What is Marxism?

What is Neoliberalism?

What is Critical Race Theory (CRT)?

What is Postcolonialism?

What is Political Ideology?

What is Communism?

What is Anarchism?

What is Socialism?

What is Great Man Theory?

What is Social Darwinism?

What is Fascism | Definitions, History, Examples & Analysis

The concept of “fascism” has become a cultural touchpoint, taking on an extended web of shifting meanings and connotations. There is much debate over which of these precise meanings should be ascribed to “fascism,” so it can be difficult to arrive at a clear and uncontroversial definition. 

Fascism

not only is it impossible simply to state ‘what fascism is’ but, a century after the word came into being to refer to a new Italian political movement and programme, its definition as a term of political and historical analysis is still bewilderingly varied and hotly debated. (Fascism, 2018)

With these conceptual caveats in place, then, what does “fascism” refer to in general? Although a perfect definition may be out of reach, what are the basic fundamental characteristics of fascism that are widely agreed upon?

Roughly speaking, fascism is generally understood as a far-right, authoritarian, anti-democratic, ultranationalist political ideology. Key examples include the totalitarian dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini, which controlled the lives of citizens, restricted democratic institutions, and violently suppressed any form of dissent. Robert Paxton describes fascism as: 

a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. (The Anatomy of Fascism, 2004)

Along similar lines, Griffin favors a shorter working definition: “Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism” (2018). In other words, for Griffin the single most defining feature of fascism is that it is founded upon a central myth of ultranationalist rebirth. In Griffin’s view, this revolutionary aspect distinguishes fascism from other forms of authoritarian nationalism.

Some scholars and commentators favor a slightly looser interpretation of fascism. Madeleine Albright, for example, sees a fascist as:

Fascism: A Warning

someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary—including violence—to achieve his or her goals. (Fascism: A Warning, 2018)

As we will explore, debates around the definition of fascism continue to be pertinent in the present day. Many political parties and governments across the world exhibit traits which are consistent with definitions of fascism, and fascist ideologies continue to inspire acts of terrorism. Before addressing the current and future guises of fascism, however, let’s take a look at the origins of fascism and explore its specific characteristics in more depth. 

Mussolini’s Italy and the origins of fascism

Etymologically, “fascism” can be traced back to the fasces — a “Roman symbol of state authority” (Griffin, 2018) comprising a bundle of rods attached to an axe. It was not until early twentieth century Italy, however, that “fascism” as we know and understand it today emerged. 

Following the First World War, Italy experienced widespread discontent and social upheaval, and the specter of a socialist revolution threatened to destabilize many of the old hierarchies. In March 1919, amid this febrile atmosphere, “Mussolini founded the first of a planned network of Fasci italiani di combattimento (Italian Combat Leagues)”:

Within weeks the new force in Italian politics was being called Fascism [...] and by 1922 a new generic term, fascism, entered the political lexicon. (Griffin, 2018)

Appropriating both the fasces name and symbol for his combat leagues and subsequent National Fascist Party of Italy, Mussolini began his violently authoritarian mission of ultranationalist rebirth. The appropriation of a Roman symbol was no accident, as Mussolini’s fascists harked back to the “glory days” of the Roman Empire as evidence of their supposed national superiority — and they aimed to recreate this lost empire in the twentieth century. As Albright notes, “This was how twentieth-century Fascism began: with a magnetic leader exploiting widespread dissatisfaction by promising all things” (2018). 

In the years that followed, Mussolini’s fascists seized ever-greater levels of political influence and power, and became increasingly totalitarian and tyrannical as they did so. Any impediment to their power was either removed or co-opted, with their control eventually extending over each level of the state apparatus, the church, the courts, the media, and other Italian institutions. Stirring up his base with visions of a new empire, Mussolini extended his sights beyond Italy’s borders — eventually invading Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935 and pursuing further campaigns of conquest alongside Germany in the Second World War. 

The term “fascism,” then, and the first avowedly fascist political movement originate with Mussolini’s National Fascist Party in Italy. But outside of the specific term, many groups throughout history have displayed characteristics of fascism (even if they are not named as such). Employing a more nuanced definition of fascism, for example, Robert Paxton traces its origins to “the late 1860s in the American South”: 

But it is further back in American history that one comes upon the earliest phenomenon that seems functionally related to fascism: the Ku Klux Klan. Just after the Civil War, some former Confederate officers, fearing the vote given to African Americans by the Radical Reconstructionists in 1867, set up a militia to restore an overturned social order. The Klan constituted an alternate civic authority, parallel to the legal state, which, in its founders’ eyes, no longer defended their community’s legitimate interests. In its adoption of a uniform (white robe and hood), as well as its techniques of intimidation and its conviction that violence was justified in the cause of the group’s destiny, the first version of the Klan in the defeated American South was a remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in interwar Europe. (Paxton, “The Five Stages of Fascism,” in Fascism, 2017)

As Paxton explains, the Ku Klux Klan were energized by many of the same anxieties and prejudices that would later characterize fascist regimes in the twentieth century. Just as the Nazis would later demonize Jews as a dangerous Other threatening Germany’s moral and ethnic purity, the Ku Klux Klan demonized African Americans on similarly spurious grounds. Both groups — the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan — were in favor of murderous, authoritarian projects of national rebirth and ethnic “purification.” For both groups, too, the myth of white supremacy lay at the heart of their ideology. 

