q

HITLER AND THE AESTHETICIZATION OF POLITICS 5

Lesson 4 :Walter Benjamin's statement (made in 1936) about the "aestheticization of politics" under German fascism.

The anesthetization of politics as an idea and significant ingredient to the Fascist regimes first coined and developed by Walter Benjamin. In the theory, the affairs of life and life itself are conceived of as artistic (Ungureanu, 2015). Walter Benjamin notes that politics are viewed in turn as artistic, and are in the structure of an art form reciprocating the artistic belief and conception that life is seen as an art. It has also been established that the artistic form of politics is strongly attached to the Italian Futurist movement, and advanced as the major motivation for getting interconnected or involved in the Italian Fascist regime.

On a general point, fascism is coined as the articulation of pseudo-rebellion against capitalist governments in keeping the latter in authority and power (Ungureanu, 2015). Therefore, the paradoxical idea cannot be solely explained, deduced or derived from the views of bourgeois common-sense standpoints like theories anchored on already composed groups or subjects supposed to rationally respond according to the objective class interests.

In simpler terms, fascism is the violent formation, mobilization and finally destruction of particular people groups to keep things in the status quo-whatever the goals or fantasies, interests and concerns of its victims and agents are (Ungureanu, 2015). From this perspective, fascism would take the paradigmatic type of ideological displacement. Several theories, general field, hidden variant theories, intentionlist and structuralist explain Hitler’s appeal. The general field theories concentrates generally on the overall German situation during the 1920s and the early months of 1930.

Critics subscribing to these theories explain that populist demagogues in the form of Hitler would have sufficed to introduce Nazism (Ungureanu, 2015). From such critics and the related theories, the uprising of fascism in Germany was a structural issue overdeternined with historical factors such as German humiliation after the First World War, economic crisis and modernization which owned nothing to Adolf Hitler (Simons, 2016). The rest of the theories establish bidden variables capable of explaining why Hitler and no one else stood out at the pivotal center of the Nazi movement. Some psychologists such as C.G. Jung explained that the powers exhibited by Hitler was magic, and not political.

Over the past years, the work of Walter Benjamin has witnessed a resurgence in interest from different quarters. The most important aspect of his works is the brilliant dimension in which he would diagnose the manner in which capitalism concentrates (saturates) into the fabric of the political and social culture (Simons, 2016). In the essay: “The Work of Art in the age of mechanical reproduction,” the author charted the dimension in which art had forever been changed by technology. The ability to reproduce sound or images several times had established the potential for art democratization.

However, the democratization was blocked by the methods for the reproduction remaining the hands of few people (Simons, 2016). Therefore, undemocratic governments and regimes found it possible to use art for own benefits, the manner it had been feasible previously. Benjamin’s writing are composed, with the Nazi Germany as the focal point of his references. The Nazi German regime was knowledgeable of the methods it would deploy or use aesthetics ingeniously.

Despite the fact that Third Reich and Hitler opposed the poisons of modernity, both of them made use of the latest technology in relating their messages (Simons, 2016). They could grab the attention of their subjects, and firmly hold it, igniting their passions and imaginations and offering their leaderships a sense of ownership over systems that would drive them into dirt. The massive orchestrated rallies, the crisp, millions of party-member uniforms and the technologically innovative films of Leni Riefenstahl are perfect examples explaining how fascism aestheticized politics (Simons, 2016).

As Benjamin explains, violence could not be celebrated just for the sake, but was a regarded as fascinating and necessary virtue, even beautiful for the abilities to mobilize individuals’ bodies and minds. Critics repeated the statement and called it cryptic at the same time for several reasons. It must be understood that Aestheticization of politics by itself cannot be equated to fascism. Benjamin argues that fascism merely represents the introduction of aesthetics into political issues and governance.

On the other front, he is quick note that the manipulative link existing between fascism, art and politics is not strictly casual (Liu, 2015). The ability of leaders to transform human suffering attractive and pretty for political achievement or gain can persist well past the decline of typical fascists in the form of Franco, Mussolini and Hitler (Liu, 2015). In the modern age or culture, anesthetization of politics has become alarmingly quotidian. For instance, we have contemporary critics of culture such as Martin Jay and Terry Eagleton observing this in their writings.

In The Condition of Postmodernity by David Harvey, neoliberalism and the associated postmodern cultural explanation or logic have made coherence and meaning flexible, accountable not to facts, relative, but one which can be subjected to feelings (Liu, 2015). In such a platform, the aestheticization of politics has become more effortless as compared to the past. In the modern society, especially with regard to media technology, aestheticization of politics has been used by some political factions. United States presidential candidate Donald Trump for instance has made use of this especially in the Freedom Kids Performance connected with his description of a beautiful and great wall along the border of Mexico and America.

References