Thank you for introducing Del Noce. Having lived in the USSR, I concur that, while claiming to be secular, the construct was religion-like (cult of personality that continues in some parts of its remnant). Every time we look with horror at ancient sacrifices to forces of nature, we must remember tens of millions of their own people that communist regimes have exterminated (all in the name of ridding the society of the “enemies of a great cause”). And, indeed, it was a modern phenomenon.
There are many things that Del Noce (along with a number of other thinkers) identified correctly: the development of the ideological structures of both Communism and Fascism as forms of religious thought, as well as the pitfalls of dogmatic rationality. Reading his works reminds us that man has an intrinsic tendency for religious thought.
But let us not forget, Professor Lancellotti, where Del Noce stood and what Del Noce thought, what ideal society he advocated (you know this well, I see from the magazine where you published your mentioned article). Del Noce did not happen to be a Catholic. He was a Catholic philosopher, which in Italy, at the time he was alive especially, meant a staunch traditionalist (half of my family is Italian, I am bilingual and studied philosophy at the University of Bologna between 1970 and 1974, so I read what I read of Del Noce's work in the original language). Del Noce is a believer for whom there can be no "liberation without the Redeemer", a strong denier of the possibility of any wisdom without faith, a critic of modernity on the basis of tradition, which for him meant the Christian tradition and in particular the Catholic tradition. He was no friend of the Enlightenment or of classic liberalism, which he saw as the forerunners of the fall of society in the clutches of godless hedonism. Neither he was a great friend of reason or science, despite using much reason and logic in supporting his positions... but he denied the validity of sciences and philosophies that questioned the authority of (the Christian) faith in determining ethics and politics. One of his main points is that without authority being based on the revealed Truth of the Christ (through the Church of Rome, of course) a society can only degenerate.
Del Noce lived in times in which the only forms of totalitarianism that mattered were Fascism and Communism... the theocratic states of today might have baffled him, but he would have dismissed them as intrinsically connected to their being non-Christian, while he kept dreaming (in a very phislosophical, subtler way) of a Catholic theocracy or at least a society that strongly embraced the Christian dogmas.
What he would make of the new totalitarianism? Surely it would have horrified him, in the same way as sexual liberation and Freud horrified him... because of the groups which are the focus of this new religion-like movement, not because of how it works. Del Noce could not care less about scientific freedom and research based on objective facts (philosophers are dangerous that way, and Plato's Republic, where they rule, would be a nightmare): if the woke mobs were doing their cancellations and using social pressure to enforce Christian ethics, the bashing of hedonism and "irregular" sexuality, hopefully mandatory prayer in schools, and especially obedience to the Church hierarchy, Del Noce would be writing panegyrics.
That is to say, there are interesting insights to be found in the thought of Del Noce (as there are in Chesterton's, who had a more charming personality). But they point to places, and offer solutions, that are much more incompatible with the Enlightenment than they are with the woke creed.
Since you read Italian I refer you to his "Scritti Politici" which show your assesment is incorrect. See also the book by Massimo Borghesi on Del Noce's attitude towards modernity which, again, was very different from what you describe. You are just repeating the old leftist myth of Del Noce the "integralist." He was a much more complex figure.
We may agree to disagree. My assessment comes from my reading, my studies and my experience of the Italian environment and times in which Del Noce lived. It could be interesting to discuss the specific points of his philosophy and especially his political thought, even if this is not the place. There is no agreement about it among scholars, not even in the Catholic camp: I appreciate Borghesi's theory, for in many ways the philosophy of Del Noce has been quarantined in toto because of its connection to what is called the "counter-revolutionary" Catholic tradition, but many Catholic traditionalists in Italy did criticise the book (for example https://lanuovabq.it/it/del-noce-maestrodi-modernita-dipende).
I am sorry if I gave the impression to believe that Del Noce was simple, or simplistic. He was a complex intellectual, and also modified certain of his positions over time -- his early compromise over Fascism, for one. And undoubtedly Del Noce is worth reading, to understand many things about the position of Catholic intellectuals.
But for me, the central cornerstones of the thought of Del Noce are what I read in his writings. Including the Scritti Politici of which I read some -- I have never read everything of anything. But I read Il problema dell'ateismo, Secolarizzazione e crisi della modernità, and his polemics with the Italian Catholics who were members or allies of the Italian parties of the Left; and I read, when he was alive and my Italian relatives, who happen to not be Catholics, were outraged, many of his political pronouncements, in particular those against the law to allow divorce, abortion, and the removal of the teaching of Catholic religion in state schools. I have now taken a superficial reading of Borghesi's book, the conclusions of which do not convince me, even if they offer new angles of interpretation. Many of his disciples have disagreed with such conclusions, especially in integralist Catholic movements like Comunione e Liberazione, his brainchild.
