En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

vendredi, 27 mars 2020

Evola and Italian Philosophy, 1925–49: Three Biographical and Bibliographical Essays


Evola and Italian Philosophy, 1925–49: Three Biographical and Bibliographical Essays

by Gianfranco de Turris, Stefano Arcella & Alessandro Barbera

Translation by Fergus Cullen

The following essays all appeared in Vouloir 119–121 (1996), the supplement to the revue Orientations, edited by Robert Steuckers. They centre on Julius Evola’s relations with the two major figures of Italian philosophy in the interwar period.

In “Evola, ultime tabou?” (pp. 1–3), Gianfranco de Turris asks if the rehabilitation enjoyed by such philosophers as Giovanni Gentile, previously denounced as Fascist, might be afforded to Evola. He briefly sketches the case in his favour: unlike the marginal crank of post-War imagination, Evola seems to have maintained relations with such figures of the first rank as Gentile and Benedetto Croce. In “Gentile/Evola: une liaison ami/ennemi…” (pp. 3–5) Stefano Arcella examines Evola’s fertile collaboration with Gentile and Ugo Spirito on the Enciclopedia Italiana. And in “Quand Benedetto Croce ‘sponsorisait’ Evola” (pp. 5–7) Alessandro Barbera investigates the Croce connection, looking in some detail at the correspondence between Evola, Croce, and the publisher Laterza.

French originals:




PDF of this translation:



Gianfranco de Turris

Evola: the Last taboo?

by Gianfranco de Turris

gdtlivre.jpgWe will surely remember 1994 better than 1984, which Orwell immortalised by writing his celebrated apocalyptic book predicting an ultra-totalitarian world in which we all would have been irredeemably crushed. We will not remember it solely for the political event of 27 March in Italy, but above all for the consequences that this “reversal” might (I insist on the conditional!) have in the cultural sphere. Whatever one may thing of the victory of Berlusconi and his allies, it has already had a first result: the organisation of a colloquium dedicated to the personality of Giovanni Gentile; it was held in Rome on 20 and 21 May 1994 on the initiative of the leftist municipal council (which does honour to the Italian left, as does the other colloquium it dedicated to Nietzsche). We remember he whom we always defined as the “philosopher of Fascism,” fifty years after his death, when he was assassinated by a commando of communist partisans in Florence on 15 April 1944. After having beaten a long and sinuous intellectual course, many post-Marxist philosophers, such as Colletti, Marramao and Cacciari, claimed him for an authentic figure of the left, at least in a decent part of his work.

So Gentile recovers all his dignity for the “official” culture in Italy: of course, this concerns first of all Gentile the philosopher, and not the man and political militant. All the same, his rehabilitation as a philosopher marks a step forward in the liberation of spirits. So the last taboo for Italian intellectuals remains Julius Evola, as Pierluigi Battista nicely put it in the columns of Tuttolibri. Now, this year we also commemorate the twentieth anniversary of Evola’s death (11 June 1974). For Gentile, Italian official culture has at last come to accept, after a half-century and only some years before the year 2000, the position and importance of the “actualist” and Fascist philosopher. For Evola, on the contrary, a silence is always held, even is, imperceptibly, one feels that something is in the process of changing.

Luciferian Dilettante

Evola, in official culture, is thrown from one extreme to the other: on the one hand, he’s a demon, the Devil, an almost Luciferian personage, an ultra-racist to whom salvation is never to be granted; on the other, he’s culture’s sock-puppet, the inexact dilettante, unscientific and superficial, a clown of esotericism, “il Divino Otelma.” In interesting ourselves in him, we then risk toppling into the laughable, unless a more authorised voice begins to speak of him.

So there is still much work to be done on Evola, whether it be as a thinker of multiple interests, as an organiser of colloquia and promoter of intellectual initiatives between the Wars, as a man of culture and innumerable contacts, who received many suggestions from his contemporaries and gave in his turn.

During the twenty years that have passed since his death, few things have been done on his work and person in Italy; and these were the work of a small number of those who had always referred to Evola. We’ve found neither the time nor the manpower. It’s a bitter truth; but it’s so. It suffices to consider archival research: to reconstitute the facts and ideas, to fill in the “voids” in the life and in the evolution of Evolian thought, we need the documents; and these are still not all archived. The documents exist: it suffices to go and search where one thinks they might be found…


For example, we don’t have access to the complete documentation on the relations between Evola and the Italian philosophical world of the ’20s and ’30s: Croce, Gentile, Spirito, Tilgher… We only finally know what Evola recounts of himself in his “spiritual autobiography,” The Path of Cinnabar. Ultimately, we know what we can deduce of his positions on diverse philosophical systems and on what we surmise intuitively. In general, we only know the views and opinions on Evola of the historians and academics who have especially studied that period of Italian culture: and they say that Evola was an isolated, marginal figure; that his ideas were not taken into consideration; that he was a singular, if not folkloric, figure. But do these opinions really correspond to reality?

We believe that we can today affirm that things were not so simple: that Evola was more relevant in his epoch than we’ve believed him to be. And we affirm this on the basis of a series of indications, hidden until today. The Roman weekly L’Italia settimanale is cataloguing these indications for the first time in a special supplement, in the hope of provoking debate and research.

Sponsored by Croce?

Evola maintained far more complex relations with Croce and Gentile that we’ve believed for many decades. Can we imagine an Evola “sponsored” by Croce? An Evola, collaborator with the Enciclopedia Italiana, patronised by the Mussolinian regime and directed by Gentile? An Evola close to Adriano Tilgher? An Evola in direct contact with Ugo Spirito? We can now divine that these relations were pursued more than we imagined them; but we have neither formal proofs nor the documents that definitively attest to them. The “isolated figure” was not, ultimately, isolated; the marginalised personage, as well, was not marginalised as we wished to say; the intellectual who, under Fascism, had amounted to not much, or missed out on everything, had been, ultimately, of more impact that we’d thought him. I think that we must seek out and recognise our fault: that of not having contemplated this sooner, and having given a truncated picture of Evola; with a complete vision of Evolian words and deeds, we may be able to refute many commonplaces. This won’t be possible unless the Croce Archives at Naples and the Gentile Foundation at Rome agree to let us consult the documents they hold and that concern the relations of Croce and Gentile with Evola.

Better late than never. The future will tell, after our work is done, whether Evola will always be, for progressivist culture, a taboo, will be the Devil, a clown…


Stefano Arcella

Gentile and Evola: Friends and Enemies

by Stefano Arcella

The relations between Evola and Gentile have always been seen from the perspective of conflict, from the perspective of profound differences between the respective philosophical orientations of the two men. Evola, in his speculative period (1923–7), elaborated a conception of the absolute individual, representing a decisive overcoming of idealist philosophy in all its multiple formulations—notably those of Croce’s idealism and Gentile’s actualism. Evola, in reaching the end of his speculations, already approached the threshold of tradition, understood and perceived as openness to transcendence, and towards esotericism (as an experimental method for the knowledge and realisation of the self). His speculative period had thus been a necessary step on his path towards Tradition.

