarianism itself. He argued that ‘totalitarianism’ was and still is an inherently fluid and ambiguous term, one that has evolved significantly across different historical and political contexts. Tracing its genealogy from the 1920s to the 1970s, Rabinbach demonstrated how the term has been repeatedly reshaped to fit new ideological needs. His intervention added a meta-historiographical dimension to the debate, suggesting that discussions on fascism and totalitarianism are often shaped as much by shifting political discourses as by historical realities. In the session’s discussion, MARY NOLAN (New York University) asked Tarquini what were the seductions and motivations of totalitarianism as opposed to understanding the hold of totalitarianism over people only via propaganda and terror. RENATO MORO (Università Roma Tre) raised the historiographical challenge of applying the term totalitarianism posthumously to Italian Fascism as the agents during the time applied this term to themselves.
The second session took place at the stunning Villa Aurelia at the American Academy of Rome, and explored the question, “What’s new in Fascism studies?” MARIE-ANNE MATARD-BONUCCI (Université Paris VIII) opened with a concise overview of key debates that have shaped the field over the past 60 years, including the challenges of defining fascism, the tension between specificity and generality, and the role of the Great War in its historical emergence. She highlighted the growing influence of the transnational approach, praising its ability to move beyond simple comparisons and uncover connections between different fascist movements in a global context. Building on this perspective, BRIAN J. GRIFFITH (California State University, Fresno) reaffirmed the importance of the transnational approach while calling for a renewed scholarly pursuit of generic fascism. He advocated for integrating visual studies, transnational history, and digital methodologies—such as social network analysis—to better understand how fascist movements historically developed and spread. ARISTOTLE KALLIS (Keele University) offered a different perspective, promoting a diffusionist approach that prioritizes how and why fascist ideas circulated at a local level rather than focusing on their specific content. Understanding the historical appeal of fascist ideas, Kallis emphasized, is especially urgent as authoritarian alternatives gain traction today. In the discussion, ANTÓNIO COSTA PINTO (Universidade de Lusófona) commented on the diffusionist approach—pointing out a contradiction in what was ‘diffused’: counter-revolutionary elements of fascist ideology on the one hand, and fascist institutions—single party system, corporatism, etc. on the other. FEDERICO FINCHELSTEIN (New School for Social Research) commented that the historiographic discussion of fascism, including that of Mosse, is tainted by eurocentrism, however, Mosse’s work was and still is relevant and helpful in identifying fascist elements in the global south—Latin America in particular.
Despite being the final session of the day, Modernity and Fascism energized the audience with a thought-provoking paper by ENZO TRAVERSO (Cornell University). He argued that to fully grasp the global rise of the far right, fascism should be understood as a trans-historical concept—one that extends beyond traditional historiography and is shaped by collective memory and contemporary public discourse. For Traverso, today’s far right is best described as post-fascist, a term that captures both its continuity with twentieth-century fascism and its evolution into new forms. Unlike classical fascism, post-fascism operates within democratic frameworks while advancing nationalism, xenophobia, and illiberalism. He pointed to contemporary Islamophobia as a key example, demonstrating how it retains elements of fascist-era antisemitism and xenophobia while being distinctly shaped by Europe’s colonial legacy. Building on Traverso’s argument, ELISSA MAILÄNDER (Sciences Po) called for an analysis of fascist femininities, highlighting figures like Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, and Alice Weidel. She argued that these women capitalize on feminist gains in equality while simultaneously advancing a resolutely cis-gender, white-supremacist, patriarchal, and ableist agenda. In doing so, they exemplify how fascism adapts to modernity, making itself more appealing by blending old ideologies with contemporary rhetoric of progress and empowerment. RENATO MORO (Università Roma Tre) pushed back against Traverso’s trans-historical framing, agreeing that fascism is not just a relic of the past but insisting it must still be grounded in historical context. He argued that just because fascist elements persist today does not mean fascism itself has transcended history—it is simply alive. Moro also warned that labeling post-fascism as inherently xenophobic, Islamophobic, and colonialist risks trivializing the concept of fascism. As he put it, “Not every fascist was xenophobic, racist, or colonialist, and not every xenophobic, racist, or colonialist was a fascist.” In the vibrant discussion that followed, ERIC KURLANDER (Stetson University) questioned the necessity of Traverso’s term “post-fascism,” suggesting that fascism could more simply be understood as an ideal type, much like socialism and democracy. PAMELA BALLINGER (University of Michigan) asked the panelists to discuss how contemporary far-right movements could be understood as populist, especially when compared to their classification as “fascist” or “post-fascist.” AUSTIN J. CLEMENTS (Stanford University) asked how Traverso understood “post-fascism” as lacking futurity and inquired about the role of an apocalyptic worldview—especially premillennialism—within the far-right today.