The thought of Del Noce is that religion should not be restricted to the private sphere, that it should instead guide political action and if possible become the politics of the state. Indeed, he upholds a lot of "Rosminian" social justice ideas... but his main fight, always, is with secularism, which he sees as the enemy, though not in a militant warlike manner. He rejects modernity based on the Enlightenment model, which is secular reason, and offers an alternative vision of the modern with a transcendental perspective -- which rather repulses me. Because in his philosophy, freedom and justice and fairness seem never to be considered as individual rights, but rather as goods to be had in the community, and obtained through the faith. Indeed, he was not a traditionalist that pursued a return to medieval Christianity (whatever that may mean in Catholic imagination). But he believed that only the primacy of Christian ethics at the individual level and on the level of the state could create a just society. He appreciated Fascism, when he did, because of the Lateran Pacts and their bringing back, through the Concordat, of Catholicism as the state religion in Italy. He continuously scolded the Christian Democrat party of Italy for accepting compromises on what Catholics should think politically.
So, I truly do believe that he would approve of a woke movement based on Catholic dogma rather than on postmodern theories -- so long as the methods remained low in physical violence. Comunione e Liberazione was very much a movement of that kind while Del Noce was alive, and he did approve of them; Rocco Buttiglione was his favourite student.
But who knows.
What he would think of this postmodernist woke movement, in my opinion, is that it is the inevitable result of the catastrophe of secularism and the hubris of reason. He correctly identified the religious element in totalitarian ideologies like Fascism and Communism, and he would also correctly identify it in this new somewhat makeshift ideology. What he would miss is that the religious drive is itself a problem: because to him, like to all believers in strong, politically driven, proselytising faiths, this drive only has one legitimate place, the <Name> Faith, on which the ethics of society should be based. Which works very well for order and peace -- until dissent arises in any form.
I am not an atheist, but I am very suspicious of all organised religions, and of everybody who define themselves primarily by their faith. I am also a staunch supporter of secularism. I think that people who believe that religion has a strong part to play in politics and society at large (like Del Noce did) are safe and enriching for their fellow human beings only so long as they remain a minority. If they become majority, theocracy is around the corner (I do not mean this to include everyone belonging to a faith, but only those who wish that faith to be a political force).
So, I also think that we are bound to disagree on our assessment of the thought of Del Noce.
Yes, I think so. Actually the most fundamental disagreement here is that Del Noce and I think that everybody should be free to bring their ethical values to the public arena, including religious people. At this point in history the idea that secularism is somehow value-neutral is completely untenable.
And civil disagreements are one of the pillars of democracy.
I have, mind, no issue with religious people bringing their ethical values to the public arena, and I am ready to fight for the right of everybody to propose and forward their ideas, even those I despise (and there are ideas that I despise much more than Christian values). Integralists (intended as those who believe that the state should conform to religious ethics) should have every right to propose their vision... and be countered and debated by those who think otherwise.
I am a secularist and truly believe that secularism, especially in fact at this point of history, is the only tenable position that is (not value neutral, as secular values are very clear) but decently balanced and fair in a multicultural, multi-faith society. As I hold that is is an evil that the state should privilege one religion above the others, I find no other solution, ethically and philosophically than secularism (although we may discuss about which acceptation of it). A believer in a faith may and often will disagree, for most faiths pose their own religious values as universal good and all the rest as errors -- but that is a stark checkmate, since a vast number of religions claim the same thing. So what can be the solution? A separation of church-states, like India and Pakistan? An eternal oppression of the minority religions, like everywhere before the birth of the modern, secular state?
My native Britain is technically far from being a secular state, what with having the same head for state and Church, and the removal of compulsive belonging to the Anglican Church at Oxford was quite late -- Catholic emancipation was quite slow... we had reasons for it, and there is a very strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but nevertheless it was an illiberal and unfair set of rules. I have also been involved for years, during the Troubles, in mediating between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland -- where a strictly secular state has been the only solution to constant bloodshed.
So I will always counter any integralist vision (Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever else), as I do not see it as resulting, once embodied in the state, in anything else but more and more oppression of one side on others, grievances, violence and hatred. But I will never want that those who speak for it should be silenced or otherwise prevented from making their points.
Your essay describes the political pressure on scientists today that results in incuriosity and intellectual laziness--heretofore two character traits that defined a scientist whose goal was the search for truth. Thank you for this essay and introduction to Augusto Del Noce.
This is a very insightful look into totalitarianism. I was not aware of Del Noce's works, thank you for this concise introduction.
