Spanish CSIC Links Oil Culture to Franco Era

Francoist Oil? The CSIC Thesis That Ignites Social Media

Does Franco’s dictatorship have anything to do with why we fill up our gas tanks today? According to Jaime Vindel, tenured scientist at the CSIC Institute of History, it does. His claim that fossil fuel culture in Spain appeared within an authoritarian context has sparked a storm. Framed within energy imaginary studies, the thesis argues that the model based on fossil fuels consolidated during Francoism, linked to values of masculinity and modernity promoted by the regime. Vindel coins concepts like petromasculinity, which some see as a critical finding and others as a funded absurdity.

An Art Researcher Talking About Oil

The first thing that stands out is Vindel’s profile: PhD in Art History, Master in Philosophy, and his research line includes Nature, Territory, and Cultural Imaginaries. He is not a mining engineer or an energy economist. His publications, according to CSIC, address the relationship between culture and natural resources. The text causing the uproar is part of a project on development imaginaries in 20th-century Spain. Vindel argues that the massive adoption of oil and cars was not neutral: it came hand-in-hand with an authoritarian discourse associating pogre with male dominance and consumerism.

Petromasculinity as Intellectual Provocation

The term petromasculinity has been the trigger. Vindel defines it as the construction of a masculine identity linked to fossil fuel consumption, typical of dictatorships and certain Westernized democracies. But criticism has not been long in coming: from parody—"phallocentric patriarchal carbonization"—to pointing out that coal was used in Spain long before Franco. The debate has polarized between those who see a legitimate analysis of gender and energy, and those who consider it ideological nonsense. Pablo Echenique, also a CSIC researcher, has even been mentioned as an example of the organization's politicization.

Science or Media Noise?

Beyond the scandal, the underlying issue is whether it makes sense to study fossil fuels from a cultural and historical perspective. Vindel’s defenders point out that the social impact of oil is not only economic but also symbolic. Detractors argue that CSIC should not fund concepts that seem taken from militant sociology manuals. The truth is that the generated noise has overshadowed any possible academic contribution. The controversy reveals the tension between two ways of understanding science: one prioritizing technical neutrality, and another seeking to unravel hidden ideologies.

The thread ends with irony: while some defend that petromasculinity is a cliché, others affirm that the concept itself is outdated. The million-dollar question: Would Franco have driven an electric car?