For all that, in the history of the relations between these two thinkers, there is an element that has remained utterly unknown before now: if we make ourselves aware of it, we acquire a clearer, more direct and more complete vision of the bond that united these two men—enemies to all appearances. This element is the correspondence between Evola and Gentile, which we can now consule, thanks to the courtesy the Fondazione Gentile has shown. This correspondence dates to the years 1927–9, to the time during which Evola directed the revue Ur, a publication aimed at working out a science of the Self, and which was subsequently titled a “revue of esoteric science.”

It was at this time that Gentile, with his collaborators, prepared a work of great scientific importance: the Enciclopedia Italiana, of which he was the first director. The first volume of this gargantuan work, commissioned by the Mussolinian regime, was produced in 1929. The following tomes appeared quarterly.

The most significant letter, at least from an historico-cultural perspective, is that sent by Evola to Gentile on 2 May 1928 (the year in which Imperialismo pagano was published). This letter is on paper with the letterhead of the revue Ur; it thanks Gentile heartily for having acted upon his wish to collaborate on the Enciclopedia Italiana; and Evola, in what follows, makes reference to his friend Ugo Spirito regarding the areas that might fall within his expertise.

This collaboration is confirmed in a letter of 17 May 1929, in which Evola reminds Gentile that the latter entrusted the writing of certain entries to Ugo Spirito, who in turn entrusted them to him. In this letter, Evola doesn’t specify precisely which entries are concerned, which makes our researches more difficult. Currently, we have identified with only one entry with certitude, relating to the term “Atanor,” signed with the initials “G.E.” (Giulio Evola).

These points can be verified in the volume Enciclopedia Italiana: Come e da chi è stata fatta, published under the auspices of the Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana in Milan in 1947. Evola is mentioned in the list of collaborators (Evola, Giulio, p. 182); and also mentioned are the initials which he used to sign the entries of his expertise (G. Ev.), as well as the specialism in which his expertise was incorporated: “occultism.” This term designates the specialisation of the Traditionalist thinker, and not an entry in the Encyclopaedia. Furthermore, the citations, which this little introductory volume indicates beside the matter treated, suggest the volume on which Evola collaborated especially: it was vol. V, published in 1930, whose first entry was “Assi,” and last “Balso.”

Currently, we seek to identify precisely the notes prepared by Evola himself for this volume. We account for the fact that a good number of entries weren’t signed, and that the preparatory material for the Encyclopaedia must constantly be recategorised and put in order under the auspices of the Archivio Storico dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, because these masses of documents were dispersed in the course of the Second World War. Indeed, one part of the documentation had been transferred to Bergamo under the Social Republic.

Another element lets us verify Evola’s participation in this work of broad scope: Ugo Spirito mentions the name Evola in a text of 1947 among the writers of the Encyclopaedia in the domains of philosophy, economy and law. Identical indications are found in vol. V of 1930.

presentazione del libro  misteri antichi e pensiero vivente  di stefano arcella - interviene l'autore-3.jpg

On the basis of his data, further considerations are in order. The fact that Evola wrote to Gentile on paper with the Ur letterhead, on 2 May 1928, is not random.

Evola was not a man who acted at random, above all when he might be put in contact with a philosopher of Gentile’s standing, a figure of the first rank in the Italian cultural landscape of the era. Evola then didn’t present himself to the theoretician of actualism in a personal capacity, but as the representative of a cultural thread which found its expression in Ur, the revue of which he was the director. Evola hereby attempted to formalise esoteric studies and sciences within the bounds of the dominant culture, at the historical moment at which Mussolinian Fascism triumphed. This purpose is divined immediately when one knows that the discipline attributed especially to Evola in the Encyclopaedia was “occultism.”


Giovanni Gentile

Gentile then accepts Evola’s collaboration, which represents, in fact, an avowed recognition of the qualifications of the theoretician of the absolute individual, as well as an indication of the attention given by Gentile to the themes treated in Ur, beyond the convictions that oppose one man to the other, and the irreducible differences of a philosophical order that separate them. Evola’s collaboration on the Encyclopaedia directed by Gentile proves that the latter counted him among the first rank of scientific minds, the cultural prestige of which was incontestable in the Italy of that epoch. From these epistolary exchanges between Evola and Gentile, we can deduce, today, a lesson which the two philosophers bequeath us in concert: they both show themselves capable of harmoniously integrating coherences to which they are strangers—coherences which contradict their own principles—which attests to an openness of spirit and a propensity for dialogue; to fertile confrontation and to collaboration, even and above all with those who express a marked otherness in character and ideas. Coherence is a positive force: it is not the rigidity of him who shuts himself up in sterile isolation. A fair play upon which it suits to meditate at this moment, at which some shout their heads off for a new inquisition.

For fifty years, we have witnessed an uncritical, misguided and unfounded demonization of our two thinkers; we’ve observed a gulf of incomprehension, of barriers which, happily, we might begin to break today, in view of the processes of transformation at work in the world of culture. All the same, the degradation of cultural debate in the aftermath of anti-fascism or party spirit is an unhappy reality of our era. To reverse the trend, it suits to return the spotlight on these bonds between Evola and Gentile—between two philosophers belonging to entirely different and opposite schools—in order to launch a debate at the Italian national level; to re-examine the roots of our recent history; to recuperate what has been unjustly stifled since 1945 and scrubbed from our consciousness in a burning fever of damnatio memoriae.

In conclusion, besides the path that the consultation of the Laterza archives offers us to explore the relations between Croce and Evola, we would also like to consult the letters of Croce; but alas, the Croce Archives have told us in so many words that “those letters are not consultable.” These are politics diametrically opposed to those practiced by the Fondazione Gentile, which itself permits one to consult, without difficulty, the letters of which I’ve informed you.


Alessandro Barbero

When Benedetto Croce “Sponsored” Evola

by Alessandro Barbero

Julius Evola and Benedetto Croce. In appearance, these two thinkers are very distant from one another. That said, for a certain period of their coexistence, they were in contact. And it wasn’t an ephemeral episode, but a link of long standing, lasting for almost a decade, from 1925 to 1933. To be more precise, we should say that Croce, in this relation, played the part of “protector,” and Evola the role of “protégé.” This relation began when Evola entered the prestigious Areopagus of authors at the publisher Laterza of Bari.

