This article was published by the magazine Reset in its January-February 2008 issue (no.105) (1).

After more than a year after the death of Oriana Fallaci (1929-2006), journalist, novelist and essayist, social sciences have still not analysed the extraordinary success she had in Italy with her Trilogy on Islam and the West (2). Such a phenomenon presents many sides and calls in question, at least at first, a similar variety of distinct research protocols. The revision of the writer’s official biography, carried out at the same pace with an archaeological rereading on her work, should reflect the reconstruction of the evolution of her relationship with Islam (inaugurated in 1954, with a study on Iranian society and the imperial family). At the same time, the public success of the trilogy should mark the starting point of a real analysis of the foundations of the essentialism and differentialism of Fallaci’s thesis, which deny a common humanity (analyses which would allow put back those theses in the history of ideas).

Not only that, but it should also mark the starting point of their public review, in particular in terms of diffusion of their representation and how to generate interest (or disinterest) with her most loyal readership (3). In the end, one needs to draw up a type of sociology of falsification (4), taking on as an object to be researched, the conditions of possibility and the procedure of emergency of a magistrate which is openly racist: therefore, we need to analyse how the journalistic field and the Italian intellectual world work; from the editorial world and the mechanisms which have produced the best sellers in Italy between 2001-2006, as well as the existence of a contemporary “Fallaci moment” which is connected to the “Berlusconi moment” in politics. Such as analysis has already been started (5), and the following pages make up a closer look in light of the commemorative material published around the death of the journalist/writer. In fact, although her whole life Oriana Fallaci was the jealous keeper of her own legend, the post-humus tributes have revealed numerous new facts, more or less on purpose. This led to a multitude of witness accounts which shed rather a lot of light on how the Italian media works.

The “omertà” in journalism

Just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CEO of the Rizzoli Group, Gianni Vallardi, got a phone call from Oriana Fallaci’s New York apartment: horrified by the images on television, the journalist/writer insisted that something had to be done. Vallardi, who had known her for over fifteen years, knew only too well of her dislike of Islam; furthermore, the novel Insciallah which was published in 1990 is proof enough of this, we do not even need to go back to her antipathy towards the Muslim leaders she had interviewed twenty years earlier (6). On the contrary, sensing an editorial scoop, Vallardi contacted his colleague Ferruccio De Bortoli (7), director of the “Corriere della Sera”, who went to New York personally to convince Fallaci to confide her reactions and invectives in him: from that interview a four-page-long piece was published in the 25th September edition – the article’s length was a first for the daily newspaper from Milan – which made up the first draft of Anger and Pride.

From the moment on a part of the debate in Italy on the 9/11 attacks degenerated into a quarrel on the legitimacy of Islamophobia and on the pretext of the West’s superiority (8). Besides, almost none of the erroneous facts and the will of Fallaci’s affirmations (9), which could have been seen as a violation of journalistic deontology, gave rise to almost no reactions. It is true that in 2001 Fallaci no longer defined herself as a journalist, rather just as a writer, and on the other hand, right from the start the writer claimed the subjectivity of her approach as a conscious choice. Nevertheless, if back then such a choice was put together with the direct verification of the facts in the field, with a certain cultural relativism, analytically suspending any moral judgement and with a comprehensive approach (10), which gradually disappeared as the writer became progressively more sedentary and a recluse in her Manhattan apartment and in her Tuscan villa (11).

The reasons behind this silence on Fallaci’s erroneous facts and on the marked willingness of her affirmations is nevertheless shown in the witness accounts of 2006: conscious of owing her greatness to public opinion (12) and to a constant work of self-promotion (13), Fallaci imposed, with threats and rage, a censorship and self-censorship on the majority of journalists who wanted to write or speak about her, and she did not think twice before taking whoever did not respect her law to court. There is a general consensus on one point: the important right-wing thinkers were asking for the journalist’s backing before publishing any written piece of work on her, and De Bortoli’s violation of this rule (by publishing Tiziano Terzani’s (14) response to Anger and Pride in the “Corriere”) cost him his relationship with her, as was the case for many others before him. Such a strategy was much more efficient because Fallaci was a pro at publicly elaborating charismatic biographical coherence, having in the past been an expert at destroying knocking down her interviewees (15). The writer had understood perfectly that one earned charisma in three complementary ways: presenting oneself as creator of her own success, avoiding criticism and presenting herself as a figure on which it is not possible to have different points of view (or rather, literally becoming the object of an epic story); finally by resisting corruption, that is to say, staying true to oneself, or at least – in line with the previous conditions – by appearing to do so, which forces one to present any new position as a coherent consequence to the previous ones (16).

