How far is it true to say that 'having made Italy', Italian governments were successful between 1861 and 1960, in 'making Italians'
How far is it true to say that 'having made Italy', Italian governments were successful between 1861 and 1960, in 'making Italians'?
According to Robson, if governments had succeeded in 'making Italians', then Italy would have been made up of hardworking and patriotic citizens that were respectful of both the political and social order. This would be a challenging task for anyone as after the creation of Italy in 1861, many people were still very bitter about being forced into such an unnatural unification and this resentment towards the government and each other was bound to lead to problems. In 1861, literacy rates were low, most were uneducated, and the church still had an impressive stronghold over peoples actions and opinions, thus suggesting that the so called 'Italians' were somewhat ignorant and that they therefore could not be described as 'hardworking'. Also, apart from criminal gangs such as the Carbonari, there were no national institutions, which would have made it extremely tough to establish feelings of patriotism, and much more likely that people would become parochial and fixated with issues in their own local communities. Finally, as shown by the riots in Sicily throughout the 1860s, Italy was far from being a nation respected by its people, and it would take time for their confidence in society and the government to be restored. The question is to what extent over the next one hundred years did the liberal, fascist, and Christian Democrat governments manage to turn the situation around and make Italians.
Clark argues that all through the liberal period, the Italian people were industrious and diligent and they did reap the rewards of this extra effort. For example, industry was flourishing in the north and fresh enthusiasm led to new inventions such as the wireless in 1896. Robson supports this view that the Italians were hardworking as he describes their working conditions as appalling, with long hours and poor wages. Also, their welfare benefits such as sickness and pension payments compared extremely unfavourably with those in the rest of Western Europe. Unfortunately Robson's Marxist style conclusion that the workers were the victims of capitalist exploitation can be criticised for placing too much emphasis on the dilemmas of the working class . However there were also cases where they appeared to lack lustre, for instance, nearly 40% of adults were still illiterate, and most had not successfully picked up the new Italian language. Yet it is difficult to decide whether this was due to a lack of hard work or if it was because the government had failed to organise them properly. Therefore we can assume that any benefits brought about by hard work should be attributed to the individuals rather than by the government. Furthermore the making of Italians can also be accredited to the people themselves.
Liberal historian Croce takes blame away from the Liberal regime by suggesting that as the Italians did not really desire or respect a fascist government, they didn't work particularly hard for it. On the other had you could say that the people themselves were simply idle because even though they resented aspects of the regime, they did not manage to organise a way to overthrow it. Moreover, it is unfair to generalise and say that all Italians were idle as there were certain sections of society that worked harder than others. For example, women had an incredibly tough ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Liberal historian Croce takes blame away from the Liberal regime by suggesting that as the Italians did not really desire or respect a fascist government, they didn't work particularly hard for it. On the other had you could say that the people themselves were simply idle because even though they resented aspects of the regime, they did not manage to organise a way to overthrow it. Moreover, it is unfair to generalise and say that all Italians were idle as there were certain sections of society that worked harder than others. For example, women had an incredibly tough time under Mussolini's fascist government. Not only were they encouraged to be the perfect housewives, looking after the home, husband, they were also pushed into having lots of children whilst still not losing their traditional roles in the agriculture industry.
So was the Christian democrat government, the most successful at 'making Italians'? Well in regards to creating hardworking people, the answer has to be yes. The new steady and secure government allowed them to settle because there was no longer an air of political controversy that led to things like riots, and with peoples minds off revolution and other national issues, they could return to focussing on their own lives and working hard to provide for their families.