In the ’30s, Evola published many works with Laterza, which have been reissued post-War. Now, today, we still don’t know the details of these links within the publisher. In fact, two researchers, Daniela Coli and Marco Rossi, have already furnished us in the past with intelligence on the triangular relation between Evola, Croce and the publisher Laterza. Daniela Coli approached the question in a work published ten years ago with Il Mulino (Croce, Laterza e la cultura europea, 1983). Marco Rossi, for his part, raised the question in a series of articles dedicated to the cultural itinerary of Julius Evola in the ’30s, and published in Renzo de Felice’s review Storia contemporanea (6, December 1991). In his autobiography, The Cinnabar Path (Scheiwiller, 1963), Evola evokes the relations he maintained with Croce, but tells us very little, ultimately: far less, in any case, than we can divine today. Evola wrote that Croce, in a letter, did him the honour of appraising one of his books: “Well ordered, and underpinned by reasoning quite exact.” And Evola adds that he knew Croce well, personally. The inquest leads us straight to the archives of the publishers at Bari, currently deposited at the State archives of that town, which might consent to furnish us with far more detailed indications as to the relations having united these two men.

The first of Evola’s letters that we find in Laterza’s house archives isn’t dated, but must trace to the end of June 1925. In this missive, the Traditionalist thinker replies to a preceding negative response, and pleads for the publication of his Teoria dell’individuo assoluto. He writes:

It is assuredly not a happy situation in which I find myself, I, the author, obliged to insist and to struggle for your attention on the serious character and interest of this work: I believe that the recommendation of Mr. Croce is a sufficient guarantee to prove it.

Theory of the Absolute Individual

The liberal philosopher’s interest is also confirmed in a letter addressed by Laterza to Giovanni Preziosi, send on 4 June of the same year. The publisher writes: “I have had on my desk for more than twenty hours the notes that Mr. Croce sent me concerning J. Evola’s book, Teoria dell’individuo assoluto; and he recommends its publication.” In fact, Croce visited Bari around 15 May; and it was on this occasion that he transmitted his notes to Giovanni Laterza. But the book was published by Bocca in 1927. That was the first intervention, of a long series, by the philosopher in Evola’s favour.


Some years later, Evola returned to knock at the door of the Bari publisher, in order to promote another of his works. In a letter sent on 23 July 1928, the Traditionalist proposed to Laterza the publication of a work on alchemical Hermeticism. On this occasion, he reminded Laterza of the Croce’s intercession on behalf of his work of a philosophical nature. This time once more, Laterza responded in the negative. Two years passed before Evola reoffered the book, having on this occasion obtained, for the second time, Croce’s support. On 13 May 1930, Evola wrote: “Senator Benedetto Croce communicated to me that you do not envisage, in principle, the possibility of publishing one of my works on the Hermetic tradition in your collection of esoteric works.” But this time, Laterza accepted Evola’s request without opposition. In the correspondence of that era between Croce and Laterza that one finds in the archives, there are no references to this book of Evola’s. This is why we may suppose that they had spoken of it in person at Croce’s house in Naples, where Giovanni Laterza has in fact stayed some days previous. In conclusion, five years after his first intervention, Croce succeeded finally in getting Evola into Laterza’s catalogue.

The third expression of interest on the part of Croce probably originated in Naples, and concerns the reedition of Cesare della Riviera’s book, Il mondo magico degli Heroi. Of the dialogues relative to this reedition, we find a first letter of 20 January 1932, in which Laterza complains to Evola of having failed to find notes on this book. A day later, Evola responds and asks that he be procured a copy of the original second edition, that he might cast an eye over it. Meanwhile, on 23 January, Croce wrote to Laterza:

I have seen in the shelves of the Biblioteca Nazionale that book of Riviera’s on magic; it’s a lovely example of what I believe to be the first edition of Mantova, 1603. It must be reissued, with dedication and preface.

The book ended up being published with a preface by Evola and his modernised transcription. A reading of the correspondence permits us to admit the following hypothesis: Croce had suggested to Laterza to entrust this work to Evola. The latter, in a letter to Laterza dated 11 February, gave his view and judged that “the thing was more boring that I’d thought it would be.”

The Anthology of Bachofen’s Writings

The fourth attempt, which was not welcomed, concerned a translation of selected writings by Bachofen. In a letter of 7 April 1933, to Laterza, Evola wrote:

With Senator Croce, we once mentioned the interest which might receive a translation of passages selected from Bachofen, a philosopher of myth much in vogue today in Germany. If this thing interests you (it might eventually join the “Modern Culture” series), I can tell you what it concerns, taking into account the opinion of Senator Croce.

In fact, Croce was preoccupied by Bachofen’s theses, as a series of articles from 1923 demonstrates. On 12 April, Laterza consults the philosopher: “Evola wrote me that you had spoken of a volume that would compile passages selected from Bachofen. Is it a project that we ought to take into consideration?” In Croce’s response, dated the following day, there is no reference to this project; but we ought to account for one fact: the letter has not been conserved in its original form.


Benedetto Croce

Evola, in any case, had not rejected the idea of producing this anthology of Bachofen’s writings. In a letter of 2 May, he announces that he proposes “to write to Senator Croce, that he might remind him of to what he had alluded” in a conversation between the two. In a second letter, dated to 23, Evola asked of Laterza if he in turn had asked the opinion of Croce, while confirming that he’d written to the philosopher. Two days later, Laterza declares not “to have asked Croce for his opinion” regarding the translation, because, he adds, “he fears lest he approve of it.” This is clearly a deceit. In fact, Laterza had asked the opinion of Croce; but we still don’t know what this opinion was, nor what had been decided. The anthology of selected writings of Bachofen was finally produced, many years later, in 1949, by Bocca. From 1933, the links between Evola and Croce seem to come to an end, at least from what the Laterza house archives permit us to include.

To find the trace of a reconciliation, we must refer ourselves to the post-War period, when Croce and Evola almost met once more in the world of publishing, but without the Traditionalist thinker noticing. In 1948, on 10 December, Evola proposed to Franco Laterza, who had just succeeded his father, to publish a translation of a book by Robert Reininger, Nietzsche e il senso de la vita. After having received the text, on 17 February, Laterza wrote to Alda Croce, the daughter of the philosopher: “I enclose to you a manuscript on Nietzsche, translated by Evola. It seems to me a good work; might you see if we can include it in the ‘Library of Modern Culture’?” On 27 of the same month, the philosopher responds. Croce considers that the operation might be possible; but he provides a few reservations all the same. He postpones his decision till Alda’s return, who was a few days in Palermo. The final decision was taken in Naples, around the 23 March 1949, in the presence of Franco Laterza. The opinion of Croce is negative, seemingly under the influence of his daughter Alda. On 1 April, Laterza confirms to Evola that “the book was much appreciated [without specifying by whom] on account of its quality,” but that, for reasons of “expediency,” it had been decided not to publish it. The translation appeared much later, in 1971, with Volpe.