Fallaci did just this, claiming rightful responsibility in the spirit of the Risorgimento and of her militancy in the Resistance since her teenage years: in this way, for her, Islam was erected as a new avatar of Fascism and the invader, or rather of those enemies which she had fought against since her youth. What is more, when Fallaci claimed a continuity with her past and claimed to be true to herself, that is to say, to the public/epic figure which she had created of herself by putting herself on stage as a character from all her books and articles, she was sketching out a coherent story centred on her as a person and on subjectivity, which served to defend her arguments.

The proof of plausibility in her story (or rather, the proof of a coherent story) has a logical and emotive role in the persuasion process, acting as proof of her competency: of reality (Popperian experimental coherence) or of truth (inter-conceptual logical coherence). Here it is possible it derives from a public speech, already associated with Roland Barthes in 1957, but which has become part of general political communication in the last decade and has since been theorised under the name of storytelling (17). Oriana Fallaci, ex-spokesperson for “New Journalism”, opinionist and novelist converted to political opinionism, was, in 2000, a perfect example of these story spinners which mobilise opinion by the narrative (re)construction of events, placing them in a conservative account. It has to be conservative, in how it is structured to ring true with the pathos of common sense and of her public’s prejudices. It is a public argument whose narrators – unfamiliar with researching the facts and rational argument – are immediately performative, in how they give a role to all those who believe in the story, making them part of it (18).

Direct witnesses and narrative problems

It is a paradox that it is precisely these characteristics of Fallaci’s work and public figure (inseparable one from the other) which show the banality of most of her obituaries in the Italian press. Politicians, in the opinion of most editorialists, made a eulogy which was at times prominent, other times measured from questions which her last work on Islam “ask”…. Obviously so as not to alienate support from her readers/voters. Next to Fallacian epic poem, made up of books and articles by the author herself, polyphonic “accounts on Fallaci” by other writers are compared, which are looking to be part of her “legend”, with an obvious intent of capturing symbolically. Riccardo Nencini’s (President of the Tuscan Region) book is perhaps the most emblematic publication of this kind, wanting to participate in the narrative structure, in the legend which Fallaci built around herself (19). An account of some meetings and conversations with the writer which took place in the last few days of her life, the book tries to place Fallaci in the continuity of the most well-known moments in the history of Tuscany, and to place Nencini himself in the moment of the Fallacian feats (as her last confidant). But even Magdi Allam’s (vice-director of “Corriere della Sera” (20)) “Open letter” should be read with this narrative in mind. The Letter, an appendix to a book, this too an autobiography with a generalised account of relationships between Italy and Islam, opposes Fallaci’s arguments.

However, but can only do so after having established itself as a personification of a rational and moderate Muslim, in order to oppose the Fallacian curser. The result of which is that it reinforces the narrative structure of the controversy, contributing to a precise distribution of roles which in turn justify themselves, and therefore reinforcing a plot which is increasingly harder to leave. The narrative dimension, meta-pragmatic with regards the argument itself, manages to contribute to restricting and legitimising the intellectual field of those in it, and to exclude others (21). Put more simply, most journalists who ventured forth into the necrological world of the life of Oriana Fallaci, systematically fell into compiling clumsy paraphrases of her work, pin the end only producing biographies, where the main source, if not the only, is Fallaci herself. It is hardly surprising then that the few interesting texts – the only ones which provide an external point of view and new elements which allow us to understand better the writer’s intimate mechanisms and motivations – were written by observers who accompanied her throughout her career: colleagues with whom she had to share things, risks and periods of tranquillity, when she was not in the public eye.

