Stanley G. Payne (born September 9, 1934) is an American academic and historian, specialized in the history of modern Spain and European fascist movements. Having taught at the University of Wisconsin–Madison for 37 years, he became a professor emeritus at its Department of History in 2004.
His works on the Spanish Civil War and the Francoist period received various estimates: while by the 1980s he had earned the reputation of "America's most prolific historian of Spain", in the 21st century his later works became known for their "revisionist" approach, and received criticism from other historians as overly benevolent towards Falangism and for allegedly spreading Francoist narratives. However, other historians have praised Payne's work in the 21st century. In 2018, Julius Ruiz praised Payne's 2017 work Alcala Zamora and the Failure of the Spanish Republic.Ruiz, Julius (December 3, 2018). "Review of Alcalá Zamora and the Failure of the Spanish Republic, 1931–1936 by Stanley G. Payne". The American Historical Review. 123 (5): 1756–1757. https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/rhy372.
Early life Stanley George Payne was born on September 9, 1934, in Denton, Texas. His parents were living in Colorado before moving to Denton. His father worked as a carpenter after losing his job due to the Great Depression in the United States, and eventually became the foreman of a planing mill. His mother completed two years of nurse training at a sanitarium in Chicago, Illinois but was forced to drop out due to lack of support from her family. She was a Seventh-Day Adventist. The family moved to Sacramento, California when Stanley was twelve and his parents eventually divorced soon after.(revise - conflicting)
Education and career Payne received his B.A. from Pacific Union College in Angwin, California in 1955. Subsequently, he earned a M.A. from Claremont Graduate School and University Center in Claremont, California (1957) and a Ph.D. from Columbia University in New York City (1960) under the supervision of Shepard B. Clough. He worked as a lecturer at Columbia University during his doctorate (1959–1960) and went on to hold the same position at the Hunter College in New York City (1960). Then, he became an instructor at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis (1960–1962) and an assistant professor of history at the University of California, Los Angeles (1962–1968). At that time, he became vice-chairman of the History Department at the same institution (1966–1967). Payne was appointed professor of history at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin in 1968 and retired as Professor Emeritus of its History Department in 2005.
Work Known for his typological description of fascism, Payne specialized in the history of modern Spain, particularly on the Spanish fascist movement, and has worked on comparative analyses of European fascist movements in Western Europe.
His first book on the Falange drew on interviews with party members conducted as part of doctoral research in Spain during 1958–59, and acknowledged a "heavy debt" to the party's ex-propaganda chief Dionisio Ridruejo and its former head Manuel Hedilla, who also emerged as the main neo-Falangist leader at the time.
In the 1960s, Payne's books were published in Spanish by Éditions Ruedo ibérico (ERi), a publishing company set up by Spanish Republican exiles in Paris, France, to publish works forbidden in Spain by the Francoist regime ruling the country at the time. He has been referred to by some historians as a revisionist due to his views.Ángel Viñas (ed.), Sin respeto por la historia [extraordinary issue of Hispania Nova] 2015 One of his more famous books is Spanish Civil War, The Soviet Union and Communism, which analyzes Joseph Stalin and the Soviet government's intervention in Spain. He also wrote The Franco Regime, The Spanish Civil War and A History of Fascism 1914–1945.
Typological description of fascism Payne presents his typology of generic fascism divided under three headings: (verbatim) A. Ideology and Goals: Espousal of an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state not based on traditional principles or models Organization of a new highly regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence and war The goal of empire, expansion, or a radical change in the nation's relationship with other powers
B. The Fascist Negations: anti-liberalism anti-communism anti-conservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with groups from any other sector, most commonly with the right)
C. Style and Organization: Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia Emphasis on aesthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political liturgy, stressing emotional and mystical aspects Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing a strongly organic view of society Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective
To distinguish between fascist and non-fascist authoritarian nationalist groups, Payne divides these movements into fascist, radical right, and conservative authoritarian right. Payne notes that these groups shared some of the same goals as fascists and that there were instances of usually temporary or circumstantial tactical alliances between them which sometimes led to outright fusion, especially between fascists and the radical right.