Friday
The day began with a dazzling detailed paper by DAGMAR HERZOG (City University of New York), who examined how postmodern fascism, particularly within Germany’s AfD party, manipulated contradictions—combining racism, sexual provocation, and “family values” to broaden its appeal. Herzog traced connections to Nazi-era ideologies of sexuality and eugenics, revealing the historical roots of anti-disability policies and Christian complicity in sterilization programs. She demonstrated how the legacy of fascism persists in cultural attitudes toward sex, gender, and marginalized groups, shaping politics long after fascist regimes have fallen. DARCY BUERKLE (Smith College) expanded on Herzog’s analysis of Nazi eugenics by examining figures like Alfred Hoche, whose advocacy for euthanasia targeted the disabled. Buerkle showed how Hoche’s views were shaped by his concerns with gender, sexuality, and race, linking his ideas about disability to broader anxieties about deviant sexuality and Jewish identity. She argued that figures like Hoche, who were not just radical extremists but also embedded in mainstream academic and medical institutions, played a significant role in shaping long-term cultural attitudes toward disability and sexuality. LORENZO BENADUSI (Università Roma Tre) affirmed Herzog’s analysis of the contradictions in fascist sexual politics while also emphasizing the need to explore the role of consumerism in shaping behavior. He highlighted how mass consumption, urbanization, and exposure to American culture modernized gender roles and sexuality in Italy, sometimes contradicting the Fascist state’s efforts to control private life. During the discussion, OFER ASHKENAZI (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) questioned whether discriminatory attitudes toward disabled individuals should be classified as specifically fascist or whether they were simply a part of broader bourgeois sensibilities. He referenced documentation from Weimar-era Jews who complained about the presence of disabled people in German spas—spaces that would later discriminate against Jews. MARY NOLAN (New York University) asked Herzog to elaborate on the impact of WWI on anti-disability policies, particularly how Germany’s defeat and the return of thousands of disfigured and disabled soldiers influenced the “desire to kill” in these policies. Finally, JENNIFER EVANS (Carleton University) urged scholars to think across fascist societies and liberal democracies when analyzing exclusionary policies related to sexuality and disability, particularly to understand the contemporary moment.
The second panel of the day focused on the “Images of Fascism.” RAFFAELE BEDARIDA (Sapienza Università di Roma) examined how exhibitions have shaped public memory of Italian Fascist art, highlighting how curatorial choices often depoliticize or obscure its historical context. He critiqued major exhibitions, such as MoMA’s Twentieth Century Italian Art (1949) and Italy’s Arte e Fascismo (2024), for downplaying Fascism’s role in artistic production and reinforcing a narrative of artistic neutrality. Bedarida raised concerns about the responsibility of curators to present difficult histories without aestheticizing or trivializing them. OFER ASHKENAZI (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) suggested that these tendencies might actually reflect the structure of ‘fascist aesthetics.’ He argued that many visual elements associated with fascism—such as admiration for the male body, machinery, and collective identity—were also common in modernist art across different contexts. Therefore, art should be understood not only through its aesthetic qualities but also through its political function. To counteract the depoliticization of fascist art in exhibitions, Ashkenazi advocated curatorial approaches that emphasize the emotional power of fascist imagery while incorporating perspectives, such as Jewish documentation, to subtly challenge its ideological pathos. MARY LOUISE ROBERTS (University of Wisconsin-Madison) added that Bedarida’s critique of fascist art exhibitions overlooked Italy’s broader politics of memory. She compared Italy’s postwar narrative of the “good Italian” with Germany’s more confrontational approach to Nazi art, suggesting that Italy’s focus was more on aestheticizing rather than critically examining Fascist art. In the discussion, ROBERTA PERGHER (Indiana University) pointed out that despite the different political contexts of the exhibitions Bedarida analyzed, they all ultimately arrived at the same conclusion—the separation of art from politics. She questioned whether this bifurcation was not just a result of fascist leanings or the curators’ intentions but rather a broader cultural tradition that views art as existing independently from politics.