If fascism is taken to be a violent, ultranationalist movement of promised renewal, then there is no shortage of examples to draw from: sadly, the history of humanity is full of such murderously tribal, nationalistic conflict. 

The most famous example of a fascist regime is Nazi Germany. Hitler was inspired by Mussolini’s example in Italy and employed many similar strategies in his own fascist takeover of Germany: 

Many of the tactics Hitler employed to seize and consolidate power, Mussolini had adopted previously: the reliance on violent gangs, the intimidation of parliament, the strengthening and subsequent abuse of authority, the subjugation of the civil service, the affinity for spectacle, and the insistence that the leader, whether Der Führer or Il Duce, could do no wrong. (Albright, 2018)

To this list we can add control of the courts and media, as well as the use of propaganda. In short, whichever authoritarian path there was to consolidate power — no matter the illegality, violence, or immorality involved — Hitler and Mussolini took it. 

As with Mussolini, Hitler’s fascist takeover of Germany was powered by promises of ultranationalist rebirth. The new totalitarian state was named the Third Reich (or “Third Empire”) — an effort to invoke Germany’s two previous empires. In answer to the complex problems that brought Germany to its knees following the First World War and the Great Depression, Hitler proposed a simple explanation: internal and external enemies were the ones to blame for Germany’s problems. These groups were then subjected to a stream of violent rhetoric and propaganda, laying the groundwork for the erosion of rights and genocide that would follow. As Albright writes,

The fighting and economic deprivation pulverized the nation. In the minds of enraged survivors, the cause of their disgrace had nothing to do with events on the battlefield: Germany had been betrayed, they told themselves, by a treasonous cabal of greedy bureaucrats, Bolsheviks, bankers, and Jews. (2018)

Once Hitler had gained enough democratic representation, he leveraged his position to turn the tools of democracy against itself. Faced with communism on the one side and fascism on the other, President von Hindenburg chose fascism and appointed Hitler chancellor. Quickly, Hitler moved to seize total control. Couching the Enabling Act of 1933 as an emergency measure, he promised not to abuse its legislative powers — before going on to do just that.  

For many commentators, German fascism’s focus on ultranationalist rebirth is also inextricably tied to social Darwinism. This application of “natural selection” to humankind was seen to sanction discrimination against “the weak” in favor of “the strong,” with the supposedly superior Aryan race championed above all others due to flawed concepts of eugenics and scientific racism. The Nazi brand of fascism (just as with modern neo-fascism in Western countries) is closely related to white supremacy, as it rails against multiculturalism, immigration, and cosmopolitanism. This strain of social Darwinist fascism regards the white race as inherently, biologically superior to all others. It calls for a mythical and illusory return to a supposed state of past glory, in which the nation (or wider empire) is homogenous — unpolluted by outside genetic influence as well as the supposed decadence of liberal democracy. It promotes an “us against them” ruthlessness, in which perceived enemies (political, religious, racial) are dehumanized as alien “Others” whose human rights can be ignored and systematically abused.

In How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2020), Jason Stanley explores this function of fascism in depth. He argues, “The most telling symptom of fascist politics is division. It aims to separate a population into an ‘us’ and ‘them.’” Stanley explains,

The dangers of fascist politics come from the particular way in which it dehumanizes segments of the population. By excluding these groups, it limits the capacity for empathy among other citizens, leading to the justification of inhumane treatment, from repression of freedom, mass imprisonment, and expulsion to, in extreme cases, mass extermination. (2020)

It is this aspect of Nazi fascism — this dehumanizing Othering of any groups that supposedly threatened the Aryan project — which led to the systematic genocide of millions of Jews across Europe (known as the Holocaust), as well as the dehumanization and murderous persecution of other groups such as ethnic Poles, Roma and Sinti people, the physically and mentally disabled, and homosexuals. Other political, cultural, and religious opponents were also targeted, with each group, in various ways, viewed as a threat to the mythically strong, pure, and glorious Aryan future that was promised. The ultranationalist desire for empire, of course, also led to Nazi Germany’s bloody European conquests and the Second World War. 