This refusal to publish puzzled Evola, who didn’t know the real whys and wherefores. A year later, in some letters, returning the issue to the table, Evola raised the hypothesis of a “purge.” This insinuation irritated Laterza. Following this controversy, relations between the writer and the publisher cooled. In the final analysis, we can conclude that Evola was introduced to Laterza thanks to Croce’s interest in him. He left on account of a negative opinion offered by Alda, Croce’s daughter, on one of his proposals.

dimanche, 30 novembre 2014

Ripensare Gentile e Gramsci


DIEGO FUSARO e MARCELLO VENEZIANI: Ripensare Gentile e Gramsci

jeudi, 30 octobre 2014

Marx e Gentile: idealismo è rivoluzione

Marx e Gentile: idealismo è rivoluzione
Articolo pubblicato in «Il Primato Nazionale»
Ex: http://augustomovimento.blogspot.com
Il mondo non dobbiamo necessariamente accettarlo così com’è. L’uomo ha sempre la possibilità, grazie alla sua volontà creatrice, di trasformalo. È questo, in sostanza, il messaggio che ci viene dalla tradizione filosofica dell’idealismo. Ed è sempre questo il fil rouge lungo cui si dipana l’interessante volume di Diego Fusaro Idealismo e prassi: Fichte, Marx e Gentile (Il melangolo, pp. 414, € 35), uscito da qualche mese nelle librerie italiane.
L’autore, giovane filosofo torinese e ricercatore presso l’Università San Raffaele di Milano, è tra le altre cose il fondatore di filosofico.net, il sito internet in cui, volenti o nolenti, sono incappati quasi tutti gli studenti di filosofia. Fusaro inoltre, a dispetto dell’età, ha già dato alle stampe diverse e interessanti opere, come Bentornato Marx! Rinascita di un pensiero rivoluzionario (2009) e Minima mercatalia: filosofia e capitalismo (2012). Più in particolare, Fusaro appartiene a quella sinistra, purtroppo minoritaria, che ha come esponenti di punta il compianto Costanzo Preve e Gianfranco La Grassa. Quella sinistra cioè che, nell’epoca del dilagante trasformismo della sinistra «istituzionale», non ha rinunciato ai padri nobili della sua tradizione culturale e a una critica serrata dell’odierno capitalismo, ossia il capitalismo finanziario (o «finanzcapitalismo», secondo la definizione di Luciano Gallino).
Insomma il postcomunista Pd, rinnegando la sua storia, ha ceduto in tutto alle logiche del capitale, costituendone anzi una delle «sovrastrutture» ideologiche (per usare il linguaggio marxiano) con la sua bieca retorica del politicamente corretto e la paradossale difesa della legalità e delle regole (capitalistiche). Come direbbe Fusaro, si è passati da Carlo Marx a Roberto Saviano, da Antonio Gramsci a Serena Dandini.
Di qui la rivolta del giovane filosofo che, rileggendo Marx, offre una chiara interpretazione del pensatore di Treviri come nemico di ogni supina accettazione dell’esistente, ponendo in rilievo gli aspetti idealistici del suo pensiero. Di qui, anche, il rifiuto di ogni pensiero debole postmoderno e l’assunzione da parte della filosofia di una funzione interventista e attivistica. La filosofia, dunque, non più vista come mera erudizione estetizzante o come cane da guardia del «migliore dei mondi possibili», ma come strumento per trasformare la realtà. Una filosofia, insomma, che riacquista finalmente la sua dimensione epica ed eroica, come la intendeva Giovanni Gentile.
Diego Fusaro con il suo libro su Marx
Ed è proprio al filosofo di Castelvetrano e al suo rapporto con Marx che Fusaro dedica pagine importanti del suo nuovo libro, proponendo un’interpretazione certamente unilaterale del pensiero marxista, ma tutt’altro che illegittima. È in particolare il Marx delle Tesi su Feuerbach che emerge prepotentemente dall’opera di Fusaro: quel Marx che criticava il materialismo «volgare» dello stesso Feuerbach e che si concentrava maggiormente sul concetto di prassi – quella prassi che, contro ogni determinismo, era sempre in grado di rifiutare una realtà sentita come estranea per fondare un nuovo mondo. La prassi, quindi, come fonte inesauribile di rivoluzione.
Non è un caso, del resto, che sarà proprio Gentile a valorizzare il Marx filosofo della prassi, in quel famoso volume (La filosofia di Marx, 1899) che Augusto Del Noce indicò, non senza qualche evidente esagerazione, come l’atto di nascita del fascismo. Nonostante una ottusa damnatio memoriae che ancora grava su Gentile, ma che è già stata messa in crisi da molti autorevoli filosofi (Marramao, Natoli, Severino, ecc.), Fusaro riafferma la indiscutibile grandezza filosofica del padre dell’attualismo. Lo definisce giustamente, anzi, come il più grande filosofo italiano del Novecento. Non per una mera questione di gusto o di tifo, naturalmente, ma per un fatto molto semplice: tutti i filosofi italiani del XX secolo, nello sviluppo più vario del loro pensiero, si sono necessariamente dovuti confrontare con Gentile. «Gentile – scrive l’autore – sta al Novecento italiano come Hegel – secondo la nota tesi di Karl Löwith – sta all’Ottocento tedesco».
Fusaro, dunque, ricostruisce tutto quel percorso intellettuale che da Fichte, passando per Hegel e Marx, giunge sino a Gentile che, non a caso definito Fichte redivivus da H. S. Harris, chiude il cerchio. Di qui l’interpretazione dell’atto puro di Gentile alla luce della prassi marxiana, così come, per converso, la lettura di Gramsci come «gentiliano» che ha conosciuto Marx filtrato dal filosofo siciliano. Tesi, quest’ultima, tutt’altro che nuova (pensiamo anche solo ai recenti lavori di Bedeschi e Rapone), ma che ancora non ha fatto breccia negli ambienti semi-colti del «ceto medio riflessivo» che legge Repubblica, ripudia Gramsci e ha per guru Eugenio Scalfari.
Il Palazzo della civiltà italiana o della civiltà del lavoro,
comunemente noto come «colosseo quadrato» (Eur, Roma)
Ad ogni modo, non mancherebbero le obiezioni ad alcune tesi di Fusaro sul rapporto di Gentile con Marx, dal momento che l’autore non tiene nel minimo conto gli elementi mazziniani e nietzscheani del pensiero del filosofo attualista, così come manca qualsiasi riferimento alle correnti culturali del fascismo che provenivano dal socialismo non marxista e che non mancarono di influenzare Gentile. Mi riferisco, in particolare, al sindacalismo rivoluzionario (A. O. Olivetti, S. Panunzio) e al socialismo idealistico dello stesso Mussolini: quel socialismo, cioè, che aveva scoperto che rivoluzionaria non era la classe, ma la nazione. Mi riferisco, inoltre, alle giovani leve degli anni Trenta che volevano edificare la «civiltà del lavoro», glorificata dal fascismo con il cosiddetto «colosseo quadrato» che campeggia tra le imponenti costruzioni dell’Eur.
Senza Mazzini e gli altri «profeti» del Risorgimento, del resto, non si potrebbero comprendere gli elementi nazionali del pensiero gentiliano, così come il significato che Gentile dava al termine «umanità». Far discendere l’«umanesimo del lavoro» di Genesi e struttura della società (1946, postumo) da un «ritorno» di Gentile a un confronto con Marx, come fa Fusaro, è dunque possibile solo se si prescinde deliberatamente da tutto il dibattito che la cultura fascista sviluppò negli anni Trenta, con Ugo Spirito, Berto Ricci e Niccolò Giani. E in questo senso allora sarebbe anche possibile interpretare l’umanesimo gentiliano in senso egualitarista. Ma lo stesso Gentile, in alcuni importanti interventi, ha chiarito come intendeva l’universalità (e non l’universalismo), che doveva basarsi sul concetto romano di imperium e su una missione civilizzatrice dell’Italia (e qui ritorna Mazzini), come messo ben in evidenza da Gentile nel fondamentale articolo Roma eterna (1940). Un’universalità verticale, quindi, intesa come ascesa, e non un universalismo orizzontale e azzeratore delle differenze in nome di un’astratta concezione di uomo, avulsa da qualsiasi contesto storico e culturale concreto. In questo senso, dunque, l’umanesimo gentiliano è fondamentalmente sovrumanismo, come lo ha magistralmente descritto Giorgio Locchi.
Giovanni Gentile
Anche sul concetto di «apertura della storia», su cui giustamente insiste il Fusaro, bisognerebbe intendersi. D’altronde, già Karl Löwith sottolineò, nell’immediato dopoguerra, il messianismo intrinseco alla filosofia della storia marxiana. Secondo la teoria scientifica, infatti, il proletariato, ottenuta la coscienza di classe grazie allo sfruttamento capitalistico, avrebbe dovuto, per il tramite dell’azione del partito comunista, abolire le classi e lo Stato, ristabilendo le condizioni dell’Urkommunismus, sebbene in una forma «arricchita», con tutti i vantaggi, cioè, della moderna tecnologia. In questo senso, il marxismo lavorava anch’esso per l’uscita dalla storia che, invece di coincidere con la planetaria democrazia liberale di Francis Fukuyama, avrebbe istituito l’agognata società comunista e la fine di ogni volontà storificante dell’uomo.
Ad ogni modo, queste brevi e sintetiche obiezioni non vogliono in alcun modo sminuire l’eccellente opera di Fusaro, che è invece quanto di meglio si possa leggere oggi in un desolante contesto politico e culturale totalmente appecoronato alle logiche demoliberali, mondialiste e finanzcapitalistiche. La rilettura di Marx in senso idealistico, anzi, ha un innegabile merito: riportare al centro dell’azione politica la volontà creatrice dell’uomo, che scaturisce dalla sua libertà storica. È, in altri termini, il ritorno della filosofia a un approccio rivoluzionario alla realtà. Filosofia non più intesa come glorificazione dell’esistente, ma come motore di storia. Il che, si converrà, se non è tutto, è certamente molto.