The day’s final panel turned to the question of fascist empires. Speaker PAMELA BALLINGER (University of Michigan) challenged the idea that fascist imperialism was a historical anomaly. She argued that fascist imperialism was an exaggeration of traditional colonial practices—intensifying violence, reinforcing racial hierarchies, and promoting economic autarky. Ballinger framed fascist empire as an “empire of excess,” showing how it built upon but also radically diverged from liberal colonialism, positioning it uniquely in global imperial history. GIULIANA CHAMEDES (University of Wisconsin-Madison) expanded on Ballinger’s argument, explaining how fascist empires borrowed from past imperial models while justifying expansion through racial and religious narratives. She pointed out how Catholic institutions legitimized Italian imperialism as a “missione civilizzatrice,” while Nazi Germany repurposed colonial tropes like Lebensraum to justify its territorial ambitions. More provocatively, Chamedes connected these insights to early anti-fascist and anti-imperialist activism, arguing that critics of fascism had recognized its deep ties to imperial violence long before historians. ROBERTA PERGHER (Indiana University) added another layer to the conversation, reinforcing Ballinger’s point that fascist empires were leftovers from earlier imperial projects. However, she made an important distinction: what set fascist imperialism apart was not just what it did, but when and how it did it—pursuing aggressive expansion precisely when the world was increasingly questioning imperialism. Pergher argued that fascist empires were not only excessive but also fundamentally out of step with global political shifts, making them all the more radical and dangerous. In the discussion, BRIAN J. GRIFFITH (California State University, Fresno) asked the panelists to elaborate on how the delayed industrial development of Italy, Japan, and Germany might have motivated their imperial ambitions. PAUL HANEBRINK (Rutgers University) posed a question about the relationship between fascist war-making and fascist empire, asking whether a comparative argument could be made regarding military practices across different fascist empires.
Saturday
The Saturday morning opened with a lively session on the relationship between fascism and nationalism. ERIC KURLANDER (Stetson University) started the discussion by arguing that fascist nationalism was deeply shaped by romantic and völkisch ideologies, rather than traditional bourgeois nationalism. He pointed to the role of myth, mysticism, and emotion in constructing fascist ideas of race, space, and identity—elements that, he argued, set fascist nationalism apart from the more pragmatic nationalism of liberal democracies. Given these differences, he called for a more refined theoretical framework to better distinguish fascist nationalism from other nationalist movements. DONATELLO ARAMINI (Sapienza Università di Roma) pushed back on Kurlander’s emphasis on Romanticism, arguing that Italian Fascism was more modernist and future-oriented. Rather than looking backward with historical nostalgia or racial determinism, Italian Fascism aimed to construct a universal imperial civilization beyond traditional ethnic nationalism. This, he suggested, made it quite distinct from the race-driven nationalism of Nazi Germany. MERCEDES PEÑALBA-SOTORRÍO (Manchester Metropolitan University) then shifted the focus to action, bringing Georges Sorel’s ideas into the conversation. She argued that while Romanticism played a role in fascist nationalism, it was Sorel’s mobilizing myth and creationary violence that gave fascism its uniquely irrational and action-driven nature. Peñalba-Sotorrío also broadened the discussion by highlighting transnational links between fascist movements, showing that despite their nationalist rhetoric, these movements frequently influenced and collaborated with one another. This, she suggested, challenged the tendency to see fascist nationalism as purely isolated within individual states. In the Q&A, ANSON RABINBACH (Princeton University) reflected on how the 1963 Stanford Seminar had focused on distinguishing fascism from totalitarianism, aiming to prevent its equation with Soviet communism. He questioned whether this panel had similarly placed too much emphasis on differentiating fascism from nationalism, rather than exploring their commonalities. MARK ROSEMAN (Indiana University), building on Peñalba-Sotorrío’s comment, emphasized that what set fascist regimes apart was not just their internal dynamics, but the international order in which they emerged. He argued that fascism was often driven not by an internal ideological momentum alone, but by an international grid marked by frustration, weak leadership, and fear of communism.
