|Title: ||Fascism studies (and the 'Post-Fascist' era): an ideal meeting ground?|
|Affiliation: ||Teesside University. School of Arts and Media|
|Citation: ||Copsey, N. (2012) ‘Fascism studies (and the ‘Post-Fascist’ era): an ideal meeting ground?’, Fascism, 1, pp.19-20.|
|Journal: ||Fascism: Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies|
|Issue Date: ||2012 |
|Additional Links: ||http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/10.1163/221162512x623593|
|Abstract: ||As a historian of fascism's recent manifestations, I am acutely aware of the continuing and rather unfortunate division between historians and political scientists that still obtains in the field of fascism studies. "Most political scientists", as Roger Eatwell put it some time ago, "use the term 'fascism' in the contemporary context within a rigid inter-war template" (Eatwell 2004 , 6). Despite the laudable attempt of Roger Griffin and others to draw attention to fascism's inherent protean quality, little has changed in the intervening period. Indeed, when it comes to the contemporary extreme right, few political scientists would even recognise the relevance of 'fascism studies' to their concerns, preferring to deploy neologisms such as 'radical right-wing populism' instead. Their field is not 'fascism studies' but 'radical right-wing populism' studies, a field that is concerned with the plethora of party-political organisations of authoritarian, nativist and populist type that have become increasingly embedded within Europe's contemporary political landscape.|
|Rights: ||Author can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing). For full details see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 03/04/2012]|
|Citation Count: ||No citation information available on Web of Science or Scopus|
|Appears in Collections: ||History|
Institute of Design, Culture and the Arts
|Files in This Item:|
There are no files associated with this item.
All Items in TeesRep are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.