And precisely even though they got to know O.F. they do not seem to be aspiring to a secondary role in the legend. Bernardo Valli (22) and Massimo Fini (23), for example, explain and show just how much the lead role and pre-eminence associated with intuition, action and straight facts made Fallaci unusually audacious and a fighter, also making her incapable of understanding the complexity of the world, if not only to report it directly. Over time Fallaci’s refusal of reportage could only lead her towards a way of thinking which was much more self-centered and detached from reality. What is more, two important female journalists, Natalia Aspesi and Miriam Mafai, have highlighted that apart from the scoops and public success, Fallaci’s intolerance had been clear for some time and could be seen in her idiosyncrasies towards feminism, intended as a collective battle and in her obsessive homophobia. Furthermore, the memory of Rino Fisichella, bishop, rector of the Lateran Pontifical University and Fallaci’s friend at the end of her life (if only to check her texts before publishing them), clearly shows, without intending to, to what extent Fallaci’s virulence by the end, justified itself with the strict doctrine and the Occidentialist way of thinking of Benedict XVI (24).

Nevertheless, apart from on these rare occasions, no one ever really tried to explain the origins of Fallaci’s racism. Apart from Gad Lerner (25), who shyly suggested that such a propensity was perhaps aggravated by her withdrawing within herself due to an illness in the period between 1990-2000. For the rest, no one ever suggested there could have been a weakening of her cognitive ability linked to the cancer’s development. As the sociologist Marco Marzano (26) has already shown, it is characteristic of the public debate in Italy not to make any comparisons and comments which may establish a connection with cancer as a cause, especially when dealing with prominent intellectuals, for whom wisdom, fruit of old-age, is untouchable by illness. All of these artefacts and narrative taboos, whether explicit or implicit, mean that it is the reasons, the causal story which Oriana Fallaci lived, tend to impose themselves as a fault and to be taken by most of the commentators, in different ways, for example: if the writer violently attacks Muslims as a whole, it must mean that Muslims as a whole did something violent to her. This is because, the simpler, more accessible and accusing a story is, the easier it is to tell it and make it your own (27); but also because this Italian public sphere is particularly transitive and linear in its opposition: criticising Fallaci, who is “against” Islamic terrorism, one runs the risk of being labelled as being in favour of terrorism.

It is precisely because of this polarisation of the Italian public sphere that in the last few years of her life, the most adulated of Italian iconoclasts became a right-wing icon, as well as for millions of readers of her Islamophobic sermons: as the last important character interview of Fallaci, dedicated and published in May 2006 in the magazine “The New Yorker” (28), the heroine of the ‘60s and ‘70s had by then become a racist Erinyes, without anyone ever having seriously looked at how this public metamorphosis was possible. Giancarlo Bosetti (in his book Evil Teacher, The Reset books – Marsilio 2004) provides a convincing but partial argument: not having read Fallaci’s trilogy, that monumental piece of popular writing, many Italian intellectuals precluded themselves not only the possibility of denouncing the work, but also the possibility to analyse the extraordinary success it has had. The hundreds of articles and witness accounts of journalists published in the wake of her death, provide us with a further explanation: Oriana Fallaci, by now stuck with a solitary Islamophobic way of thinking, has been transformed without any scruple into a media circus animal by editors; it is these very ones who, instead – along with the journalist/writer’s colleagues, intimidated by her prestigious reputation and by her acrimony – could have and should have exert a minimum amount of peer review in her articles (before or after publication) (29). This isolation and this vulnerability were exploited for opportunism by Gianni Vallardi and Ferruccio De Bortoli, while others, more right-wing, reacted in the same way but for an ideological conviction. This is why it is they who are just as responsible as Fallaci, and perhaps even more so, for her last written work (30).

Bruno Cousin is doing a PhD in sociology at the Observatoire sociologique du changement (Sciences Po/CNRS) and at the University of Milan Bicocca. He is also a member of the Department of Political Sciences at the Université de Paris 8 Vincennes Saint-Denis, where he teaches political sociology. Along with Tommaso Vitale, he has recently published: “La gauche italienne face au movement pour les libertés civiles des sans-papiers”, in Critique internationale, n. 37, December 2007.