Thank you for introducing Del Noce. Having lived in the USSR, I concur that, while claiming to be secular, the construct was religion-like (cult of personality that continues in some parts of its remnant). Every time we look with horror at ancient sacrifices to forces of nature, we must remember tens of millions of their own people that communist regimes have exterminated (all in the name of ridding the society of the “enemies of a great cause”). And, indeed, it was a modern phenomenon.
There are many things that Del Noce (along with a number of other thinkers) identified correctly: the development of the ideological structures of both Communism and Fascism as forms of religious thought, as well as the pitfalls of dogmatic rationality. Reading his works reminds us that man has an intrinsic tendency for religious thought.
But let us not forget, Professor Lancellotti, where Del Noce stood and what Del Noce thought, what ideal society he advocated (you know this well, I see from the magazine where you published your mentioned article). Del Noce did not happen to be a Catholic. He was a Catholic philosopher, which in Italy, at the time he was alive especially, meant a staunch traditionalist (half of my family is Italian, I am bilingual and studied philosophy at the University of Bologna between 1970 and 1974, so I read what I read of Del Noce's work in the original language). Del Noce is a believer for whom there can be no "liberation without the Redeemer", a strong denier of the possibility of any wisdom without faith, a critic of modernity on the basis of tradition, which for him meant the Christian tradition and in particular the Catholic tradition. He was no friend of the Enlightenment or of classic liberalism, which he saw as the forerunners of the fall of society in the clutches of godless hedonism. Neither he was a great friend of reason or science, despite using much reason and logic in supporting his positions... but he denied the validity of sciences and philosophies that questioned the authority of (the Christian) faith in determining ethics and politics. One of his main points is that without authority being based on the revealed Truth of the Christ (through the Church of Rome, of course) a society can only degenerate.
Del Noce lived in times in which the only forms of totalitarianism that mattered were Fascism and Communism... the theocratic states of today might have baffled him, but he would have dismissed them as intrinsically connected to their being non-Christian, while he kept dreaming (in a very phislosophical, subtler way) of a Catholic theocracy or at least a society that strongly embraced the Christian dogmas.
What he would make of the new totalitarianism? Surely it would have horrified him, in the same way as sexual liberation and Freud horrified him... because of the groups which are the focus of this new religion-like movement, not because of how it works. Del Noce could not care less about scientific freedom and research based on objective facts (philosophers are dangerous that way, and Plato's Republic, where they rule, would be a nightmare): if the woke mobs were doing their cancellations and using social pressure to enforce Christian ethics, the bashing of hedonism and "irregular" sexuality, hopefully mandatory prayer in schools, and especially obedience to the Church hierarchy, Del Noce would be writing panegyrics.
That is to say, there are interesting insights to be found in the thought of Del Noce (as there are in Chesterton's, who had a more charming personality). But they point to places, and offer solutions, that are much more incompatible with the Enlightenment than they are with the woke creed.
Since you read Italian I refer you to his "Scritti Politici" which show your assesment is incorrect. See also the book by Massimo Borghesi on Del Noce's attitude towards modernity which, again, was very different from what you describe. You are just repeating the old leftist myth of Del Noce the "integralist." He was a much more complex figure.
We may agree to disagree. My assessment comes from my reading, my studies and my experience of the Italian environment and times in which Del Noce lived. It could be interesting to discuss the specific points of his philosophy and especially his political thought, even if this is not the place. There is no agreement about it among scholars, not even in the Catholic camp: I appreciate Borghesi's theory, for in many ways the philosophy of Del Noce has been quarantined in toto because of its connection to what is called the "counter-revolutionary" Catholic tradition, but many Catholic traditionalists in Italy did criticise the book (for example https://lanuovabq.it/it/del-noce-maestrodi-modernita-dipende).
I am sorry if I gave the impression to believe that Del Noce was simple, or simplistic. He was a complex intellectual, and also modified certain of his positions over time -- his early compromise over Fascism, for one. And undoubtedly Del Noce is worth reading, to understand many things about the position of Catholic intellectuals.
But for me, the central cornerstones of the thought of Del Noce are what I read in his writings. Including the Scritti Politici of which I read some -- I have never read everything of anything. But I read Il problema dell'ateismo, Secolarizzazione e crisi della modernità, and his polemics with the Italian Catholics who were members or allies of the Italian parties of the Left; and I read, when he was alive and my Italian relatives, who happen to not be Catholics, were outraged, many of his political pronouncements, in particular those against the law to allow divorce, abortion, and the removal of the teaching of Catholic religion in state schools. I have now taken a superficial reading of Borghesi's book, the conclusions of which do not convince me, even if they offer new angles of interpretation. Many of his disciples have disagreed with such conclusions, especially in integralist Catholic movements like Comunione e Liberazione, his brainchild.