jeudi, 09 octobre 2014

Giovanni Gentile, filosofo del combate

mercredi, 01 octobre 2014

Riprendersi Giovanni Gentile

lundi, 24 février 2014

Marx y Gentile: idealismo es revolución

por Valerio Benedetti

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

El mundo no tenemos que aceptarlo necesariamente tal y como es. El hombre siempre tiene la posibilidad, gracias a su voluntad creadora, de transformarlo. Es este, en sustancia, el mensaje que nos viene de la tradición filosófica del idealismo. Y es siempre este el hilo conductor a lo largo del cual se desenvuelve el interesante volumen de Diego Fusaro, Idealismo e prasssi: Fichte, Marx e Gentile (Il melangolo, pp. 414, € 35), aparecido hace algunos meses en las librerías italianas.

El autor, joven filósofo turinés e investigador en la Universidad San Raffaele de Milán, es, entre otras cosas, el fundador de filosófico.net, el sitio de Internet en el que, se quiera o no, han recalado casi todos los estudiantes de filosofía. Además, Fusaro, a pesar de su edad, ya ha publicado diversas e interesantes obras, como Bentornato Marx!, Rinascita di un pensiero rivoluzionario (2009) y Minima mercatalia: filosofia e capitalismo (2012). Más en particular, Fusaro pertenece a esa izquierda, lamentablemente minoritaria, que tiene como exponentes de punta al llorado Costanzo Preve y a Gianfranco La Grassa. Es decir, esa izquierda que, en la época del creciente transformismo de la izquierda «institucional», no ha renunciado a los padres nobles de su tradición cultural y a una crítica afilada del actual capitalismo, es decir, del capitalismo financiero (o «finanzcapitalismo», según la definición de Luciano Gallino).

En definitiva, el postcomunista Pd (Partido democrático), renegando de su historia, ha cedido en todo a las lógicas del capital, constituyendo más bien una de sus «superestructuras» ideológicas (para usar el lenguaje marxiano) con su espantosa retórica de la corrección política y la paradójica defensa de la legalidad y de las reglas (capitalistas). Como diría Fusaro, se ha pasado de Karl Marx a Roberto Saviano, de Antonio Gramsci a Serena Dandini. De aquí la revuelta del joven filósofo que, releyendo a Marx, ofrece una clara interpretación del pensador de Tréveris como enemigo de toda supina aceptación de lo existente, poniendo de relieve los aspectos idealistas de su pensamiento. De ahí también el rechazo de todo pensamiento débil postmoderno y la asunción por parte de la filosofía de una función intervencionista y activista. La filosofía, por tanto, no vista ya como mera erudición estetizante o como perro de guardia del «mejor de los mundos posibles» sino como instrumento para transformar la realidad. Una filosofía, en suma, que readquiera por fin su dimensión épica y heroica, como la entendía Giovanni Gentile.

Y precisamente al filósofo de Castelvetrano y a su relación con Marx dedica Fusaro páginas importantes de su nuevo libro, proponiendo una interpretación ciertamente unilateral del pensamiento marxista, pero en absoluto ilegítima. Es en particular el Marx de las Tesis sobre Feuerbach el que emerge con fuerza de la obra de Fusaro: aquel Marx que criticaba el materialismo «vulgar» del propio Feuerbach y que se concentraba mayormente en el concepto de praxis –la praxis que, contra todo determinismo, estaba siempre en condiciones de refutar una realidad sentida como extraña para fundar un nuevo mundo. La praxis, por tanto, como fuente inagotable de revolución.

