While embracing opposite ideological positions, George Orwell’s and T.S. Eliot’s social and political considerations share a common way of perceiving fascism, and his relationships with totalitarianism, in a confrontation, characterized, at the same time, by an alternative register of theoretical and chronological analogies and dissonances. A conservative and indeed frequently reactionary thinker, Eliot aims at reviving intellectual respect for Christianity; Orwell, on the contrary, proclaims his belief in the principles of “democratic Socialism”, and claims for a humanistic reformulation of the criterion for assessing right and wrong. Orwell’s interest for Fascism initially takes shape in the course of the 1930s and is solicitated by the attention for the English class system, while Eliot’s one ripened during the 1920s and is focused on the international events and more especially on the Italian situation. Both the writers, however, consider Fascism a collateral phenomenon of totalitarianism, a product of the Western civilization’s crisis, determined by the concurrent action of the industrial revolution and the decline of the faith in immortality. Their concern for the decadence of political language, their actual convergence in upholding the values of the past and the cultural traditions of England, the severe condemnation of a cult of the success are the shared conceptual premises that balance the differences in the methodological and theoretical attitude about fascism.
Pur attestandosi su opposte posizioni ideologiche, le riflessioni politiche e sociali dedicate da George Orwell e da T.S. Eliot al fascismo sono caratterizzate da una condivisa percezione della sua composita natura e delle sue relazioni con il totalitarismo, tale da alimentare un confronto caratterizzato da analogie e divergenze sul piano teorico e cronologico. Sostenitore di un conservatorismo talvolta animato da istanze reazionarie, Eliot intende infatti promuovere un rinnovamento intellettuale del cristianesimo, mentre Orwell, proclamando la sua adesione ai principi del “Socialismo democratico” si propone di ristabilire un criterio del “giusto” e dell’“ingiusto” di matrice umanistica. Inoltre, se l’interesse di Orwell per il fascismo matura inizialmente nel corso degli anni Trenta e si sviluppa parallelamente alla sua attenzione per il sistema di classe inglese, quello di Eliot si consolida già all’inizio degli anni Venti, focalizzandosi sugli eventi internazionali e in particolare sulla natura del regime mussoliniano. In ogni caso entrambi gli autori considerano il fascismo una sorta di fenomeno collaterale del totalitarismo, effetto di una crisi della tradizione occidentale innescata dalla concomitante pressione della rivoluzione industriale e della fine della fede nell’immortalità dell’anima. La loro comune preoccupazione per il declino del linguaggio politico, il loro intenso rispetto per i valori del passato e per le tradizioni culturali del proprio paese, la loro coincidente condanna del culto del successo rappresentano quindi le principali premesse concettuali in grado di contemperare il divario intercorrente nel loro approccio metodologico e teorico al fascismo.
Around Thomas Stearns Eliot, Orwell and Fascism
ARCIERO A
2020-01-01
Abstract
While embracing opposite ideological positions, George Orwell’s and T.S. Eliot’s social and political considerations share a common way of perceiving fascism, and his relationships with totalitarianism, in a confrontation, characterized, at the same time, by an alternative register of theoretical and chronological analogies and dissonances. A conservative and indeed frequently reactionary thinker, Eliot aims at reviving intellectual respect for Christianity; Orwell, on the contrary, proclaims his belief in the principles of “democratic Socialism”, and claims for a humanistic reformulation of the criterion for assessing right and wrong. Orwell’s interest for Fascism initially takes shape in the course of the 1930s and is solicitated by the attention for the English class system, while Eliot’s one ripened during the 1920s and is focused on the international events and more especially on the Italian situation. Both the writers, however, consider Fascism a collateral phenomenon of totalitarianism, a product of the Western civilization’s crisis, determined by the concurrent action of the industrial revolution and the decline of the faith in immortality. Their concern for the decadence of political language, their actual convergence in upholding the values of the past and the cultural traditions of England, the severe condemnation of a cult of the success are the shared conceptual premises that balance the differences in the methodological and theoretical attitude about fascism.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
FASCISM ELIOT ORWELL Arciero Estratto.pdf
non disponibili
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
280.99 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
280.99 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.