Today’s Totalitarianism welcomes written opinion pieces that increase our awareness of the dangers we confront at this historical juncture anywhere in the world, of efforts to resist them, and of ways to reconfigure political life for the better. Essays should not exceed 1500 words and will be single-blind reviewed. Please contact Greg Feldman (greg@allegralaboratory.net) for queries and submissions.
We seek and provide accessible, critical analyses of today’s global trends toward “totalitarianism”. Though it may seem obsolete, we have chosen the term carefully to both define and combat systemic efforts in countries around the world to reduce plurality and to demand conformity among their inhabitants. Some may argue that use of the term “totalitarianism” signifies a contemporary overreaction in light of the mid-twentieth century horrors – Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, or Mao’s China – that called the term into existence. However, if the argument against this term is that such horrors have not yet begun in earnest, then that itself is sufficient evidence that enough has already gone wrong in global politics.
Others may argue that the term lumps together different political situations in a worn out category. However, it is too difficult to ignore the fact that countries in both the Global South and North – from the Philippines to Turkey from Brazil to Hungary from India to the United States from Russia to China – all feature trends that collectively reduce political plurality, demand obedience to centralized authority, and stifle dissent and free speech. Ironically, most of these cases are premised on democratically elected “Big Men” claiming a mandate from the people.
The sad diversity of examples finds coherence as a common phenomenon through certain themes and processes, even if they appear in different permutations and to different degrees; such themes and processes characterized twentieth century totalitarianism as well.
They include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) simplified narratives of history (along with increased dismissal of facts to the contrary);
2) systemic efforts to control public discussion (along with increased censorship and greater regulation of media);
3) hostility toward indigenous peoples, migrants, refugees, women, racialized and casted minorities, the differently abled, and people with alternative gender and sexual orientations (along with an increase in masculine nationalism);
4) contempt for parliamentary procedures and independent judiciaries (along with an increased acceptance of unconstrained executive authority);
5) contempt for political plurality (along with an increase in narrowly defined ideas of patriotism, religious piety, and social conduct);
6) contempt for respectful, civil discourse (along with an increase in fear tactics against and public humiliation of political rivals and of “others”);
7) pressure toward ideological conformity and the intolerance of intellectual diversity in public and professional life (along with a rise in “anti-elitism” claiming to speak truth to power).
Editor
|
(University of Windsor)
|
Associate Editors
Balmurli Natrajan
(William Paterson University)
Cris Shore
(Goldsmith’s College, University of London)
Diane O’Rourke
(Victoria University of Wellington)
Helena Zeweri
(University of Virginia)
Hugh Gusterson
(University of British Columbia)
Kalyani Menon
(DePaul University)
Lynda Dematteo
(L’Ecole des Hautes Etudes Sciences Sociales)
Narges Bajoghli
(Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies)
Philip Kao
(Harvard University)
Raghu Trichur
(California State University, Sacramento)
1 Comment