Indexing metadata

Building upon the findings outlined in the article published in the 2024 sixth issue, the present study undertakes an in-depth examination of the evolution of the concept of consensus within the context of Italian society during the Mussolini regime. This analysis draws upon both Italian and English-language historiographies of the 21st century, offering a comprehensive and nuanced perspective on the subject. The authors of the present study identify the distinguishing characteristics of the three major Italian historiographic schools. Firstly, the “progressive and democratic” bloc, which includes Paul Corner, Philip V. Cannistraro, Maura E. Hametz, and Emilio Gentile. Secondly, the revisionists, often considered successors of Renzo De Felice, with notable figures such as Patrick Bernhard, Christopher Duggan, Kate Ferris, Michael Ebner, and Luca La Rovere. Finally, the postrevisionist school, comprising Roberta Pergher, Giulia Albanese, Angelo Caglioti, Alessio Gagliardi, and Ferdinando Cordova. The study provides an in-depth analysis of the ongoing debate between the representatives of the two conflicting schools, Corner and Bernhard. The discussion centered on the responsibility of the Italian people for the prolonged duration of Mussolini’s regime and the content and period of consensus. The active involvement in the discussion of English-language authors was partly based on new sources and research methodologies that revealed previously overlooked components of consensus in everyday life, cinema, among women, students, academics, and major entrepreneurs. Expanding the discourse into the domain of local history further exacerbated the schism within Italian historiography concerning the assessment of the Fascist regime’s interactions with the general populace and the extent of its societal infiltration. The authors underscore the merits, in addition to the methodological limitations, of the works by representatives of various historiographic schools.