Originally presented in his 1980 book Fascism: Comparison and Definition, Payne updated his typology in A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 in 1995 to place a greater emphasis on ideology. In the book, Payne also offers a one sentence definition: "a form of revolutionary ultranationalism for national rebirth that is based on a primarily vitalist philosophy, is structured on extreme elitism, mass mobilization, and the Führerprinzip, positively values violence as end as well as means and tends to normatize war and/or the military virtues."
He also asserts that there were some specific ways in which Nazism paralleled Russian communism to a much greater degree than Fascism was capable of doing. Payne does not propound the theory of "red fascism" nor the notion that Communism and Nazism are essentially the same. He states that Nazism more nearly paralleled Russian communism than any other noncommunist system has.The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge. 2002. p. 67Stanley G. Payne. Fascism: Comparison and Definition. University of Wisconsin Press. 1983. . pp. 102–104
Reception Roger Griffin described Payne's work as a "methodological breakthrough" and praises his typology as being "a deliberately schematized and simplified model which identifies what fascisms have in common rather than highlighting their undeniable complexity and uniqueness". Griffin further describes Payne's typology as "[setting] up a superbly positioned and equipped base camp from which to carry out gruelling scholarly expeditions" and views it as "the most comprehensive and sophisticated expression" of the "new consensus" that sees fascism as a tangible political ideology centred around utopia rather than nihilism.
Roger Eatwell describes Payne's 1995 book by saying: "Overall, there is no doubt that Payne's latest book is the best general history of fascism in the inter-war period, offering a finely tuned account of how the national differences between the various fascist movements do not negate the attempt to create a generic model." However, Eatwell also criticises Payne's work for largely ignoring the intellectual basis of fascism and considers it a useful heuristic starting point that "ultimately does little more than underline a few key words". Eatwell criticises Payne's focus on fascism's negations and asserts that his typology places an undue focus on the context of the interwar period.
Dave Renton has criticised Payne's approach to definition of fascism, which he describes as an attempt to present fascism as a static set of certain beliefs without examining the relationship between these ideas within a dynamic and contradictory process. In particular, Renton notes that in Payne's description of fascism through "three negations", anti-communism, anti-liberalism and anti-conservatism, the latter label is troublesome, since Payne "cannot explain why the rise of the two fascist parties that actually seized power was helped, in both cases, by an alliance with the conservative ruling classes." It becomes clear that "fascist anti-conservatism is different from fascist anti-communism" and the conflict of anti-communism and anti-conservatism has always been solved in the favor of the first. According to Renton, because Payne founds his theory on description but not explanation, he and other historians "fail to generate a non-fascist understanding of fascism. Their readers are led to a conclusion that the fascist view of itself is the most important factor of the definition of the ideology. This is not a critical theory of fascism, and hardly any sort of theory, at all."
Controversy surrounding Francoist revisionism Payne's work has been criticized as sympathetic to Francoism by some historians since the 1980s. In 1988, Charles Powell in a review of Payne's The Franco Regime, 1936-1975 described Payne as the "[having shown] the greatest benevolence toward the Franco regime" among "Anglo-American" scholars of the Spanish Civil War and wrote: "The attempt to summarize the origins of the civil war in a few pages leads the author to make value judgments that are not always justified... In general, his interpretation — and the use of expressions such as 'latent authoritarian situation' used to describe the political climate in the spring of 1936 — tends to justify the rebellion." A year before, Paul Preston wrote a positive review of The Franco Regime, praising Payne as "America's most prolific historian of Spain" and arguing that the book "must surely become the standard work on this subject": "I do not agree with some of his judgments, particularly on the social costs of the regime, but I regard The Franco Regime as the most solidly based and sanely balanced book yet to appear on this difficult subject. [...] It is to be hoped that its careful attempts at an objective narrative do not deprive it of the general readership it deserves." In 1989, Robert Whealey praised The Franco Regime as presenting the "freshest account yet" on the Spanish Civil War, and stated that Payne "will remain the leading U.S. authority on twentieth-century Spain for some time to come." Whealey noted that the book had a conservative tone, but claimed it was essential reading for any twentieth-century historian of Europe.Robert H. Whealey, “Review of The Franco Regime, 1936–1975 by Stanley G. Payne,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 94, No. 3 (June 1989), pp. 788–789. F. J. R. Jiménez argues that Payne has become more conservative over time.