Tommaso Vitale is a researcher in general Sociology at the University of Milan Bicocca, where he is working in the PoliLombardia and Sui Generis – public action Sociology laboratories. It is associated with the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale (EHES Paris/CNRS) and with the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (Indiana University). Member of the editorial staff of Participation and Conflict. Magazine on political and social studies, he has published In whose name? Participation and representation in local mobilitation (Franco Angeli, 2007), The conventions of work, work of conventions (Franco Angeli, 2007; with Vando Borghi) and Violence. Introduction to State pragmatic sociology (Editori Riuniti, 2008).

Notes:

1) This article is a revised and expanded version of Les liaisons dangereuses de l’islamophobie. Retour sur le « moment Fallaci » du champ journalistique italien, in «La Vie des Idées», no. 24, pp. 83-90.
2) O. Fallaci, The Rage and the Pride, Rizzoli, Milan 2001; The force of reason, Rizzoli, Milan 2004; Oriana Fallaci interviews herself – The Apocalypse, Rizzoli, Milan 2005.
3) It is within this framework that we are currently analysing the thousands of messages posted between 2001and 2004 in the interactive forum “Thank you Oriana”, which has the dual advantage of basically gathering together Oriana Fallaci’s self-appointed fans and of was also appointed by her as representative of her readers and being quoted by name in the second booklet of the trilogy. Hence it has become a reference place for her supporters on the web.
4) Falsification for which a number of intellectuals and experts from the Muslim world have scrupulously dismantled the rhetoric and disclaimed the allegations. See more specifically : Stefano Allievi, Nothing personal Mrs. Fallaci, Reggio Emilia, Aliberti, 2006 ; Amir Taheri, “The Force of Reason. Book Review “, Asharq Al-Awsat, August 23rd 2006.
5) B. Cousin and T. Vitale, “When racism becomes a best-seller”, La Vie des Idées, no. 3, June 3rd 2005 ; Giancarlo Bosetti, Cattiva maestra [A bad teacher], Venice, Marsilio, 2005; B. Cousin and T. Vitale, “The issue of immigration and Forza Italia’s western ideology” La Vie des Idées, no. 11, April 2006.
6) On this subject see: Santo L. Aricò, Oriana Fallaci, Southern Illinois University Press, 1998.
7) Born in 1953, Ferruccio De Bortoli was chief editor of Il Corriere between 1997 and May 2003. Since January 2005, he has been at the head of Il Sole 24 Ore, the daily newspaper owned by Confindustria, Italy’s main organisation for entrepreneurs.
8) B. Cousin, T. Vitale, Oriana Fallaci ou la rhétorique matamore, [Orianna Fallaci or braggart rhetoric], «Mouvements», no. 23, 2002.
9) The lack of inclination shown by Italian journalists for crosschecking and verification has already been commented on by Cyril Lemieux, Mauvaise presse, Métailié, 2000. See also: Milly Buonanno, L’élite senza sapere [An elite with no knowledge], Naples, Liguori, 1988.
10) See more specifically her first reportages from the Vietnam War: Niente e così sia [Life, War and then nothing], Rizzoli, Milan 1969.
11) This most recent picture of Fallaci, cloistered in her own home due to her project for a historical novel [her announced masterpiece] and her illness, affects one due to similarities with French essayist Alain Finkielkraut’s life, who also perceived the social aspects of reality exclusively through the prism of the media.
12) In the sense attributed to this word by L. Boltanski and L. Thévenot, On Justification. The Economies of Worth, Princeton, Princeton University Press 2005 (ed. or. 1991).
13) A process of legitimisation comparable to the one supporting the figure of Bernard-Henri Lévy in France, he too a powerfully mediatised essayist. See: P. Cohen, BHL, une biographie, Paris, Fayard 2005. Fallaci lived for very long time in the myth of Curzio Malaparte, just as Lévy experienced that of Malraux.
14) Tiziano Terzani (1938-2004) was Italy’s other public personality during the first early years 2000, a role he and Fallaci inherited after the death of Indro Montanelli (1909-2001).