Liberal Italy was so called not only because it was a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic, but also because power lay in the hands of the old aristocracy and middle classes as they felt that the peasants and working classes were too ignorant to use power responsibly. This fact alone highlights major class rifts that were geographically and socially present throughout the liberal period of Italy, and by 1900, the middle classes were doing well by owning factories or shops, whereas the working class peasants in the south found themselves in an area that was still very much poor and underdeveloped. Furthermore they were still resentful of the north as they considered the 1861 unification as a takeover by Piedmont. Divisions between north and south, town and country, and rich and poor, meant that achieving a sense of national pride or patriotism was near on impossible. Clark however disputes this view by suggesting that there was in fact evidence of considerable unity by 1914. For one thing, the 'Italian' language was used widely for communication particularly among those in towns or the army, and because most people had now gone through some form of 'patriotic propaganda' at school, the Italian people were beginning to associate with ideas outside their local community. This development was helped by the building of a national economy connected by roads and railways that allowed them to visit and find out about other areas in their new country. Yet Robson challenges Clark, and argues that there was still 'no national spirit' pulling the people together. Therefore it seems possible to conclude that by the end of the Liberal governments reign in 1914, the first few vital steps had been taken towards aiding the creation of a truly patriotic nation, but the people had not yet been won over and did not yet feel completely 'Italian' as local loyalties still remained.
When Mussolini took over the government, once again the Italians were bitter, this time because of the 'mutilated victory' that they believed they had obtained from the first world war when they gave up thousands of lives but didn't receive the promised rewards. This further loss of confidence in the protection provided for them by their government would not have helped Mussolini to mould his people into the tight knit, proud, national community that he wanted. However overall, he appeared to be fairly successful in binding them together. Leeds proposes that the organisation of events such as street parades, public holidays, and anniversaries allowed the Italians to invest in 'national self-admiration' by involving them in patriotic activities that made them believe they had a nation to be proud of. On the other hand, Clark regards that rather than 'making Italians' Mussolini and the fascist governments merely succeeded in making selfish fascists, only out to promote their own individual needs. However this was cleverly disguised and it took the Italian people years to see through the regime.
The Christian democrat government that presided over Italy after 1945, was clearly the best at truly uniting the country and 'making Italians'. Hodgson suggests that this is almost certainly because of the new found economic and political stability that came with them which embraced all Italians regardless of class or the area they came from. As at last everyone began to benefit from the new Italy, confidence in the government was re-established, and with it came loyalty and belief in the country. This brought everyone together, although there were of course still dilemmas to overcome. It has been suggested that there was still evidence of the north-south divide, and that politics was still full of scandal and corruption, but it did not seem to effect the population as it had done in previous years, which could indicate that feelings of nationalism were always there, it just took time for the wounds of unification to heal before they could become apparent.
To show respect for the political and social order, the people of Italy would have to remain peaceful and appreciate what their governmental system did for them, however, as it has often been argued that neither the liberal, fascist, or Christian democrat governments actually provided a significantly better quality of life for them, the Italians had little to be thankful for. For example, the liberal regime saw much public disorder, with strikes and demonstrations over the corrupt government and poor working conditions that had to be suppressed by the army. Repression such as this was common from about 1896-1914 with many demonstrators killed and censorship increased, so it is fairly unsurprising that this vicious circle of citizen rebellion and increased government control led to lack of respect from both sides.
Efforts of Mussolini to be a totalitarian government led to enhanced levels of social control. At first this strategy appeared to work as the people seemed to swallow the blatant propaganda and believed that Mussolini had their best interests at heart, but by 1936 the fact that support was for Mussolini rather than the fascist regime meant that they began to rebel after world war two. This shows that 'Italians', according to Robson, had still not been successfully created by 1944 as they were not respectful of the political and social order because they were causing mass turmoil without much thought as to how it would effect their nation.
After systematically assessing to what degree the three government regimes managed to 'make Italians', it is clear to see that some were more successful than others. It appears that it was in fact the fascist system that helped teach the people of Italy how to pull together and work towards a mutual goal. However, as many did not see fascism as their goal, Mussolini was not truly victorious at making hardworking, patriotic citizens that were respectful of the political and social order. It was ultimately during the Christian democrat reign that most traces of rebellion, idleness, and parochial tendencies disappeared, and the pace of change from Italian people to 'Italians' really quickened. The main problem with this, is the length of time it took. If the individuals of Italy were ever going to become complete Italians, then it should have been easier to achieve, whereas it actually took about one hundred years. Therefore perhaps this suggests that all of the political upheaval and controversy throughout this era essentially inhibited this natural process rather than encouraging it.
Word count = 1750
