FASCIST PIGS
By Tiago Saraiva
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2016, 326 pages
Most Significant Arguments
In the book Fascist Pigs, Tiago Saraiva puts a focus on agriculture as a technology that influenced decisions made in the Fascist leadership of Italy, Portugal and Germany from WWI through WWII. The work also notes how Fascist philosophy guided decisions by agro-geneticists and breeders. As a result of the experience of low food supplies and dependence on other countries for food, these governments each came to a vision or goal of being food independent. That led to a search for breeding programs of plants and animals that would have desired characteristics in the given country. Geneticists took their signals from leaders and focused efforts along the path of seeking “elite breeds”. When some success was had, the ideas expanded to such application on humans as well. That led to the horrific effects of separating races and “defective” people for “elimination.” Laws were passed to encourage or pressure farmers to participate in programs. There were military interventions to ensure compliance. The language around agro-programs used mystical and militaristic language such as “Battle of Wheat”. Nationalism was equated with farming through language as well such as plants, animals and people being “rooted in the land”. Ultimately selection in each area was approached in the form of pedigrees and performance tests. Interestingly, in most cases there was difficulty ensuring/documenting pedigrees. For example German pigs were sometimes not documented through enough generations to make the official requirement, so scientists began to gather data through eugenics. Similarly when recruiting SS soldiers the effort to establish an applicant’s genealogy was often not possible, so verbal acceptance of SS values and satisfactory performance in training was sufficient.
All three countries also grew through colonialism in eastern Europe and throughout Africa. Such colonialism justified managing breeds, sending "pioneers" to occupy lands, and subjugation of local populations as cheap labor.
Comparison with Other Readings
One area in particular stood out to me. On page 116 Saraiva discusses the mix of “Front Pigs” meaning successful breeders who produce the preferred specimens, and “subsistence breeders” meaning those who produced pigs that did not meet the preferred standards. This made me think of readings comparing technology innovators with maintainers. Russell and Vinsel (see attached file below), for example, mention that when it comes to technology maintenance, typically effort is 2% preventative and 98% repair, meaning maintenance is viewed of less value. Even if Germany didn’t achieve the level of innovation they targeted (meaning preferred breeds of pigs or potatoes) it would be interesting to understand the comparison between the number of compliant pigs compared to the “subsistence” pigs.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The linking of strategic approaches to agriculture with a country’s overall strategy makes for a strong argument. In particular showing agricultural and political outcomes from overarching philosophies brings some clarity to me as a reader. Throughout the work Saraiva draws attention to the “uniqueness” of this line of thinking (comparing the technology of agriculture with the philosophy of government). Pointing out the uniqueness of the argument sometimes comes off as criticism of other historians in general for not having come to similar conclusions.
I like linking of seemingly unrelated areas to show truth. Patterns can reveal truth, and I think that approach could be helpful in my future papers. Others who might find this line of thinking helpful could be government strategists, scientific ethicists, political philosophers, and maybe cultural anthropologists.
| russell_vinsel_2018_maintenance__1_.pdf |
RSS Feed