Having described the fascist characteristics of Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany, let’s revisit our anatomy of fascism. As we discussed in the opening section, fascism is a nebulous and wide-ranging concept. But (by synthesizing the works of Griffin, Paxton, Albright, and Stanley) some of the key features we can identify are as follows:

Extreme levels of nationalism, authoritarianism, and/or totalitarianism

A strong feeling of national decline and victimhood — with a related desire for ultranationalist rebirth

Autocratic government centered around the figure of a “strongman” dictator

The dehumanization and Othering of other races and groups, followed by human rights abuses and violence

The use of propaganda and information control

Violent suppression of dissent and opposing political/cultural views

The erosion of democratic and institutional safeguards which stand in the way of absolute, centralized power

The above list is far from exhaustive, but it can serve as a useful roadmap for identifying fascism. Of the above points, Griffin argues that the desire for ultranationalist rebirth is one of the most distinctive, animating forces behind fascism. The revolutionary component is stressed here; with fascist ideology seeking to overturn the establishment, democratic norms, and even moral codes of behavior in its pursuit of a new nation/empire. In “The Five Stages of Fascism,” collected in Michael F. Neiberg’s Fascism (2017), Paxton similarly stresses fascism’s “obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood” and the “compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity” which fascism pursues with “redemptive violence.” 

In The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951, [1968]), Hannah Arendt draws particular attention to totalitarianism’s use of terror to maintain power, as well as its construction of alternative, false narratives through propaganda. Arendt writes,

Totalitarianism: Part Three of The Origins of Totalitarianism

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist. (1951, [1968])

For Arendt, fascism and other forms of totalitarianism are characteristically founded upon a bedrock of lies. Originally written in 1951, such thoughts have renewed resonance in the present “post-truth” era, where increasing attention has been paid to the use of lies or “alternative facts” as a political strategy — particularly in the new wave of far-right politics which, many commentators argue, exhibits some of the characteristics of fascism. 

Although Hitler and Mussolini’s fascist regimes were toppled at the end of the Second World War, their ideology has unfortunately survived. Fascism has continued to inspire terrorist attacks such as the Christchurch mosque shootings, and political groups such as Golden Dawn in Greece. Particularly in recent years, the language and underlying ideology of fascism has been co-opted by numerous far-right parties and governments. As Stanley argues,

In recent years, multiple countries across the world have been overtaken by a certain kind of far-right nationalism; the list includes Russia, Hungary, Poland, India, Turkey, and the United States. The task of generalizing about such phenomena is always vexing, as the context of each country is always unique. But such generalization is necessary in the current moment. I have chosen the label “fascism” for ultranationalism of some variety (ethnic, religious, cultural), with the nation represented in the person of an authoritarian leader who speaks on its behalf. (2020)

Stanley argues that these leaders have gained power by promising the familiar narrative of national and ethnic rebirth against the Other, and that they bend (or break) the rules of democracy to consolidate their power. The question of whether the United States should be included in the list above is hotly debated to this day. Robert Paxton, whose conceptualization of fascism we explored above, had previously resisted applying the fascist label to Donald Trump. In a 2021 article for Newsweek, however, he reveals that the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack changed his thinking:

Trump's incitement of the invasion of the Capitol on January 6 [...] removes my objection to the fascist label. His open encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line. The label now seems not just acceptable but necessary. (Paxton, 2021)

Along similar lines, Albright argues that Trump is a threat to democracy:

Trump is the first anti-democratic president in modern U.S. history. On too many days, beginning in the early hours, he flaunts his disdain for democratic institutions, the ideals of equality and social justice, civil discourse, civic virtues, and America itself. (2019)

Fascism is a heavy term, loaded with the weight of history and human suffering on an unfathomable scale, so it is understandable that many commentators and scholars are wary of applying the fascist label. Such conceptual rigor is important, but other commentators such as Stanley argue that there is also a danger of fascist politics becoming normalized if it is not adequately recognized and challenged (2020).  

If we zoom out to consider the global picture once more, we can ask: at what point does nationalist, populist authoritarianism stray into fascism? Where do we draw the line? Such debates are now cropping up repeatedly as the far-right continues to make electoral gains in different regions of the world. Many commentators argue that a government does not have to perpetrate the exact atrocities of Nazism in order to engage in fascist politics. The demonization of the Other, the hobbling and traducing of state institutions and the media, the willingness to propagate lies or “alternative facts” which undermine the concept of truth itself, the aggressive call for national (and implicitly, racial) rebirth — all have been highlighted, to some degree, in twenty-first century politics. Stanley argues that “Fascist politics does not necessarily lead to an explicitly fascist state, but it is dangerous nonetheless” (2020). Even countries such as the UK have, to a lesser degree, been accused of engaging in nationalist authoritarian politics.