A discussion of fascism would be incomplete without addressing war and violence. ANNETTE BECKER (Université Paris X-Nanterre) argued that WWI played a crucial role in shaping fascism by fostering a culture of extreme violence and militarization. Drawing on Mosse’s concept of brutalization, she showed how industrialized killing, dehumanization, and mass suffering normalized aggression, making fascist ideologies more appealing in the postwar period. She also pointed to a key paradox: while fascists glorified pre-industrial traditions, their movements were deeply rooted in the modern, industrial violence of the war. Ultimately, she viewed fascism as one of the many aftershocks of the Great War, emerging from its unresolved tensions and the transformation of political and social life. OMER BARTOV (Brown University) built on Becker’s argument, emphasizing that WWI was a global tragedy with different meanings across nations—France and Britain saw it as a catastrophe, Eastern Europe as a struggle for independence, and Germany as a humiliation that fueled Nazism. Ultimately, Bartov contended that WWI had normalized industrialized killing and dehumanization, laying the groundwork for later atrocities, colonial struggles, and even contemporary conflicts such as the Israel-Gaza War. SVEN REICHARDT (Universität Konstanz) extended Becker’s analysis by highlighting the role of paramilitarism in fascist violence. He argued that fascist movements in Germany and Italy relied on hyper-masculine, violent paramilitary groups that blurred the lines between war and politics. Rather than attributing societal brutalization solely to WWI, he pointed to defeat, imperial collapse, and social upheaval as key drivers of radicalization. He also challenged the concept of genocide as a useful framework for understanding fascist violence, proposing “fascist warfare” as a more precise term to capture its fusion of total war, civil war, and racial violence. In the discussion, ATINA GROSSMANN (Cooper Union NYC) reflected on Becker’s characterization of WWI as a “loss of innocence for the whole world” and questioned what it would truly mean to decolonize fascist studies. She asked how scholars from the Global South might respond to this idea of a supposed “loss of innocence,” given their distinct historical experiences with imperialism and violence. ROBERT CORBAN (University of Mississippi) revisited Michael Howard’s definition of fascism as “something that lies deep in the hearts and minds of men” and asked whether the violence and warfare of WWI—and, by extension, fascism—could be understood as a crisis of bourgeois masculinity.
