Faction (pronounced fak-shun)
(1) A group or clique
forming a minority within a larger body, especially a dissentious group within
a political party, government or organization.
The terms “splinter group”, “breakaway”, “reform group”, “ginger group” et
al are sometimes used as factional descriptors depending on the circumstances
but the more familiar (and sometimes formally institutionalized) are forms like
“right”, “left”, “wet”, “dry” “moderate”, “conservative” et al.
(2) Internal
organizational strife and intrigue; discord or dissension (applied mostly to
political parties but used also to describe the internal workings of many
institutions).
(3) As a portmanteau
word, the construct being fact + (fict)on), in literature, film etc, a form of
writing which blends fact and fiction (though distinct from the literary form “magic
realism); in journalism, elements of faction are seen in variations of the
technique sometimes called “new” or “gonzo” journalism. In reportage, it should not be confused with “making
stuff up” and it’s distinct from the “alternative facts” model associated with some
staff employed in the Trump White House.
1500-1510: From the fourteenth
century Middle French faction, from
the Latin factionem (nominative factiō) (a group of people acting
together, a political grouping (literally “a making or doing”)), a noun of
process from the perfect passive participle factus,
from faciō (do, make), from facere (to make, to do), from the primitive
Indo-European root dhe- (to set; put;
to place or adjust). The adjective factious
(given to faction, turbulently partisan, dissentious) dates from the 1530s and
was from either the French factieux or the Latin factiosus (partisan,
seditious, inclined to form parties) again from factionem; the related forms
were the noun factiousness and the adverb factiously. In ancient Rome, the factions were the four
teams which contested the chariot racing events in the circus, the members
distinguished by the colors used for their clothing and to adorn their horses
and equipment. Because politics and the
sport soon intertwined the meaning of faction shifted to include “an oligarchy,
usurping faction, party seeking by irregular means to bring about a change in
government”. Even after the fall of
Rome, the traditional Roman factions remained prominent in the Byzantine Empire
and chariot racing went into decline only after the factions fought during the
Nika riots in 532 which saw some thirty-thousand dead and half of
Constantinople razed. Faction,
factioneer, factionist & factionalism are nouns, factionalize is a verb,
factional & factionless are adjectives, factionally is an adverb,
factionary is a noun & adjective, factionate is a verb & adjective; the
noun plural is factions.
The use of the word to
describe the literary device which blends facts with fiction faction is said to
date from the late 1960s although some sources suggest it had earlier been used
in discussions held in conferences and meetings but the most usual descriptor
of such works was the earlier “non-fiction novel” which by the mid century
(especially in the US) had become a popular (and in literary circles a
fashionable) form although, as such, it was not originally directly related to
post-modernism. Critics trace the
origins of the form to the years immediately after World War I (1914-1918) and
distinguish the works produced then from earlier texts where there was some use
of dubious material presented as “fact” in that in the twentieth century the
author’s made their intent deliberate.
William Shakespeare
(1564–1616) was well acquainted with the earthly lusts and frailties of men and
in Coriolanus (1605-1608) act 5,
scene 2, at the Volscian camp when Menenius is halted by sentries who refuse to
allow him to see their generals he knew what to say though it did him little
good.
First sentry: Faith, sir, if you had told as many lies in
his behalf as you have uttered words in your own, you should not pass here; no,
though it were as virtuous to lie as to live chastely. Therefore, go back.
Menenius: Prithee, fellow, remember my name is
Menenius, always factionary on the party of your general.
Second sentry: Howsoever you have been his liar, as you say
you have, I am one that, telling true under him, must say, you cannot
pass. Therefore, go back.
Menenius: Hath he dined, canst thou tell? for I would
not speak with him till after dinner.
The Baader-Meinhof
faction
Founded in 1970, the Rote Armee Fraktion (Red Army Faction (RAF)) was a left-wing, armed militant revolutionary group based in the Federal Republic of Germany (The FRG or West Germany (1949-1990)) which, for almost thirty years, undertook assassinations, kidnappings, robberies and bombings and although actually less active than some other terrorist cells, the RAF was better known and most influential in the early-mid 1970s. The RAF was dissolved in 1998 although, in the nature of such things, some members continued to use their skills in criminal ventures including drug-trafficing as a form of revenue generation. The RAF always used the word Fraktion, translated into English as faction. The linguistic implications never pleased RAF members who thought themselves the embedded, military wing of the wider communist workers' movement, not a faction or splinter-group. In this context the German doesn’t lend well to translation but closest single-word reflecting the RAF’s view is probably “section” or “squad”. German journalist Stefan Aust (b 1946) also avoided the word, choosing Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (the Baader-Meinhof Complex) as the title of his 2008 book because it better described how the organization operated.