15) See: O. Fallaci, Intervista con la storia, Rizzoli, Milan 1974.
16) The identification of these three processes for creating charisma owe a great deal to debates held with Luc Boltanski.
17) R. Barthes, Mythologies, Paris, Seuil 1957, p. 50; C. Salmon, Storytelling, la machine à fabriquer des histoires et à formater les esprits, Paris, La Découverte 2007.
18) At this point it is well worth remembering how also the exhibition entitled "Oriana Fallaci. An interview with history", sponsored by the Ministry for Fine Arts, and that met with great success with the public (including school children] is becoming part of the narrative and epic apparatus organised carefully by Fallaci herself; see the catalogue for this exhibition (held in Milan, September-November 2007 and in Rome, December -January 2008): by A. Cannavò, A. Nicosia, E. Perazzi, Oriana Fallaci. Intervista con la Storia. Immagini e parole di una vita, Milan, Rizzoli 2007.
19) A configuration of narrative participation transpiring even from the book’s title: R. Nencini, Oriana Fallaci. I will die standing up, Florence, Polistampa 2007.
20) Magdi Allam, "Open letter to Oriana Fallaci", in Overcoming fear. My life agaist terrorism and the West’s recklessness, Milan, Mondadori 2005.
21) See P. Bourdieu, Ce que parler veut dire, Paris, Fayard 1982. More generally speaking, so as to assess the importance of this narrative paradigm in political communication and in social critique, it is interesting to observe that even books opposing those written by Fallaci achieving greater success with readers, do so by proposing counter-narrations, different portrayals of international migrations, these too created with different styles of storytelling such as collections of biographical interviews (M. Rovelli), novels (R. Saviano), or journalistic investigations (F. Gatti).
22) Bernardo Valli, born in 1930 and currently bureau chief in Paris for La Repubblica, famously rubbed shoulders with Fallaci when they were both reporting on the Vietnam War.
23) Currently writing for many right wing newspapers, born in 1943, Massimo Fini worked together with Fallaci for L’Europeo during the Nineteen Seventies.
24) Towards the end of her life Fallaci described herself as “atheist Christian”, hence not a believer but profoundly Christian at a cultural level.
25) Journalist and essay writer close to the Partito Democratico, an the host of the political-cultural talk show entitled L’Infedele.
26) Marco Marzano, Scene finali. Morire di cancro in Italia [Last scenes. Dying of cancer in Italy], Bologna, Il Mulino, 2004.
27) On this subject see : Charles Tilly, « Un’altra prospettiva sulle convenzioni » [Another perspective of conventions], in Vando Borghi and Tommaso Vitale (dir.), Le convenzioni del lavoro, il lavoro delle convenzioni [Labour conventions and work done by conventions], Milan, Franco Angeli 2007.
28) M. Talbot, The Agitator. Oriana Fallaci directs her fury towards Islam, «The New Yorker», June 5th 2006.
29) For specifics on the Italian field of journalism, see: Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini, Modelli di Giornalismo [Models of journalism], Rome-Bari, Laterza, 2004 ; Carlo Sorrentino (editor), Il campo giornalistico [The journalistic sector], Carocci, 2006.
30) Let us state this without simultaneously denying that the editorial line on this subject followed by the “Corriere della Sera” showed a degree of continuity even after De Bortoli was replaced by Paolo Mieli, and with the important role Magdi Allam came to play. It was precisely Magdi Allam, after being harshly criticised by Fallaci, and having accused her of political cynicism, was to claim on the contrary in September 2006 a great continuity between his own positions and those of Fallaci. See G. Bosetti, Ora l’islamico Magdi ama Oriana. Ma Oriana amò Magdi l’islamico?”, [Now the Islamic Magdi loves Oriana. But did Oriana love Islamic Magdi?] “Il Riformista”, September 22nd 2006.

Translation by Sonia Ter Hovanessian