Por lo demás, no es casualidad que sea precisamente Gentile quien valore al Marx filósofo de la praxis en aquel famoso volumen (La filosofia di Marx, 1899) que Augusto del Noce indicó, no sin alguna evidente exageración, como el acto de nacimiento del fascismo. Pese a una obtusa damnatio memoriae que todavía hoy pesa sobre Gentile, pero que ya ha sido puesta en crisis por muchos filósofos autorizados (Marramao, Natoli, Severino, etc.), Fusaro reafirma la indiscutible grandeza filosófica del padre del actualismo. Más bien, lo define justamente como el más grande filósofo italiano del Novecientos. No por una mera cuestión de gusto o de partidismo, naturalmente, sino por un hecho muy simple: todos los filósofos italianos del siglo XX, en el desarrollo más variado de su pensamiento, se han tenido que confrontar necesariamente con Gentile. «Gentile –escribe el autor –es para el Novecientos italiano lo que Hegel –según la conocida tesis de Karl Löwith –es para el Ochocientos alemán».

Fusaro, por tanto, reconstruye todo aquel recorrido intelectual que de Fichte, pasando por Hegel y Marx, llega hasta Gentile que, no por casualidad definido Fichte redivivus por H.S. Harris, cierra el círculo. De aquí la interpretación del acto puro de Gentile a la luz de la praxis marxiana, así como, inversamente, la lectura de Gramsci como «gentiliano» que conoció a Marx filtrado por el filósofo siciliano. Tesis, esta última, que no es en absoluto nueva (pensemos aunque sólo sea en los recientes trabajos de Bedeschi y Rapone) pero que todavía no se ha abierto camino en los ambientes semi-cultos de la «clase media reflexiva» que lee Repubblica, repudia a Gramsci y tiene por gurú a Eugenio Scalfari.

De todos modos, no faltarían las objeciones a algunas tesis de Fusaro sobre la relación de Gentile con Marx, desde el momento en que el autor no tiene mínimamente en cuenta los elementos mazzinianos y nietzscheanos del pensamiento del filósofo actualista, así como falta cualquier referencia a las corrientes culturales del fascismo que procedían del socialismo no marxista y que no dejaron de influir a Gentile. Me refiero en particular al sindicalismo revolucionario (A.O. Olivetti, S. Panunzio) y al socialismo idealista del propio Mussolini: el socialismo que había descubierto que revolucionaria no era la clase sino la nación. Me refiero, además, a las jóvenes levas de los años treinta que querían edificar la «civilización del trabajo», glorificada por el fascismo con el llamado «coliseo cuadrado» que campea entre las imponentes construcciones del Eur.

Sin Mazzini y los otros «profetas» del Resurgimiento, por lo demás, no se podrían comprender los elementos nacionales del pensamiento gentiliano, así como el significado que Gentile daba al término «humanidad». Hacer que el «humanismo del trabajo» de Genesi e struttura della società (1946, póstumo) descienda de un «retorno» de Gentile a una confrontación con Marx, como hace Fusaro, es posible sólo si se prescinde deliberadamente de todo el debate que la cultura fascista desarrolló en los años treinta, con Ugo Spirito, Berto Ricci y Niccolò Giani. Y en este sentido, entonces sería también posible interpretar el humanismo gentiliano en clave igualitarista. Pero el propio Gentile, en algunas intervenciones importantes, aclaró cómo entendía la universalidad (y no el universalismo), que debía basarse en el concepto romano de imperium y en una misión civilizadora de Italia (y aquí vuelve Mazzini), como bien lo evidenció Gentile en el fundamental artículo Roma eterna (1940). Una universalidad vertical, por tanto, entendida como ascenso, y no un universalismo horizontal y anulador de las diferencias en nombre de una abstracta concepción del hombre, alejada de cualquier contexto histórico y cultural concreto. En este sentido, por tanto, el humanismo gentiliano es fundamentalmente sobrehumanismo, como lo describió magistralmente Giorgio Locchi.

También sobre el concepto de «apertura de la historia», sobre el que justamente insiste Fusaro, habría que entenderse. Por otra parte, ya Karl Löwith subrayó en la inmediata postguerra el mesianismo inherente a la filosofía de la historia marxista. Según la teoría científica, de hecho, el proletariado, obtenida la conciencia de clase gracias a la explotación capitalista, habría debido, a través de la acción del partido comunista, abolir las clases y el Estado, restableciendo las condiciones del Urkommunismus, aunque de una forma «enriquecida», es decir, con todas las ventajas de la tecnología moderna. En este sentido, también el marxismo trabajaba a favor de la salida de la historia que, en vez de coincidir con la planetaria democracia liberal de Francis Fukuyama, habría instituido la anhelada sociedad comunista y el fin de toda voluntad «historificante» del hombre.

De todos modos, estas breves y sintéticas objeciones no quieren de ninguna forma disminuir la excelente obra de Fusaro, que, por el contrario, es de lo mejor que se puede leer en un desolador contexto político y cultural totalmente bovinizado según las lógicas demoliberales, mundialistas y finanzcapitalistas. Al contrario, la relectura de Marx en sentido idealista tiene un innegable mérito: volver a situar en el centro de la acción política la voluntad creadora del hombre, que brota de su libertad histórica. En otros términos, es el retorno de la filosofía a una aproximación revolucionaria a la realidad. Filosofía ya no entendida como glorificación de lo existente, sino como motor de la historia, lo cual, se convendrá, si no es todo, ciertamente es mucho.


(Traducción de Javier Estrada)

samedi, 30 novembre 2013

Últimos escritos y discursos de Giovanni Gentile

Últimos escritos y discursos de Giovanni Gentile

Publicado por edicionesnuevarepublica


Últimos escritos y discursos de Giovanni Gentile


«Últimos escritos y discursos de Giovanni Gentile.

24 de junio de 1943 – 15 de abril de 1944»

● Colección «Europa Rebelde» / 31

● Barcelona, 2013

● 20×13 cms., 148 págs.

● Cubierta a todo color, con solapas y plastificada brillo

PVP: 15 euros


Cuando la noche del 15 de abril me fue dada la dolorosa noticia de que Giovanni Gentile había sido asesinado traicioneramente, la primera palabra que dije, tomado por una profunda angustia, a quien estaba, lejano, al otro lado del teléfono, fue: ¡No es posi­ble, no es cierto! ¡No debería serlo! Pero el enemigo había que­rido cometer una infamia sin nombre, había querido ensuciarse con uno de los más oscuros delitos que la historia recuerda. El enemigo no había vacilado al dar la orden de asesinar tam­bién a este italiano, consciente de la permanente grandeza de la nación y convencido, desde el primer día de la traición, de la necesidad de trabajar, con todas sus fuerzas físicas y espiri­tuales, para que el pueblo italiano se volviese a poner en pie, y marchase de nuevo hacia su destino. Así, las manos sacrílegas, que han golpeado hasta la muerte a Giovanni Gentile, han priva­do a la Nación de uno de sus ciudadanos más fieles, a la cultura italiana y europea de uno de sus más elevados representantes, a la escuela de su más grande Maestro, al mundo de un filósofo, entre los más profundos.