Looking to the future, migration remains one of the biggest factors that may lead to an increase in fascist sentiments in the twenty-first century. The huge numbers of displaced refugees in recent decades, fleeing war and terror, have coincided with the rise of far-right parties and fascist rhetoric in Europe. As Ian Dunt writes in How To Be A Liberal, 

How To Be A Liberal

In country after country — some run by nationalists, some by mainstream politicians terrified of losing to them at the polls — immigrants were now targeted. They became the chief victims of the nationalist advance. (2020)

Whether they were “refugees,” “economic migrants,” or “simply someone who fell in love with a person in another country,” Dunt argues,

In each case, they were treated as a kind of social pollution: a corruption of the people. In an age of walls, they were an aberration. Their rights were abused. Their freedom was stripped from them. They became a number. (2020)

Refugees are often Othered, frequently treated with hatred and contempt and painted as criminal invaders who threaten national greatness and even the white race itself. This vicious cycle of fleeing refugees and the fascist reaction they inspire looks likely to worsen in coming years, with climate change bringing an ever-greater series of catastrophes to the nations who can least afford to weather them (Stanley, 2020). As more refugees seek help from other nations, fascist narratives and rhetoric could be further empowered in response. In the face of such humanitarian catastrophes, the challenge for liberal democracies, in addition to saving lives, is to reaffirm these refugees’ humanity in the face of this virulent campaign of Othering; to ensure that they are never degraded as an expendable number. The same principle, of course, extends to the numerous other groups who have become demonized targets. History has taught us what such dehumanization can lead to.   

Global Resurgence of the Right (2021), edited by Gisela Pereyra Doval and Gastón Souroujon 

Winter Is Coming (2015) by Garry Kasparov

A Fascist Century (2008) by Roger Griffin, edited by Matthew Feldman

Russia and the Western Far Right (2017) by Anton Shekhovtsov

Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachment in Cults and Totalitarian Systems (2016) by Alexandra Stein

Can It Happen Here? (2018) by Cass R. Sunstein

Albright, M. (2019) Fascism: A Warning. HarperCollins. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/828881/fascism-a-warning-pdf 

Arendt, H. (1968) Totalitarianism. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2418680/totalitarianism-part-three-of-the-origins-of-totalitarianism-pdf 

Cole, M. (2018) Trump, the Alt-Right and Public Pedagogies of Hate and for Fascism. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1478108/trump-the-altright-and-public-pedagogies-of-hate-and-for-fascism-what-is-to-be-done-pdf 

Dunt, I. (2020) How To Be A Liberal. Canbury Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3040264/how-to-be-a-liberal-the-story-of-freedom-and-the-fight-for-its-survival-pdf 

Finaldi, G. (2014) Mussolini and Italian Fascism. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1555095/mussolini-and-italian-fascism-pdf 

Finchelstein, F. (2019) From Fascism to Populism in History. University of California Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/984459/from-fascism-to-populism-in-history-pdf 

Finchelstein, F. (2020) A Brief History of Fascist Lies. University of California Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1366200/a-brief-history-of-fascist-lies-pdf 

Griffin, R. (2018) Fascism. Polity Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1536550/fascism-pdf 

Neiberg, M. (ed.) (2017) Fascism. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1499288/fascism-pdf 

Oborne, P. (2021) The Assault on Truth. Simon & Schuster. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2812014/the-assault-on-truth-boris-johnson-donald-trump-and-the-emergence-of-a-new-moral-barbarism-pdf 

Paxton, R. (2004) The Anatomy of Fascism. Alfred A. Knopf.

Stanley, J. (2020) How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Random House.

What is Fascism?

What is the Sublime?

What is Plato's Theory of Forms?

What is the Enlightenment?

What is Classicism?

What is Modernity?

What is Aesthetics? | Definition, Examples & Analysis

Aesthetics is a wide area of philosophy which primarily deals with questions of beauty, taste, and art. What does it mean to call something “beautiful”? What, exactly, is going on when we admire a “beautiful” sunset or painting, and why do tastes differ so radically? In Introducing Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, Darren Hudson Hick sheds light on the origins of “aesthetics” as a term, and the central (but not exclusive) role of beauty in aesthetic discussions:

Introducing Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art

The term itself was not coined until the eighteenth century, when it was used by the German philosopher Alexander Baumgarten to describe perception and judgment by means of the senses, as opposed to the intellect. Traditionally, however, talk of aesthetics is couched in terms of beauty, and such talk has a much longer history in philosophy. In contemporary discussion, a great many terms are likewise treated as aesthetic ones – elegance, gracefulness, sublimity and certainly the opposite of beauty, ugliness – however, beauty tends to be regarded as the central concept upon which these others depend. (2022)

As art is a significant source of aesthetic experience, it is no surprise that the philosophy of art is closely intertwined with aesthetics. Aesthetics engages with such questions as “What is art, what does it do, and why does it exist?” 
In Art as Therapy, Alain de Botton and John Armstrong reflect on art’s power to console us with visions of touching beauty:

If the world was a kinder place, perhaps we would be less impressed by, and in need of, pretty works of art. One of the strangest features of experiencing art is its power, occasionally, to move us to tears; not when presented with a harrowing or terrifying image, but with a work of particular grace and loveliness that can be, for a moment, heartbreaking. What is happening to us at these special times of intense responsiveness to beauty? (2016)

Although the philosophy of art is a significant strand of aesthetic study, it is always worth stressing that aesthetics is actually wider in its scope — encompassing, in theory, the full range of human experience. As Hick argues,

Certainly, we judge artworks using aesthetic terms, and there seems no greater compliment for a work of art than to judge it beautiful. Yet, we also find beauty in nature, in the human form and perhaps in everyday items, and these too concern aestheticians. (2022)

Our enjoyment of an enthralling movie, for example, is clearly an aesthetic experience, but we can also aesthetically appreciate the environment of the movie theater itself — we may be struck by the strangely haunting combination of its quiet foyer, outdated decor, and echoing music. This wider sense of aesthetics, which looks beyond art to consider our response to natural as well as built environments, is often referred to as “environmental aesthetics.” (For more on this, see Martin Drenthen and Jozef Keulartz's Environmental Aesthetics, 2014.) 