The thought of Del Noce is that religion should not be restricted to the private sphere, that it should instead guide political action and if possible become the politics of the state. Indeed, he upholds a lot of "Rosminian" social justice ideas... but his main fight, always, is with secularism, which he sees as the enemy, though not in a militant warlike manner. He rejects modernity based on the Enlightenment model, which is secular reason, and offers an alternative vision of the modern with a transcendental perspective -- which rather repulses me. Because in his philosophy, freedom and justice and fairness seem never to be considered as individual rights, but rather as goods to be had in the community, and obtained through the faith. Indeed, he was not a traditionalist that pursued a return to medieval Christianity (whatever that may mean in Catholic imagination). But he believed that only the primacy of Christian ethics at the individual level and on the level of the state could create a just society. He appreciated Fascism, when he did, because of the Lateran Pacts and their bringing back, through the Concordat, of Catholicism as the state religion in Italy. He continuously scolded the Christian Democrat party of Italy for accepting compromises on what Catholics should think politically.
So, I truly do believe that he would approve of a woke movement based on Catholic dogma rather than on postmodern theories -- so long as the methods remained low in physical violence. Comunione e Liberazione was very much a movement of that kind while Del Noce was alive, and he did approve of them; Rocco Buttiglione was his favourite student.
But who knows.
What he would think of this postmodernist woke movement, in my opinion, is that it is the inevitable result of the catastrophe of secularism and the hubris of reason. He correctly identified the religious element in totalitarian ideologies like Fascism and Communism, and he would also correctly identify it in this new somewhat makeshift ideology. What he would miss is that the religious drive is itself a problem: because to him, like to all believers in strong, politically driven, proselytising faiths, this drive only has one legitimate place, the <Name> Faith, on which the ethics of society should be based. Which works very well for order and peace -- until dissent arises in any form.
I am not an atheist, but I am very suspicious of all organised religions, and of everybody who define themselves primarily by their faith. I am also a staunch supporter of secularism. I think that people who believe that religion has a strong part to play in politics and society at large (like Del Noce did) are safe and enriching for their fellow human beings only so long as they remain a minority. If they become majority, theocracy is around the corner (I do not mean this to include everyone belonging to a faith, but only those who wish that faith to be a political force).
So, I also think that we are bound to disagree on our assessment of the thought of Del Noce.
Yes, I think so. Actually the most fundamental disagreement here is that Del Noce and I think that everybody should be free to bring their ethical values to the public arena, including religious people. At this point in history the idea that secularism is somehow value-neutral is completely untenable.
And civil disagreements are one of the pillars of democracy.
I have, mind, no issue with religious people bringing their ethical values to the public arena, and I am ready to fight for the right of everybody to propose and forward their ideas, even those I despise (and there are ideas that I despise much more than Christian values). Integralists (intended as those who believe that the state should conform to religious ethics) should have every right to propose their vision... and be countered and debated by those who think otherwise.
I am a secularist and truly believe that secularism, especially in fact at this point of history, is the only tenable position that is (not value neutral, as secular values are very clear) but decently balanced and fair in a multicultural, multi-faith society. As I hold that is is an evil that the state should privilege one religion above the others, I find no other solution, ethically and philosophically than secularism (although we may discuss about which acceptation of it). A believer in a faith may and often will disagree, for most faiths pose their own religious values as universal good and all the rest as errors -- but that is a stark checkmate, since a vast number of religions claim the same thing. So what can be the solution? A separation of church-states, like India and Pakistan? An eternal oppression of the minority religions, like everywhere before the birth of the modern, secular state?
My native Britain is technically far from being a secular state, what with having the same head for state and Church, and the removal of compulsive belonging to the Anglican Church at Oxford was quite late -- Catholic emancipation was quite slow... we had reasons for it, and there is a very strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but nevertheless it was an illiberal and unfair set of rules. I have also been involved for years, during the Troubles, in mediating between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland -- where a strictly secular state has been the only solution to constant bloodshed.
So I will always counter any integralist vision (Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever else), as I do not see it as resulting, once embodied in the state, in anything else but more and more oppression of one side on others, grievances, violence and hatred. But I will never want that those who speak for it should be silenced or otherwise prevented from making their points.
Fascinating!
Nice article; I also was not aware of Del Noce's work. Minir point: Pwoplw often forget that science requires belief in thing that cannot be proved -- existence of fixed nature, truth, etc, https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/35/2/the-faith-of-science
JS
Great work on unpacking the complexities of political ideology! Well done!!
Your essay describes the political pressure on scientists today that results in incuriosity and intellectual laziness--heretofore two character traits that defined a scientist whose goal was the search for truth. Thank you for this essay and introduction to Augusto Del Noce.