Cario Alberto Biggini (Filósofo, Ministro de Educación de la R.S.I.)

jeudi, 29 septembre 2011

Der Staat in interiore homine: Die Staatskonzeption Giovanni Gentiles

Der Staat in interiore homine: Die Staatskonzeption Giovanni Gentiles

Giovanni B. Krähe


Giovanni Gentile war bereits in den Jahren um den Ersten Weltkrieg eine Leitfigur des italienischen Geisteslebens. Als der Faschismus zum Regime wurde, wurde er im ersten Kabinett Mussolinis Erziehungsminister (Oktober 1922 – Juni 1924) und führte eine tiefgreifende Reform der Schulen und Universitäten durch (Canistraro 1982; Fossati 1998; Ragazzini 1998). Als persönlicher Vertreter Mussolinis verfasste Gentile die faschistische Staatslehre (Dottrina del Fascismo, 1928-1929) und leitete L’istituto fascista di cultura (1925), so dass er lange Zeit die führende Persönlichkeit der Intellektuellen blieb, die sich für den Faschismus entschieden hatten. Als die militärische Niederlage des Faschismus bereits offensichtlich war, hielt Gentile dem Regime Treue und nahm an der von Mussolini gegründeten Repubblica di Salò (1943-1945) teil, bis er am 15. April 1944 von kommunistischen Partisanen erschossen wurde. Nach Campi (2001) war der gewaltsame Tod von Gentile für die Kommunistische Partei Italiens notwendig, wenn sie eine neue politische Hegemonie nach dem Sturz des Faschismus durchführen wollte. Dieses hegemonische Projekt „era finalizzato ad imprimere al Partito comunista Italiano una base ideologica nazionale ed a sostituire l’egemonia crociano-gentiliana con quella marx-gramsciana …” (Campi 2001: 152). Die theoretische Grundlage der Staats-philosophie Gentiles und damit die Ideen über die Rolle des Staats als politische Institution wurden aber von Gentile formuliert, bevor der Faschismus als solcher existierte. Tatsächlich schrieb Gentile seine ersten politischen Schriften während des Ersten Weltkriegs. Seine Überlegungen über den Zusammenhang zwischen Philosophie und Politik hatten damals einen besonderen Stellenwert in Gentiles politischem Denken:

La realtà nota alla filosofia moderna è lo spirito inteso come quella realtà appunto che il filosofo attua filosofando … E però filosofare è precisamente conoscere (e quindi costruire) non una generica personalità politica e il sistema al quale essa può appartenere, ma la propria personalità attuale nel sistema della politica del proprio paese. E soltanto attraverso la determinatezza di questa individualità storica si fa strada l’universalità del concetto, a cui la filosofia oggi aspira (Gentile 1918d: 153-154).

Der Krieg, an dem Italien seit 1915 auf Seiten der Entente teilnahm, wurde von Gentile nicht als der Sieg oder die Niederwerfung konkurrierender Nationen, sondern als symbolisches Ereignis sowie moralische Pflicht aufgefasst, der sich niemand entziehen durfte. Der politische und geistige Zusammenschluss der Italiener, der in Friedenszeiten nicht möglich wäre, wurde nach Gentile durch die außergewöhnliche Anstrengung der Kriegszeit erreicht: „Politisches Endziel bleibt die Verpflichtung aller auf das nationale Interesse und insoweit die Schaffung einer einheitliche Gemeinschaft im Gegensatz zu einer zersplitterten Gesellschaft“ (Schattenfroh 1999: 101). Diese totalisierende Konzeption des Kriegsereignisses, die den Anstoß, so Gentile, zu einer politisch-moralischen Erneuerung des Lebens in Italien gibt, übernimmt eine integrative Funktion, indem das Schicksal jedes Einzelnen mit dem Schicksal der Nation verflochten wurde: Der Bürger wird mit seinem Staat durch den starken Charakter des Kriegserlebnisses politisch identifiziert und der Staat wird gleichzeitig durch Ontologisierung zum Garanten dieses Identitätsprinzips. Darin, dass Gentile dieses  Identitätsprinzip mit dem Kriegserlebnis als moralischer Pflicht gleichsetzt, liegt die erste Grundlage des Staatsbewusstseins als Garanten der Einheit zwischen Gesellschaft und Staat, d.h. als Stato etico (ethischer Staat) (vgl. Gentile 1918b: 13). Sowohl die Nationsidee als transzendente Einheit aller politischen Fraktionen (Gentile 1919a, 1919b), als auch die Tendenzen zum aktiven Veränderungswillen als  Handlungsmodell setzen sich in den ersten philosophischen Überlegungen Gentiles fort (vgl. Gentile 1918b: 17; 1918c).


In Gegensatz zur klassischen liberalen Staatskonzeption, die in der modernen gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung eine unterscheidbare sowie autonome Zivilgesellschaft sieht, integriert Gentile die Staatlichkeit als organische Leitidee in das Bewusstsein des Individuums. Daraus aber resultiert, dass der faktische Staat als politische Institution und damit sein Machtapparat den Einzelwillen nicht auflöst, insofern als der Staat als verinnerlichte soziale Institution ein Lebenszweck des Individuums wird:

Lo Stato non è inter homines, come pare, ma in interiore homine: non è niente di materiale, ma una realtà spirituale, che è in quanto vale; e vale nella coscienza del cittadino. Il quale non riconosce fuori di sé la società, di cui è parte, se non in quanto la instaura dentro di se medesimo, come parte essa stessa, della sua vita morale (Gentile 1919c: 113 Hervorhebung von mir).

Die These der Identität von Staat und Bürger leitet sich  aus den philosophischen Grundlagen der aktualistischen Ethik Gentiles ab. Die „Philosophie des Akts“ bzw. „der aktualistischen Idealismus“, kurz „Aktualismus“, fokussiert das Interesse auf die Struktur des menschlichen Geistes, der als Denkprozess betrachtet wird (Gentile 1987).

Auf einer erkenntnistheoretischen Ebene folgert Gentile tatsächlich alle Wirklichkeit aus der Tätigkeit des Denkens, indem die Außenwelt dem menschlichen Geist in Form des „absoluten Ichs“ zugesprochen wird (Gentile 1987: 18 ff.). Die Außenwelt als Produkt des menschlichen Geists wird aber in einem Subjektivismus nicht aufgelöst, insofern als das Verhältnis zwischen absolutem Ich und Individuum nicht unmittelbar ist. In Gegensatz zu den philosophischen Voraussetzungen des klassischen Idealismus, erweist sich der Aktualismus „als eine totalisierende Philosophie des menschlichen Tuns an sich“ (Schattenfroh 1999: 64), insofern als sich die Tätigkeit des denkenden Ichs nicht auf das Objekt, sondern auf den praktischen Akt des Willens, auf den „pensiero pensante“, stützt (Gentile 1987: 44).