The session on antisemitism and racism featured speaker PAUL HANEBRINK (Rutgers University), who argued that these concepts were historically intertwined in far-right politics but in shifting and unstable ways. Hanebrink traced this ideological fusion from Hungary’s 1919 counter-revolution to Nazi Germany’s genocidal war, showing how antisemitism was linked to anti-communism, colonial racism, and fears of racial mixing, shaping exclusionary policies across Europe. He concluded that while fascist racial ideologies persisted, they had been reworked to fit modern anxieties about migration, globalization, and national identity, continuing to influence nationalist politics today. In response, ATINA GROSSMANN (Cooper Union NYC) agreed with Hanebrink that antisemitism and racism were deeply but unstably connected throughout history. She emphasized that while fascist ideologies relied on racial theories, antisemitism did not always align neatly with scientific racism, as seen in the differences between Nazi and Italian Fascist racial policies. Grossmann also critiqued contradictions in contemporary political discourse, particularly how antisemitism was weaponized both to justify Islamophobia and to obscure debates about Israel’s actions, complicating efforts to examine these issues in academic and public discussions critically. Lastly, MANUELA CONSONNI (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) commended Hanebrink’s paper for demonstrating that antisemitism should not be seen as a static analytical category but rather as a historical event shaped by specific contexts. Regarding the relationship between racism and antisemitism, she argued that both were rooted in nineteenth-century Europeans’ failure to imagine a multi-racial past. However, she distinguished antisemitism as a form of ‘differential racism’—not just a tool for exclusion that classified outsiders but also a means of inclusion, self-rationalization, and proving one’s identity and worth within society. In the discussion, MARIE-ANNE MATARD-BONUCCI (Université Paris VIII) commented on how the timelines of antisemitism and fascism do not always intersect across Europe. She asked Hanebrink how fascism—Italian Fascism, for example—had to “invent and justify” a tradition of antisemitism after the fact, only in 1938, to legitimize its policies. OMER BARTOV (Brown University) referred to Consonni’s point that the nineteenth century marked the advent of new antisemitism. He asked her to elaborate on how this development was connected to the emancipation of the Jews.
The final panel of the day featured three speakers presenting new perspectives on fascism. AMY KING (University of Bristol) examined how Italy’s contemporary far-right engaged with its fascist heritage, focusing on how youth movements and institutional parties like Fratelli d’Italia commemorated neofascist leaders as intellectual patriarchs and martyrs. Through rituals and iconography, these commemorations legitimized fascist ideology, blurring the line between democracy and historical extremism. Continuing the theme of religiosity, AUSTIN J. CLEMENTS (Stanford University) argued that religion was central to the American far right, which framed itself as defending the “Kingdom of God” against liberalism, secularism, and socialism. Unlike European fascism, which prioritized the state, the American far right saw the nation as a tool for a divine plan, often interpreting communism through a Christian millenarian lens. While it occasionally aligned with fascist movements, Clements emphasized that its deep religious pluralism and commitment to individual freedoms made it distinct. Lastly, with great speed and conviction, ROBERT CORBAN (University of Mississippi) challenged the idea that Fascist Italy’s foreign policy was solely Mussolini’s vision, instead highlighting the role of an elite faction known as the plow and the bow. This group sought a vast Mediterranean empire (Mare Nostrum), driving economic expansion in Africa and global markets to integrate Italy into a new world order. Corban argued that these ambitions shaped Italy’s role in World War II and left lasting economic and geopolitical legacies. In response to all three speakers, TERRENCE PETERSON (Florida International University) noted that fascism studies often focused on defining the ideology—what made fascism unique?—but these papers offered a fresh perspective by highlighting continuities between fascism and far-right movements. He argued that these overlaps, in fact, helped perpetuate fascist ideas into the present. To Clements, Peterson posed the question of how the American far right envisioned the world beyond the eschaton and whether it was racially exclusive in the way fascist visions of the world were. Furthermore, he asked King to what extent the Italian far-right today took its objects of commemoration seriously—were historical figures merely used strategically, or was there an attempt to constitute a movement in their own right? Lastly, to Corban, Peterson asked how focusing on parliamentarians working on foreign policy could expand our understanding of fascism’s relationship to empire.