Andreas Baader & Ulrike Meinhof
In the era they were active, a common descriptor in the English-speaking word was the Baader-Meinhof Group or Gang, named after two of its members Andreas Baader (1943–1977) and Ulrike Meinhof (1934-1976) and the media’s choice of “gang” or “group” may have reflected the desire of governments for the RAF to be depicted more as violent criminals and less as revolutionaries. The popular press however certainly preferred Baader-Meinhof to RAF because of the drama of the story, Meinhof having been part of the gang which freed Baader from prison. Both later killed themselves and, although they were never the star-cross'd lovers some journalists liked to suggest, it added to the romance and the Baader-Meinhof name survived their deaths and although the media, politicians and security agencies adopted the eponymous title, it was never used by the RAF. In the tradition of Marxist collectives, the members regarded the RAF as a co-founded group of many members and not one either defined by or identified with two figureheads, apart from which, the dominant female of the group was actually Gudrun Ensslin (1940-1977).
Factionalism
Factionalism is probably inherent to the nature of organizations and it really needs only for a structure to have two members for a faction to form. Factions can be based on ideology, geography, theology, personalities (and factions have been formed purely as vehicles of hatred for another) or just about basis and the names they adopt can be designed to denigrate (redneck faction), operate euphemistically (centre-left (just right wingers who didn’t want to admit it)) or indicate a place on the spectrum (left vs right, liberal vs conservative et al). They can also be modified by those wishing to demonize (lunar-right, hard-right, religious right etc). The labelling can also be linguistically productive In the UK during the 1980s, “the wets” was an epithet applied within the Conservative Party to those who opposed the government’s hard line policies, on the model of the slang “a bit wet” to describe those though effete or lacking resolve. The wets responded by labelling their detractors “the dries” to which they responded with “warm and dry”, words with positive associations in a cold and damp country. The names constantly evolve because fissiparousness is in the nature of organizations.
Of human nature
Cady's Map by Janis Ian.
The human race does seem inherently fissiparousness and wherever cultures have formed, history suggests divisions will form and folk will tend to coalesce (or be allocated or otherwise forced) into factions. Usually, this is attributed to some defined or discernible difference (ethnicity, skin color, language, tribal affiliation, religion et al) but even among homogeneous groups, it's rare to identify one without sub-groups. It does seem human nature and has long since become institutionalized and labelling theory practitioners can probably now build minor academic careers just by tracking the segregation as it evolves (boomers, gen-X, millennials etc). The faction names of the cliques at North Shore High School (Mean Girls, Paramount Pictures 2004)) were Actual Human Beings, Anti-Plastics, The Art Freaks, Asexual Band Geeks, Asian Nerds, Burnouts, Cheerleaders, Cool Asians, Desperate Wannabes, Freshmen, Girls Who Eat Their Feelings, J.V. Cheerleaders, J.V. Jocks, Junior Plastics, Preps, ROTC Guys, Sexually Active Band Geeks, The Plastics, Unfriendly Black Hotties, Unnamed Girls Who Don't Eat Anything, and Varsity Jocks. Given the way sensitivities have evolved, it’s predictable some of those names wouldn’t today be used; the factions' membership rosters would be much the same but some terms are now proscribed in this context, the threshold test for racism now its mere mention, racialism banished to places like epidemiological research papers tracking the distribution of morbidity.
The factions of the Anglican Church
Fissiparousness is
much associated with the modern Church of England, factions of which some time
ago mostly abandoned any interest in God or the message of Christ for the more
important matters of championing or decrying gay clergy, getting women into or
keeping them out of the priesthood, and talking to or ignoring Rome. Among those resistant to anything beyond the
medieval, there's even an institutional forum, the Global Anglican Future
Conference (GAFCON) which holds meetings at which there is much intrigue and
plotting; it's sort of an anti-Lambeth Conference though the cucumber
sandwiches are said to be much the same.
Under the stresses inherent in the late twentieth-century,
fissiparousness saw the Anglicans coalesce into three factions, the low &
lazy, the broad & hazy and the high & crazy.
Overlaps in the Anglican Church factions
The Low & Lazy
Like the high
churchers, the low lot still believe in God but, their time not absorbed
plotting and scheming or running campaigns to stamp out gay clergy and opposing
the ordination of women, they actually have time to pray, which they do,
often. The evangelical types come from
among the low and don’t approve of fancy rituals, Romish ways or anything
smelling of popery. Instead, they like
services where there’s clapping, dancing and what sounds like country &
western music with sermons telling them it’s Godly to buy things like big TVs
and surf-skis.
The Broad & Hazy
The broad church is
more a club than a church, something like the Tory Party at prayer. The parishioners will choose the church they
(occasionally) attend on the same basis as their golf club, driving miles if
need be to find a congregation acceptably free of racial and cultural DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion). They’re interested not at all
in theology or anything too abstract so sermons need to be brief and sufficiently vague to please the
bourgeoisie. The broad church stands for
most things in general and nothing in particular; finding most disputes in
Anglicanism baffling, they just can't see what all the fuss is about.
The High & Crazy
The high church has clergy who love dressing up like the Spice Girls, burning incense and chanting the medieval liturgy in Latin. They disapprove of about everything that’s happened since the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer and believe there’d be less sin were there still burnings at the stake. Most high church clergy wish Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) still sat on the throne of Saint Peter and some act as though he does.