Durch die zentrale Stellung des „reinen“ Akts als philosophisches Prinzip entsteht aber ein spezifisches Verhältnis zwischen dem „absoluten Ich“ Gentiles und dem Individuum: Das  „absolute“ Ich kann sich als Tätigkeit des Denkens eines partikulären Individuums nicht erweisen – wenn ja, würde daraus resultieren, dass die Erkenntnis der Außenwelt nicht total durch den Akt, sondern partial durch das relativistische Verhältnis Objekt-Subjekt, wie beim klassischen Idealismus geschehen würde. Im Vordergrund der Begriffsbildung Gentiles steht also der Mensch als solcher, nicht die konkreten Individuen. Gentile nennt individualistische Konzeptionen sowie ihre politischen Erscheinungsformen – Liberalismus und Sozialismus – unterschiedslos „Materialismus“, da sowohl eine abstrakt-theoretische Einheit (die Pluralität von Individuen), als auch ein Telos (der Kommunismus) von beiden Denkströmungen monistisch  vorausgesetzt werden:

L’idealismo assoluto e il materialismo storico sono tutti due monismi e per la forma e per la sostanza. Tutto è continuo divenire: monismo della forma. Tutto è essenzialmente idea … o materia, monismo della sostanza (Gentile 1957: 148).

Auf einer sozialphilosophischen Ebene sieht also Gentile nicht im dialektischen Prozess der verschiedenen individuellen Akte, sondern im Moment des menschlichen Willens als Akt des absoluten Subjekts die Entstehung der Gesellschaft. Am Ausgangspunkt der Staatskonzeption Gentiles wird die Pluralität von Personen ausgeklammert, da die Gesellschaftlichkeit mit der Universalität des aktualistischen Willens als überindividueller Wille gleichgesetzt wird. Die Individuen werden durch diesen überindividuellen Willen als Staat in interiore homine aufgelöst, der Spiegelbild des faktischen Staates ist.

Der faktische Staat ist aber für Gentile ständiger Prozess eines nie ganz vollendeten idealen Staates. Auf der Tendenz zur Einheit von Einzel- und Gemeinschaftswillen durch ein normatives Staatsmodell – den ethischen Staat -  beruht  der politische Charakter der Pädagogik Gentiles und dadurch die Rolle der kulturellen Sphäre in der Gesellschaft (Gentile 1925a, 1927). Der Zusammenhang zwischen Politik und Kultur, zwischen politischen Institutionen und gesellschaftlichen Zeichenpraktiken beruht auf der Möglichkeit, dass ein vollendeter ethischer Staat zu einem Erzieherstaat werden kann. Nach Gentile kann der Staat Bestand haben, wenn er ein kollektiv-einheitliches politisches Bewusstsein durch ein politisch-edukatives Programm ermöglicht (vgl.Gentile 1925b). In Gegensatz zum klassischen Liberalismus, der die freie individuellen Entfaltungsmöglichkeiten betont, hebt Gentile die Überwindung der Trennung von subjektivistisch-individueller sowie entpolitisierter „Kultivierung des Geistes“ und überindividuellem Willen als idealer Kulturstaat in interiore homine hervor:

E noi, in mezzo al popolo italiano e tra le scuole in cui esso ha incominciato a rinnovarsi e temprarsi al nuovo ideale della vita nazionale, vogliamo levare una bandiera che possa richiamare e raccogliere intorno a sé uomini di pensiero e uomini di azione in una società che faccia sentire al pensiero la sua immanente responsabilità pratica e all’azione la sua segreta scaturigine nei sentimenti che il pensiero educa e alimenta  (Gentile 1925a: 65; vgl. dazu 1918a).

Im Erzieherstaat als Schöpfer jeder Semantik in der Gesellschaft erschienen klar die hegemonischen Elemente von Gentiles Staatsideen. Durch die Überwindung der Trennung von Kultur und Politik/Staat wurde so das politisch-edukative Programm Gentiles zur Hegemoniekonzeption des italienischen Faschismus.


Fossati, Roberta (1998): Giovanni Gentile. In: Alberto di Bernardi/ Scipione Guarracino (Hrsg.): Il Fascismo. Dizionario di storia, personaggi, cultura, economia, fonti e dibattito storiografico. Milano: Mondadori.

Ragazzini, Dario (1998): Riforma Gentile. In: Alberto di Bernardi/ Scipione Guarracino (Hrsg.): Il Fascismo. Dizionario di storia, personaggi, cultura, economia, fonti e dibattito storiografico. Milano: Mondadori.

Schattenfroh, Sebastian (1999): Die Staatsphilosophie Giovanni Gentiles und die Versuche ihrer Verwirklichung im faschistischen Italien. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang Verlag.

Gentile, Giovanni/Mussolini, Benito/ Volpe, Gioacchino (1932): Dottrina del Fascismo. In: Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti. Bd. XIV. Roma: Treccani. S. 847-884.

Gentile, Giovanni (1918a): L’unità della cultura. In: Giovanni Gentile: Fascismo e cultura. Hrsg. von Istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. 1928. Milano: Fratelli Treves Editori. S. 1-15.

-  (1918b): Il significato della vittoria. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd.  XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 5-18.

-  (1918c): Lo spettro bolscevico. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 27-30.

-  (1918d): Politica e filosofia. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 138-158.

-  (1919a): Stato e categorie. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 69-72.

-  (1919b): Ordine. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 31-34.

-  (1919c): L’idea monarchica. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV. 2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 108-118.

-  (1919d): Liberalismo e liberali. In: Giovanni Gentile: Dopo la vittoria. Opere. Bd. XLIV.   2., erweit. Aufl. 1989. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 120-131.

-  (1925a): Discorso inaugurale dell’istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. In: Giovanni Gentile: Fascismo e cultura. Hrsg. von Istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. 1928. Milano: Fratelli Treves Editori. S. 17-37.

-  (1925b): Contro l’agnosticismo della scuola. In: Giovanni Gentile: Fascismo e cultura. Hrsg. von Istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. 1928. Milano: Fratelli Treves Editori. S. 39-43.

-  (1927): I propositi dell’istituto. In: Giovanni Gentile: Fascismo e cultura. Hrsg. von Istituto nazionale fascista di cultura. 1928. Milano: Fratelli Treves Editori. S. 77-81.

 -  (1957): La filosofia di Marx. Studi critici [zuerst 1899]. In: Giovanni Gentile. Opere. Bd. XVIII. Firenze: Sansoni.   

 -  (1987): Teoria generale dello spirito come atto puro [zuerst 1916]. 7., bearb. Aufl. In: Giovanni Gentile. Opere. Bd. III. Firenze: Le Lettere. S. 1-86.

Canistraro, Philip. V. (1982): Giovanni Gentile. In: Ders. (Hrsg.): Historical dictionary of Fascist Italy. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.Campi, Alesandro (2001): Giovanni Gentile e la RSI. Morte “necessaria” di un filosofo. Milano: Asefi.