Book Review | Five Moral Pieces

Umberto Eco’s Five Moral Pieces slides smoothly into his collection of thought-provoking essays, showcasing another facet of his literary genius.

Over the years, I’ve sunk my teeth into a hefty chunk of Umberto Eco’s nonfiction. Despite the buzz around his novels, his essays really hooked me, thanks to my own inclinations.

Eco was nothing short of a wordsmith wizard. No matter the subject’s obscure or hefty, he had this knack for weaving his spell. He would snag your focus with an effortless flick of his literary wrist. He could conjure just about anything with his prose.

It’s rare to find an author who can juggle fiction and nonfiction with the same ease as Eco did.

Five Moral Pieces is a world away from the mystery-laden corridors of ‘The Name of the Rose’. Yet, this bundle of five essays doesn’t miss a beat in capturing your interest. Penned for prestigious outlets like La Repubblica, The New York Review of Books, and La Rivista dei Libri, with the remaining two hailing from his literary talks at universities in the ’90s, each piece is a testament to Eco’s intellectual versatility.

In this review, I’ll dive into each essay, laying out why this collection is an unmissable treasure for any Umberto Eco aficionado.

Piece 1. Reflections on War

Penned on the cusp of the Allied invasion of Kuwait in 1991, Reflections on War dives deep into the pointlessness of conflict.

Eco cuts to the chase, “War is in contradiction with the very reasons for which it is waged.”

To debunk the notion of war’s necessity, Eco argues that intellectuals must be blunt, avoiding the trap of sugarcoating or skirting around the truth. He insists on ditching loyalty for honesty, highlighting the no-win nature of modern warfare.

This argument finds a stark illustration in the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict. It serves as a grim reminder of the devastating and inconclusive nature of modern warfare.

Despite deterrents like nuclear arsenals, Eco writes, the complexities of war have only deepened. Wars aren’t just two-sided anymore. With the military-industrial complex in the mix, conflicts draw in various players through direct or sneaky involvement.

Eco stands firm, “Declaring wars inconceivable is an intellectual’s duty, even when alternatives seem out of reach.” War nullifies human effort and stands against nature.

Piece 2. When the Other Appears on the Scene

In this piece, Umberto Eco discusses the essential nature of recognition and response from others. Others shape our identity. Even those who kill or oppress do it for some sort of recognition.

Cultures that condone violence see outsiders as nonhuman, hence justifying atrocities.

Take, for example, the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. The Hutu majority incited violence against the Tutsi minority, leading to the deaths of over 800,000 people. The Hutus refused to recognize the Tutsis as equals. They dehumanized the Tutsis which resulted in one of the worst pogroms of human civilization.

Piece 3. On the Press

In this piece, Eco points a finger at the press itself, highlighting a stark contradiction. While quick to champion reforms everywhere, including within their own ranks, the press is sluggish about making those changes happen.

According to Eco, today’s journalism often falls into the trap of churning out nonsense. It serves readers a steady diet of clichés. The rise of TV cornered newspapers, pushing them towards fluff—society events, gossip, and entertainment masquerading as news, inventing stories out of thin air.

Politicians, once reliant on print to craft and debate policy, have now embraced the TV’s playbook, turning politics into an overly dramatized spectacle. “Publicity has taken precedence over or even replaced critical thinking,” Eco laments.

The press, which once boldly ventured where political and judicial eyes wouldn’t—or couldn’t—peer, has been overshadowed. With its penchant for sensationalism, TV caters to a subproletarian audience more captivated by tales of two-headed calves than substantial news.

Piece 4. Ur-Fascism

For me, this is the standout chapter of this compact book. I have always found Eco’s political commentaries riveting and a must-read.

Here, Eco dives into his firsthand experiences with fascism, having grown up idolizing anticommunist right-wingers. He compares and contrasts Mussolini’s brand of fascism with Nazism. While Nazism became a specter post-World War II, fascism’s influence lingers, popping up in TV debates, social media, and news.

Eco suggests this enduring presence is due to fascism’s fuzzy approach to totalitarianism. He describes Nazism as inherently pagan, polytheistic, and anti-Christian. Stripped of these elements, it ceases to be Nazism.

Fascism, on the other hand, gets bandied about, especially in leftist circles, for its chameleon-like quality. Even if you remove certain facets, it’s still recognizably fascist. Eco dubs this modern-day version “Ur-Fascism.”

Eco outlines markers of a fascist drift:

The Cult of Tradition. No advancement of learning
A disdain for Modernism
Distrust of Intellectualism
Viewing dissent as treason
Stirring xenophobia, making followers feel besieged
Targeting the disillusioned middle-class
Promoting elitism, declaring party members as superior citizens

Each element, Eco argues, can act as a seed from which a fascist mindset sprouts. Even if one of these elements is present, Fascism (at least in public discourse) will start to cast its shadow.

Piece 5. Migration, Tolerance and the Intolerable

Following the discussion on Ur-Fascism, Eco delves into migration and tolerance. An equally gripping topic. What’s more gripping is the fact that he shared these on-the-nose forecasts about Europe’s future in the ’90s. He nailed it when he said, “The coming millennium would witness a great cross-breeding of cultures. No one will be able to prevent it.”

Eco draws a line between migration and immigration. Immigration, as he sees it, is organized and regulated politically, while migration—masses moving en masse—is beyond any authority’s control. I’m not entirely on board with Eco’s view that controlling large-scale migration is a lost cause.

He backs his argument by explaining that migration occurs when an entire people, little by little, moves from one territory to another, pointing to historical movements towards the Americas and the 8th-century Arab influx into the Iberian Peninsula.

Digging deeper, Eco contrasts immigrants, who generally adapt to their new country’s customs, with migrants, who dramatically alter the cultural landscape of their new homes. He sounded the alarm bells in the ’90s, stating, “What Europe is still trying to tackle as immigration is instead migration. The Third World is knocking at our doors, and it will come in even if we are not in agreement.“

Eco’s tone in this chapter straddles the line between matter-of-fact and foreboding: “This clash of cultures could lead to bloodshed, and I believe to a certain extent that it will. Such a result can’t be avoided and will last a long time.“

Conclusion

From Ur-Fascism to the pressing realities of migration and the role of the press in shaping our worldview, Eco’s insights are as relevant today as they were in the ’90s. Perhaps even more so, as the world grapples with these issues in real time. His ability to dissect and disseminate these topics in a manner that’s both intellectually rigorous and engagingly accessible is a rare feat.

If Eco’s fiction has always captivated you, Five Moral Pieces will open your eyes to another dimension of his genius. In a world dominated by sound bites and superficial analysis, Eco’s essays are a refreshing dive into a meaningful discourse.

So, if you’re up for a journey through the mind of one of the last century’s most prolific thinkers, make some room on your bookshelf for Five Moral Pieces. It’s a conversation with an intellectual giant. Trust me, you’ll want to hang on to every word.