Rag-e Harf 4: Be a Hazelnut Lover and Listen to Lotfi!

Be a Hazelnut Lover and Listen to Lotfi! Does “Being Ordinary” Lead to “Fascism”?

The storm was first stirred up by Yousofali Abazari, a sociology professor at the University of Tehran. Reacting to the massive funeral of pop singer Morteza Pashaei, he, in fiery remarks, called Pashaei’s music “vulgar” and labeled those who listen to this type of music “idiots.” But in my view, none of these parts of his speech, which provoked many reactions, captured the heart of Abazari’s message. His main point contained two observations: one was a concern about the depoliticization of society, and the other was a point that can be summarized as: “Being ordinary leads to fascism.” This latter point went particularly unheard and was not much reflected in the critiques. He used pop music as an example and said that pop music leads to fascism, but it seems he employed pop music as an instance of “being ordinary” or, in literary terms, “mediocrity,” and otherwise pop music in itself held no special importance for his discussion. Abazari did not, of course, use the term “being ordinary,” but it seems his meaning can be better explained with this word. This time, I want to pitch my tent on the vein of “being ordinary” and pause a while on this matter: what relationship exists between “being ordinary” and “fascism,” and does one lead to the other? If yes, how? And if not, why?

How Far Is It from Being Ordinary to Fascism?

This time, I will begin the discussion by referring to a film. The famous film “The Conformist” (Il Conformista), directed by Bernardo Bertolucci (1970), is a classic and artistic example of portraying being ordinary, specifically an ordinariness that leads to fascism (though I think it is better to translate the film’s title as “Going Along with the Crowd”). What is the problem with being ordinary that, in Abazari’s view, leads to fascism? As Abazari explained in passing, in response to a protesting question from an audience member, the problem with being ordinary is that it brings conformity with the crowd. In such a state, a person thinks they have a choice, but in reality, the role that society and the ruling power have predetermined for them is imposed upon them, without the individual knowing that the role they are playing is imposed, not chosen. Here we are faced with the illusion of choice, just as the main character of the film “The Conformist,” who is a completely ordinary man, would probably not have become a spy and murderer had he not been placed in the fascist state of Italy. He had not chosen spying and murder; rather, it was spying and murder that had chosen him. The problem with being ordinary, in a word, is that a person is chosen instead of choosing, or in other words, is passive (receptive) instead of being active (effective), and worse, being ordinary gives a person the illusion of being active, and even worse, an ordinary person, when placed in an authoritarian environment, is likely to turn into a fascist.

Does the Path of Fascism Pass Through Being Ordinary?

There is no doubt that in an authoritarian environment, ordinariness can, in some cases, culminate in fascism, and the protagonist of the film The Conformist is one of the best examples of this. However, it is unlikely that one can derive a general rule from such cases to the effect that “ordinariness culminates in fascism.” For ordinariness does not always (nor even necessarily most of the time) culminate in fascism. A famous example of this is the story of August Landmesser (1910–1944), a shipyard worker in Hamburg, Germany, during the Nazi era. A photograph of him amid a crowd of Nazi supporters, in which he conspicuously refrained from giving the Nazi salute unlike the others, later brought him fame. In this way, he demonstrated his courageous distance from fascism. But when we look at Landmesser’s life, we see a thoroughly ordinary man. Like others, he was a member of the Nazi Party for five years, which means he had gone along with the crowd. But the Party did not permit his marriage to a woman who later turned out to be Jewish, and he was imprisoned solely for insisting on living with his wife, with whom he also had children. His biography does not portray him as a political fighter. Rather, he had simply fallen in love with a woman whom he only later discovered had Jewish roots (and he shared this very point with the Party in his defense), though he refused to leave her. No sign of being unordinary can be found in his life. Yet, despite his ordinariness, he was not a fascist.

Ordinariness is perhaps the most accessible and possibly the most acceptable state in which the majority of people can find themselves. Fascism, by stark contrast, is essentially the product of those who distance themselves from ordinariness and pursue the path of the ideal human (or the Nietzschean Übermensch). Ordinariness may hold no honor, but in most cases, it is not blameworthy either.

Yaser Mirdamadi/ Rag-e Harf 4