Stanley G. Payne | |
|---|---|
| Born | Stanley George Payne (1934-09-09)September 9, 1934 (age 91) Denton, Texas, U.S. |
| Occupation | Historian |
| Title | Professor Emeritus |
| Academic background | |
| Education | |
| Website | https://history.wisc.edu/people/payne-stanley/ |
Stanley George Payne (born September 9, 1934) is an Americanhistorian of modernSpain andEuropeanfascism at theUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison. He retired from full-time teaching in 2004 and is currentlyProfessor Emeritus at its Department of History.[1] His works on theSpanish Civil War and theFrancoist period received various estimates: while by the 1980s he had earned the reputation of "America's most prolific historian of Spain",[2] in the 21st century his works became known for their "revisionist" approach[3] and received criticism by some historians for being somewhat partial to Francoism.
Stanley Payne was born on September 9, 1934, inDenton, Texas. His father and mother were living inColorado before moving toTexas. His father found work as a carpenter after losing his job to theGreat Depression, and eventually became the foreman of a planing mill. His mother completed two years of nurse's training at a sanitarium inChicago, but was forced to drop out due to lack of support from her family. She was a Seventh Day Adventist. The family moved toSacramento, California, when Stanley was twelve and Stanley's parents divorced soon after.[4]
Payne received his bachelor's degree fromPacific Union College in 1955. He went on to earn a masters fromClaremont Graduate School and University Center in 1957 and a doctorate (Ph.D.) fromColumbia University in 1960.[citation needed]
Known for his typological description of fascism, Payne is a specialist in theSpanish fascist movement and has also produced comparative analyses of Western European fascism.
In the 1960s, his books were published inSpanish byÉditions Ruedo ibérico (ERi), a publishing company set up bySpanish Republican exiles inParis,France, to publish works forbidden in Spain by theFrancoist regime ruling the country at the time. He has been referred to by some historians as arevisionist due to his views.[5] One of his more famous books isSpanish Civil War, The Soviet Union and Communism, which analyzesJoseph Stalin and the Soviet government's intervention in Spain. He also wroteThe Franco Regime,The Spanish Civil War andA History of Fascism 1914–1945.
Payne presents histypology of generic fascism divided under three headings:[6]
A. Ideology and Goals:
- Espousal of anidealist,vitalist, andvoluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, andsecular culture
- Creation of a newnationalistauthoritarian state not based on traditional principles or models
- Organization of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether callednational corporatist,national socialist, ornational syndicalist
- Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence and war
- The goal of empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powers
B. The Fascist Negations:
- anti-liberalism
- anti-communism
- anti-conservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with groups from any other sector, most commonly with the right)
C. Style and Organization:
- Attemptedmass mobilization withmilitarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia
- Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing emotional andmystical aspects
- Extreme stress on themasculine principle and male dominance, while espousing a stronglyorganic view of society
- Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation
- Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective
To distinguish between fascist and non-fascist authoritarian nationalist groups, Payne divides these movements into fascist, radical right, andconservative authoritarian right.[7] Payne notes that these groups shared some of the same goals as fascists and that there were instances of usually temporary or circumstantial tactical alliances between them which sometimes led to outright fusion, especially between fascists and the radical right.[8]
Originally presented in his 1980 bookFascism: Comparison and Definition,[9] Payne updated his typology inA History of Fascism, 1914–1945 in 1995 to place a greater emphasis on ideology.[10] In the book, Payne also offers a one sentence definition:
"a form of revolutionaryultranationalism for national rebirth that is based on a primarily vitalist philosophy, is structured on extremeelitism, mass mobilization, and theFührerprinzip, positively values violence as end as well as means and tends to normatize war and/or the military virtues."[11][12]
He also asserts that there were some specific ways in whichNazism paralleled Russian communism to a much greater degree than Fascism was capable of doing. Payne does not propound the theory of "red fascism" nor the notion thatCommunism andNazism are essentially the same. He states that Nazism more nearly paralleled Russian communism than any other noncommunist system has.[13][14]
Roger Griffin described Payne's work as a "methodological breakthrough" and praises his typology as being "a deliberately schematized and simplified model which identifies what fascisms have in common rather than highlighting their undeniable complexity and uniqueness".[15] Griffin further describes Payne's typology as "[setting] up a superbly positioned and equipped base camp from which to carry out gruelling scholarly expeditions" and views it as "the most comprehensive and sophisticated expression" of the "new consensus" that sees fascism as a tangible political ideology centred aroundutopia rather thannihilism.[16]
Roger Eatwell describes Payne's 1995 book by saying: "Overall, there is no doubt that Payne's latest book is the best general history of fascism in the inter-war period, offering a finely tuned account of how the national differences between the various fascist movements do not negate the attempt to create a generic model."[10] However, Eatwell also criticises Payne's work for largely ignoring the intellectual basis of fascism and considers it a usefulheuristic starting point that "ultimately does little more than underline a few key words".[10] Eatwell criticises Payne's focus on fascism's negations and asserts that his model places an undue focus on the context of theinterwar period.[17]