It is clear to see, then, that aesthetics is a wide philosophical field. In the following guide, we will explore some of the highlights in the history of aesthetics, and touch upon some of the most common aesthetic questions that philosophers still grapple with today. 

In theory, humans have engaged in an aesthetic appreciation of the world around them from the very beginning. It is generally agreed, however, that aesthetics did not emerge as a formalized area of philosophical inquiry until the eighteenth century. As Paul Oskar Kristeller explains in Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology, 

Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology

the very term Aesthetics was coined at that time, and, at least in the opinion of some historians, the subject matter itself, the philosophy of art, was invented in that comparatively recent period and can be applied to earlier phases of Western thought only with reservations. It is also generally agreed that such dominating concepts of modern aesthetics as taste and sentiment, genius, originality and creative imagination did not assume their definite modern meaning before the eighteenth century. (“Introduction,” Chapter 1, 2020)

As is so often the case in philosophy, however, classical thinkers have still exerted a great influence on the later philosophical developments that would follow — as we will now explore. 

Ancient philosophers laid some of the most important foundation blocks for what would later become the vast cathedral of aesthetics. 

Plato, for example, was troubled by poetry’s power to stir the emotions, and so in his Republic (c. 380–360 BCE) he argued in favor of its strict censorship. Plato also regarded poetry as nothing more than a lowly imitation of our reality — which he already viewed as an imitation of the greater realm of Forms. For Plato, then, poetry was an imitation of an imitation. Likewise, Plato regarded the beauty we see in the world as a lesser form of the absolute Form of beauty. Despite Plato’s low opinion of the arts, his ideas on imitation (or mimesis) would have a big impact on later aesthetic thought.  

Aristotle, on the other hand, was more positive about the power of art — and his contributions to aesthetics have been highly influential. In Metaphysics (c. 350 BCE), Aristotle identified what he saw as the specific characteristics of beauty: order, symmetry, and definiteness. In Poetics (c. 330 BCE), he systematized the characteristics of poetry and explored its qualities in detail. As Kristeller explains, 

Aristotle […] dedicated a whole treatise to the theory of poetry and deals with it in a thoroughly systematic and constructive fashion. The Poetics not only contains a great number of specific ideas which exercised a lasting influence upon later criticism; it also established a permanent place for the theory of poetry in the philosophical encyclopaedia of knowledge. (2020)

Aristotle particularly praised poetry’s ability to elicit catharsis — which he regarded as the beneficial purging of emotions. Even today, this mechanism is often raised in discussions of art and its emotional impact (in Philosophy and Theatre [2013], for example, Tom Stern assesses catharsis in relation to the theatregoing experience). 

Together with Plato and Aristotle, a range of other thinkers and philosophers from classical antiquity also pondered questions of beauty and art, including Xenophon and Plotinus. The degree to which this ancient engagement should be identified with the history of aesthetics is debated, however. As Kristeller argues, 

classical antiquity left no systems or elaborate concepts of an aesthetic nature, but merely a number of scattered notions and suggestions that exercised a lasting influence down to modern times but had to be carefully selected, taken out of their context, rearranged, reemphasized and reinterpreted or misinterpreted before they could be utilized as building materials for aesthetic systems. (2020) 

The story of aesthetics in the medieval and early modern periods is similar to its story in classical antiquity: that of a diffuse and varied development which had not yet coalesced into an identifiable area of study. Influential figures such as Thomas Aquinas built upon Aristotle’s existing aesthetic principles, but Kristeller argues that there was still no “grouping together of the visual arts with poetry and music into the system of the fine arts with which we are familiar”:

The period of the Renaissance brought about many important changes in the social and cultural position of the various arts and thus prepared the ground for the later development of aesthetic theory. But, contrary to a widespread opinion, the Renaissance did not formulate a system of the fine arts or a comprehensive theory of aesthetics. (2020)

Aesthetics, as we know it today, has been overwhelmingly shaped by developments that have taken place in modernity — roughly understood as the period between 1650 and 1950. The work of Enlightenment thinkers was particularly influential in this — for the first time, aesthetics was established as its own area of study. 