Sunday
It goes without saying that the afterlives and continuities of fascism loomed large over the conference, making it fitting that the entirety of Sunday was dedicated to this ever-pressing issue. In a fascinating paper, JENNIFER EVANS (Carleton University) argued that fascism did not end in 1945 but instead persisted in cultural, aesthetic, and ideological forms, often reappearing in unexpected ways. She traced how authoritarian tendencies—particularly the manipulation of desire, identity, and myth-making—had influenced both right-wing movements and progressive struggles in the postwar period. Using examples from film, photography, and feminist debates, she pointed out that even movements committed to liberation could unintentionally reproduce the same rigid structures they sought to dismantle. In his comment, JONATHON CATLIN (University of Rochester) built on Evans’ analysis of gender and sexuality in right-wing politics. He highlighted contradictions within LGBTQ+ politics, where some privileged gay figures aligned with the far-right, while trans and gender-nonconforming individuals faced backlash. He also cautioned against applying historical fascist frameworks to today’s movements, rejecting the label of Trump as a fascist. Instead, he supported terms like “post-fascism” (cf. Traverso) or “micro-fascism” to describe modern right-wing shifts. Lastly, MARY NOLAN (New York University) emphasized how the attack on trans rights and “gender ideology” had become central to contemporary right-wing movements. While Evans explored the theoretical and historical dimensions of fascism’s relationship to desire, Nolan focused on its real-world political consequences, urging for a more comprehensive response that not only defended specific rights but also developed a broader, emotionally resonant vision to counter the right’s appeal. In the following discussion about the seductions of fascism, ELISSA MAILÄNDER referenced Chris Hedges’ book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning and suggested that fascism, too, could be understood as something that provides meaning—not in a religious sense, but through affect and action. FRANK MECKLENBURG (Leo Baeck Institute, New York) emphasized the importance of revisiting the experimental thinking and radical movements of the 1970s. He argued that to fully grasp today’s political dynamics, scholars needed to better understand what those movements had been reacting to and how their legacies continued to shape the present.
In the final panel of the conference, FEDERICO FINCHELSTEIN (New School for Social Research) argued that modern far-right leaders like Trump and Bolsonaro embodied “wannabe fascism”—a hybrid of populism and fascist tendencies that eroded democracy without fully transitioning into dictatorship. Like historical fascists, these leaders relied on propaganda, xenophobia, and political violence but the “wannabe fascists” stopped short of establishing totalitarian rule, making them a dangerous and evolving threat to democratic institutions. ANTÓNIO COSTA PINTO (Universidade de Lusófona) responded by questioning whether “wannabe fascism” was truly an incomplete form of fascism or a distinct phenomenon. He contended that radical right populism blended nationalism and anti-elitism while strategically reshaping historical narratives to legitimize its agenda. Unlike fascism, he argued, populism was not confined to a specific historical period but continuously adapted to different political and cultural contexts worldwide. Expanding on this discussion, DIANA GARVIN (University of Oregon) examined how contemporary far-right movements commodified their ideology, blending futurist technology with traditional gender roles to appeal to modern audiences. She contrasted “wannabe fascists” with historical fascists, analyzing their reliance on propaganda, polarization, and authoritarian tactics. Garvin highlighted how these movements strategically marketed their ideology through cultural narratives, social media trends, and consumerism, reinforcing their influence in democratic societies. In the discussion, OFER ASHKENAZI (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) stressed that fascist movements, when they came to power, often did so as a minority or with a slight majority. He suggested that we should focus less on how they came to power and more on how they managed to stay in power, making their rule harder to reverse. JENNIFER EVANS (Carleton University) raised a question about the intentionality behind the far-right’s use of social media. She asked whether their strategies were consciously planned and coordinated, or if the similarities between different far-right groups resulted from unintentional diffusion. If the latter, she noted that it would be more difficult to respond effectively, as addressing the spread of ideas would be harder if it wasn’t the result of intentional coordination.
——
The forthcoming volume of seminar essays, currently pending publication, will be dedicated in loving memory to Anson Rabinbach (1945–2025), who passed away shortly after the conference concluded in Rome.
Conference recordings are available here.