Payne's work has been criticized as sympathetic to Francoism by some historians since the 1980s. In 1988,Charles Powell in a review of Payne'sThe Franco Regime, 1936-1975 described Payne as the "[having shown] the greatest benevolence toward the Franco regime" among "Anglo-American" scholars of the Spanish Civil War and wrote: "The attempt to summarize the origins of the civil war in a few pages leads the author to make value judgments that are not always justified... In general, his interpretation — and the use of expressions such as 'latent authoritarian situation' used to describe the political climate in the spring of 1936 — tends to justify the rebellion."[18] A year before,Paul Preston wrote a positive review ofThe Franco Regime, praising Payne as "America's most prolific historian of Spain" and arguing that the book "must surely become the standard work on this subject": "I do not agree with some of his judgments, particularly on the social costs of the regime, but I regardThe Franco Regime as the most solidly based and sanely balanced book yet to appear on this difficult subject. [...] It is to be hoped that its careful attempts at an objective narrative do not deprive it of the general readership it deserves."[2] In 1989, Robert Whealey praisedThe Franco Regime as presenting the "freshest account yet" on the Spanish Civil War, and stated that Payne "will remain the leading U.S. authority on twentieth-century Spain for some time to come." Whealey noted that the book had a conservative tone, but claimed it was essential reading for any twentieth-century historian of Europe.[19] F. J. R. Jiménez argues that Payne has become more conservative over time.[18] However, in his 2011 workSpain: A Unique History, Payne described the Unión de Centro Democrático (UCD), a centrist party, as the only Spanish political organization with which he ever felt thoroughly identified.[20]
Payne has been supportive of "revisionist" authors on the Spanish Civil War and Francoism. In 2003, Payne published an article in defense of the writerPío Moa, praising Moa's work as "critical, innovative" which, according to Payne, "introduced a breath of fresh air into a vital area of contemporary Spanish historiography"; Payne accused the Spanish universities and academics of undeservedly silencing and ostracizing Moa in the vein of "fascist Italy or the Soviet Union."Santos Juliá wrote in response: "Stanley Payne's paternalistic contempt is perplexing and disappointing [...] Today, researchers who, in Payne's opinion, publish nothing but "narrow and formulaic" studies have provided the necessary data to finally put an end to the purely propagandistic disputes surrounding the violence unleashed by the victors in the construction of [Francoist Spain], during and after the war."[18] In 2022, Payne stated that Moa's work while "imperfect" and containing "several" "interpretations" that "could be questioned" in general "was a major contribution to discussion of the Civil War," "unique in adopting a thematic and problem-oriented approach and in aggressively confronting the dominant myths," and repeated that major scholars should have discussed Moa's book instead of ignoring it.[21]
Ángel Viñas is highly critical of Payne's methods of research, including Payne's founding his interpretation almost entirely on secondary sources and not on primary evidence: "Payne's methodology and assumptions simply have no basis." In particular, he writes that Payne's workThe Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union, and Communism (2004) which supportsBurnett Bolloten's theses that the Communists and Stalin sought a takeover of Spain with the help of Juan Negrin "has now become hopelessly obsolete" due to "archival material" proving the opposite to Bolloten's and Payne's theses which, according to him, have never relied on concrete evidence. Viñas stated that while he admired Payne in the past, now he sees his works as driven by political agenda instead of research and accused him of promoting "Francoists myths" and narratives.[22][23] The Hispanist Henry Kamen praised Payne's work for utilizing research in Russian which used materials from Soviet police archives.[24]
In 2014 he publishedFranco. A Personal and Political Biography withJesús Palacios, who during his youth had been a member of the now-banned neo-Nazi groupCEDADE.[25] Since then, he has been considered an iconic figure inFrancoist revisionism.[26][27][28]Felipe Fernández-Armesto described this work as "vindication" of Franco;[29] Juan Carlos Losada writes that "Payne and Palacios drastically reduce the amount of violence lashed out by the rebels and add some alleged factors which militated in the same direction," "extoll Franco´s strategic capability and oppose the view that his military decisions kept the war going for too long," "take refuge in the customary topics about Juan Negrin being a Moscow agent and adhere to the conveniently modernized Francoist myths of the old historiography established during the Franco regime."[30] Claudio Hernandez Burgos in his review wrote that the biography of Franco presents itself as objective and a "third path" between neo-Francoist publications and "leftist" "anti-Francoist" historiography, but in fact offers "soft revisionism" which partially disagrees with neo-Francoists, but still places Francoist myths "beyond critical enquiry", downplays Francoist violence and Franco's personal role in it, and presents an "excessively indulgent" account of Franco's life and rule.[31]
|
|
Hay afinidades electivas, como las de Payne, que tienen un coste historiográfico notable. Por eso no es extraño que haya comentaristas que incluyan a paleo y neo revisionistas en el mismo saco para orgullo o jolgorio de los primeros y desconcierto de los últimos.
Stanley Payne, a revisionist historian of Spanish fascism at the University of Wisconsin Madison until his retirement in 2004, has penned a string of recent articles in rightwing outlets like First Things which invite readers to compare the US with Spain in the 1930s. He has reiterated a line that Franco's hand was forced by leftist violence and promoted the work of other revisionist historians like Pío Moa, who many professional historians dismiss as a "pseudo-historian".
{{cite book}}:Check|isbn= value: checksum (help)