As we have already touched upon above, the German philosopher Baumgarten is thought to have been the first to coin the term “aesthetics,” but the degree of his influence is debated. David E. Cooper argues, 

Aesthetics

Baumgarten understood by the term [aesthetics] the science of sensory knowledge in general and it had no particular reference to the examination of taste, beauty and other concepts that we now think of as aesthetic ones. (Aesthetics, 2019)

Kristeller agrees, arguing that it is philosopher Charles Batteux, in particular, who took the “decisive step toward a system of the fine arts” with “his famous and influential treatise, Les beaux arts réduits à un même principe (1746)”:

It is true that many elements of his system were derived from previous authors, but at the same time it should not be overlooked that he was the first to set forth a clearcut system of the fine arts in a treatise devoted exclusively to this subject. […] Batteux codified the modern system of the fine arts almost in its final form, whereas all previous authors had merely prepared it. (Kristeller, 2020)

Edmund Burke is notable, in this period, for his classification of sublime and beautiful aesthetic experiences, in A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757). In the eighteenth century, numerous other thinkers explored, classified, and debated aesthetic sensibility in all its variety — with some of the most influential being Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Arguably the most influential of all, however, is Kant. 

In his Critique of Judgement (1790), Kant did the most to “establish the now familiar use” of what we understand to be aesthetics:

For in this immensely influential work, what Kant called aesthetic judgements were judgements of taste that registered, above all, the appreciation of beauty. (Cooper, 2019)

Kant proposed that our aesthetic judgment of beauty is linked to pleasure and imagination. As Hick explains, 

Kant argues that, unlike judging a rose as a rose or a horse as a horse, which rely on concepts of those things, pure aesthetic judgements are not based on determinate concepts, but rather on feelings of pleasure and displeasure. The pleasure that arises in aesthetic judgement comes, Kant says, from the free play of the imagination. (2022)

Along with beauty, Kant also identified other aesthetic judgments: the agreeable, the good, and the sublime — that strangely transcendental feeling of incomprehension, awe, pity, and fear, in which the human mind grapples with something much larger than itself. 

Kant’s influence on aesthetics has been indelible: 

since Kant aesthetics has occupied a permanent place among the major philosophical disciplines, and the core of the system of the fine arts fixed in the eighteenth century has been generally accepted as a matter of course by most later writers on the subject […]. (Kristeller, 2020)

Christopher Janaway and Sandra Shapshay argue that, since Kant, “aesthetics entered one of its most fertile periods,” and that 

A useful framework for understanding the main trends in the modern period is to categorize the theories as valuing art and aesthetic experience predominantly in one of three ways: (1) for the free-play of the intellectual faculties afforded by aesthetic engagement; (2) for the cognitive value of aesthetic engagement; and (3) for the value of experiencing emotion. (“Introduction,” Chapter 17, in Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology, 2020)

Of the many philosophers who have pondered questions of aesthetics after Kant, Hegel is regarded as one of the most significant. In Hegel’s view,  

Aesthetics: A Reader in Philosophy of the Arts

[art] is a sensuous embodiment of fundamental thoughts or perspectives on the universe and our place in it. Art, for Hegel, is intimately tied, from the very beginning, with the rest of human thought, particularly philosophy and religion. (David Goldblatt, Lee B. Brown and Stephanie Patridge, Aesthetics: A Reader in philosophy of the Arts, 2017)

In other words, as Janaway and Shapshay outline, Hegel believed that art “allows humans to attain self-understanding as freely self-determining conscious beings” (2020). Janaway and Shapshay argue that Hegel’s idea of beauty in art is “conceived neither in terms of mere form nor principally in terms of its giving pleasure: rather it is ‘sensuous appearance of the idea,’ a manifestation of truth through some experienceable medium” (2020). Moreover, Hegel provided a “systematic account” of art in its various forms, as well as a “unified history of the development of the arts” across “a wide range of epochs and cultures” — a thorough, historical approach which has continued to be influential to this day (Janaway and Shapshay, 2020).

As aesthetics is such a vast and varied philosophical field, the questions it engages with can feel limitless in their variety. Just some of these well-trodden questions include:

What is beauty? Is taste objective, or subjective? Does beauty only lie in the eye of the beholder, or does it have a more universal basis?

Is natural beauty more valuable than human-made beauty? Is there a difference between the two? Where do you draw the line? 

What exactly is art? Is intentionality necessary, on the part of the artist or the audience, or can anything be art?

Art is powerful, so should we assess — and even police — its moral content to ensure that its influence is positive rather than negative? 

Underlying many of these questions is the foundational question: what does it all mean? Does aesthetic experience have deep value, or is it a surface-level pleasure or amusement? Does art matter? What is its purpose and function? Philosophers, writers, artists, and thinkers of all kinds have proposed many answers to these questions over the years, with just a few of these summarized as follows: 

Art acts as a receptacle of human experience, emotion, and ideas; providing a continually valuable source of knowledge, inspiration, consolation, and entertainment.

Art reveals universal truths about the human condition.

Art can be a powerful instigator of change in the world.

Art (particularly with its sublime aspects) is analogous to a religious or spiritual experience which gives us the apparent sense of something greater beyond ourselves — a role which has taken on even more importance in an increasingly secularized age. 