Conference Overview:
Thursday Sessions
Institutional Welcome Speakers
Skye Doney (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Donatello Aramini (Sapienza Università di Roma)
Silvia Lucciarini (Sapienza Università di Roma)
Emma Galli (Sapienza Università di Roma)
Maria Cristina Marchetti (Sapienza Università di Roma)
Alessandra Tarquini (Sapienza Università di Roma)
Aliza Wong (American Academy in Rome)
Frank Mecklenburg (Leo Baeck Institute, New York)
Session 1: Totalitarianism and Fascism
Moderator: Mark Roseman (Indiana University)
Speaker: Alessandra Tarquini (Sapienza Università di Roma)
Respondents: Olivier Forlin (Pierre Mendès France Grenoble-II University)
Anson Rabinbach (Princeton University)
Session 2: What’s New in Fascism Studies?
Moderator: Aliza Wong (American Academy in Rome)
Speaker: Marie-Anne Matard-Bonucci (Université Paris VIII)
Speaker: Brian J. Griffith (California State University, Fresno);
Speaker: Aristotle Kallis (Keele University)
Session 3: Modernity and Fascism
Moderator: Dagmar Herzog (City University of New York)
Speaker: Enzo Traverso (Cornell University)
Respondents: Elissa Mailänder (Sciences Po, Paris); Renato Moro (Roma Tre University)
Friday Sessions
Session 4: The New Fascist Body
Moderator: Alessandra Tarquini (Sapienza University of Rome)
Speaker: Dagmar Herzog (City University of New York)
Respondents: Darcy Buerkle (Smith College); Lorenzo Benadusi (Università Roma Tre)
Session 5: Images of Fascism
Moderator: Atina Grossman (Cooper Union in New York City)
Speaker: Raffaele Bedarida (Sapienza Università di Roma)
Respondents: Ofer Ashkenazi (Hebrew University of Jerusalem); Mary Louise Roberts (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Session 6: Fascist Empires
Moderator: Darcy Buerkle (Smith College)
Speaker: Pamela Ballinger (University of Michigan)
Respondents: Giuliana Chamedes (University of Wisconsin-Madison); Roberta Pergher (Indiana University)
Saturday Sessions
Session 7: Fascism and Nationalism
Moderator: Mary Nolan (New York University)
Speaker: Eric Kurlander (Stetson University)
Respondents: Donatello Aramini (Sapienza Università di Roma); Mercedes Peñalba-Sotorrío (Manchester Metropolitan University)
Session 8: Violence and War
Moderator: Manuela Consonni (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Speaker: Annette Becker (Université Paris X-Nanterre)
Respondents: Omer Bartov (Brown University); Sven Reichardt (Universität Konstanz)
Session 9: Antisemitism and Racism
Moderator: Ofer Ashkenazi (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Speaker: Paul Hanebrink (Rutgers University)
Respondents: Atina Grossmann (The Cooper Union); Manuela Consonni (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Session 10: New Perspectives on Fascism
Moderator: Elissa Mailänder (Sciences Po)
Speaker: Amy King (University of Bristol)
Speaker: Austin J. Clements (Stanford University)
Speaker: Robert Corban (University of Mississippi)
Respondent: Terence Peterson (Florida International University)
Sunday Sessions
Session 11: Continuities of Fascism
Moderator: Mary Louise Roberts (University of Madison Wisconsin)
Speaker: Jennifer Evans (Carleton University)
Respondents: Jonathon Catlin (University of Rochester); Mary Nolan (New York University)
Session 12: Fascist Afterlives
Moderator: Skye Doney (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Speaker: Federico Finchelstein (New School for Social Research)
Respondents: António Costa Pinto (Universidade de Lusófona); Diana Garvin (University of Oregon)
Taili Hardiman is currently completing her M.A. in History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and serves as the HUJI Mosse Program Coordinator.
She is interested in the intellectual and cultural histories of social science in nineteenth-century Britain as well as scientific metaphors in the construction of social theory. Her M.A. thesis, “Observing in Depth: Harriet Martineau’s Science of Society,” focuses on models of “depth” – geological and physiognomic – in Martineau’s thought and how these models can illuminate tensions within the historiography of social science.
She was the co-editor of “Hayo Haya: Student Journal for History” and an archival assistant for the “Einstein Papers Project.”