| Abstract: | This article examines the claims of ethnomethodologists, symbolic interactionists and ethogenists to provide an improved basis for social psychology. The basic assumptions of these approaches are outlined, especially their common emphasis upon language and meaning. However, differences between the approaches are also noted. The problem is how this new social psychology would be capable of dealing with important social issues, such as fascism. There are criticisms from the point of view of the new social psychology of previous approaches to the social psychology of fascism, i.e., the authoritarian personality and value-analysis. A historiographical survey of fascism is made to show the sorts of problems which could be tackled by the new social psychology, particularly in relations to the concept of ‘fascism’ itself. However, it is argued that the new perspectives are inappropriate for a serious examination of a social issue like fascism, because they lack clear political commitment. They are based upon attitudes of either disassociation or sympathetic understanding, both of which are unsatisfactory for an examination of fascism. A return to a socially committed social psychology is urged. |