Art is a potent tool that expands our powers of imagination, empathy, and compassion (as Percy Bysshe Shelley famously argues in A Defence of Poetry, 1821).


In Art as Therapy (2016), de Botton and John Armstrong touch upon many of the points above as they explore the function and purpose of art in depth. In particular, they focus on art’s role as a “therapeutic medium that can help guide, exhort and console its viewers, enabling them to become better versions of themselves,” arguing that art “can put us in touch with concentrated doses of our missing dispositions, and thereby restore a measure of equilibrium to our listing inner selves” (2016). Assessing the state of art criticism, de Botton and Armstrong issue the following rallying cry: 

Scholars should study how to make the spirit of the works they admire more connected to the psychological frailties of their audiences. They should analyse how art could help with a broken heart, set the sorrows of the individual into perspective, help us find consolation in nature, educate our sensitivity to the needs of others, keep the right ideals of a successful life at the front of our minds and help us to understand ourselves. In this light, scholars would approach the Sistine ceiling as they should approach all works of art, with the humane question, ‘What lessons are you trying to teach us that will help us with our lives?’ (2016)

Imagine you are visiting a gallery of modern art, and you come across an abstract painting which features seemingly random colorful shapes. As you engage with this painting, you are having an aesthetic experience. Do you find it beautiful, ugly, or are you indifferent towards it? Does it awaken any emotions in you, if any? Your mind may engage in a few further aesthetic questions: what is the artist depicting here? What was their intention? Do you need to know their intention at all, or is it enough for the painting to have meaning in your own experience of it? Is your individual interpretation of the painting’s meaning just as valid as anyone else’s — including that of the artist themselves? 

Aestheticians would have lively disagreements over all of these questions and more. Questions of aesthetic judgment and meaning are arguably subjective, and not a fine science. What will be beautiful and meaningful for one person may not be for another — although there are aestheticians who argue that there actually is such a thing as objective beauty. 

As another example, let’s take a look at a piece of art which is powerfully emotional (at least for many). With a trigger warning for euthanasia, and a spoiler alert for those who have not seen this before, here is the scene from HBO’s The Last of Us (Druckmann and Mazin, 2023–) in which Bill and Frank share their final day together:

There are several different aesthetic factors which combine to make this scene so affecting. The subtle performances by Nick Offerman and Murray Bartlett; the sublimely devastating music (Max Richter’s “On the Nature of Daylight”); the writing, direction, and pacing of the scene; the images of beautiful, autumnal decay — together, they create a powerfully emotional aesthetic experience in which we are likely to feel intense sympathy for Bill and Frank. But our emotions, here, are not limited to these fictional characters. 

In reality, we are likely to be emotionally and mentally engaging with the universal reality of suffering and loss, and perhaps mourning our own loved ones. Art is often praised for its ability to render the universal through the specific, and this scene is just one touching example of how powerfully this can be achieved. As for the value of such aesthetic portrayals of suffering and grief, we may be experiencing something not too far away from Aristotle’s idea of catharsis here. After experiencing these negative emotions for ourselves, we may feel a degree of mental and emotional relief afterwards. By engaging in such a powerfully affecting rendition of the human experience, we may not feel so alone with our own thoughts and feelings.  

Questions of aesthetics are central to our experience of the whole world around us — including art, nature, and everything in between. Due to the subjectivity of aesthetic taste and the mysteriously compelling nature of the aesthetic experience, aesthetics is an exciting field of philosophy that continues to have real relevance for our lives. 

Aesthetics is a vast topic which we have barely scratched the surface of in this introductory guide. To explore aesthetics in more depth, you can explore the aesthetics in philosophy section of Perlego’s library, which includes some of the highlighted titles below:

The Aesthetics of Atmospheres (2016) by Gernot Böhme Taylor & Francis. Available at: 

The Aesthetics of Everyday Life (2005) edited by Andrew Light and Jonathan M. Smith

European Aesthetics (2013) by Robert Wicks

Political Aesthetics (2015) edited by Arundhati Virmani

Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art (2018) edited by Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugom Olsen

The Aesthetics of Virtual Reality (2021) by Grant Tavinor 

Aristotle (2012) The Metaphysics. Barnes & Noble. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3716000/the-metaphysics-barnes-noble-digital-library-pdf 

Aristotle (2012) Poetics. Dover Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1444548/poetics-pdf 

Burke, E. (2019) A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Columbia University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1359220/a-philosophical-enquiry-into-the-origin-of-our-ideas-of-the-sublime-and-beautiful-pdf 

Cahn, S., Ross, S. and Shapshay, S. (eds.) (2020) Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology. 2nd edn. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1485132/aesthetics-a-comprehensive-anthology-pdf 

Cooper, D. E. (ed.) (2019) Aesthetics. 2nd edn. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/991201/aesthetics-the-classic-readings-pdf 

de Botton, A. and Armstrong, J. (2016) Art as Therapy. Phaidon Press Limited.

Drenthen, M. and Keulartz, J. (eds.) (2014) Environmental Aesthetics. Fordham University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/535751/environmental-aesthetics-crossing-divides-and-breaking-ground-pdf 

Goldblatt, D., Brown, L. B. and Patridge, S. (eds.) (2017) Aesthetics. 4th edn. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2193132/aesthetics-a-reader-in-philosophy-of-the-arts-pdf 

Hegel, G. W. F. (2017) The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 1 (of 4). Perlego. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1717570/the-philosophy-of-fine-art-volume-1-of-4-hegels-aesthetik-pdf 

Hick, D. H. (2022) Introducing Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art. 3rd edn. Bloomsbury Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3739577/introducing-aesthetics-and-the-philosophy-of-art-a-casedriven-approach-pdf 

Janaway, C. and Shapshay, S. (2020) “Introduction", Chapter 17, in Cahn, S., Ross, S. and Shapshay, S. (eds.) (2020) Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology. 2nd edn. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1485132/aesthetics-a-comprehensive-anthology-pdf 

Kant, I. (2017) Critique of Judgement. Delphi Classics. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1655068/critique-of-judgement-by-immanuel-kant-delphi-classics-illustrated-pdf 

Kristeller, P. O. (2020) “Introduction," Chapter 1, in Cahn, S., Ross, S. and Shapshay, S. (eds.) (2020) Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology. 2nd edn. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1485132/aesthetics-a-comprehensive-anthology-pdf 

Plato (2016) Republic. Simon & Schuster. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/778449/republic-pdf 

Rancière, J. (2013) The Politics of Aesthetics. Bloomsbury Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/817272/the-politics-of-aesthetics-pdf 

Shelley, P. B. (2011) A Defence of Poetry. Barnes & Noble. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3714177/a-defence-of-poetry-barnes-noble-digital-library-pdf 

Stern, T. (2013) Philosophy and Theatre. Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1545129/philosophy-and-theatre-an-introduction-pdf 


The Last of Us (2023–) Created by Neil Druckmann and Craig Mazin. HBO.

What is Aesthetics?

What is Capitalism?

What is Dialectical Materialism?

What is a Manifesto?

Who are the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie?

What is Communism? | Definitions, History, Examples & Analysis

Communism is a term that has meant different things, to different people, at different times. It has a varied and controversial history, and in modern discussions the term is dominated by its association with such oppressive regimes as Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao Zedong’s China. 

Out of this tangled jungle, however, it is still possible to carve out a working definition for what communism — as an ideology — means in general. In a basic sense, communism refers to a far-left political and economic system in which assets, resources, and the means of production are under common ownership. Under communism, people would not be separated into different classes, and there would be no private property or money. In Communism (2014), Mark Sandle outlines some of the “features and values” that can be identified with communism: 

Communism

a social system based on harmony, equality and co-operation;

a collectivist or communal ethos or public morality;

a socio-economic system based on holding property in common;

the aspiration for a society which transcends individualism, competition, rivalry and selfishness;

a utopian longing for a perfect society which liberates humanity from its various forms of oppression. (2014)

Our modern understanding of communism is deeply linked to the work of Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), who argue that capitalist societies are inherently exploitative and that the ruling “bourgeoisie” (capitalist class) should be violently overthrown by the oppressed “proletariat” (working class). But before we unpack the theory of communism in greater detail, let’s take a look at its origins. 

Human societies have had collectivist characteristics from the very beginning. As Sandle points out,

Communism and communalist ideas have a long historical pedigree. The aspiration to create a society based on equality, harmony, fraternity and co-operation has found expression in many different cultures and contexts. (2014)

This means that — technically — there are many precursors to communism, and that the very earliest cases may be lost in the distant fog of unrecorded history.

Sandle goes on to provide an insightful overview of early communist thought. Some of the examples picked out include the Essenic communities in the Middle East, who “held their property in common” as early as the second century BCE, as well as early Christians in the first century BCE who advocated “the sharing of wealth and possessions and the abolition of poverty amongst their brethren” (2014). The underlying principles of Christianity, indeed, have influenced communist and socialist thought throughout history.

As we advance through to the early modern period of history, Sandle highlights how

the Renaissance produced a proliferation of speculative utopian philosophising. A variety of philosophers and commentators – including Thomas More, Tommaso Campanella, François Rabelais, James Harrington, Francesco Patrizi and others – produced an array of different good societies, common to which were notions of communal property, egalitarianism and co-operative living and working. (2014)

What is Fascism?

What is Aesthetics?

What is Communism?

What is Climate Fiction?

What is Speculative Fiction?

What is Weird Fiction?

What is Blank Verse?

What is Aristotle's Virtue Ethics?

What is Consequentialism?

What is Epistemology?

What is Free Verse?

What is Utilitarianism in Ethics?

What is AI Ethics?

What is Stoicism?

What are Aristotle’s Four Causes?

What is Plato's Theory of Forms?

What is Socialism?

What is Plato's Allegory of the Cave?

What is Ontology?