Pub Date : 2021-08-08DOI: 10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071281
I. Kalmar
{"title":"Culture wars in the middle of Europe","authors":"I. Kalmar","doi":"10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071281","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45871359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-08DOI: 10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071277
Alia Kassem
Over the past years, decolonization has attracted growing attention across academic fields and divides. Ali Meghji’s Decolonizing Sociology and Robbie Shilliam’s Decolonizing Politics are two significant, timely and accessible interventions into this developing conversation. In this sense, they are best read as parts of the larger accumulating scholarship working towards the decolonization of contemporary education and academic disciplines, including José Itzigsohn and Karida Brown’s The Sociology of W. E. B. DuBois (2020), Aldon Morris’s The Scholar Denied (2017), Gurminder Bhambra’s Rethinking Modernity (2007), and Syed Farid Alatas and Vineeta Sinha’s Sociological Theory beyond the Canon (2017), among others. Throughout Decolonizing Sociology, Ali Meghji examines sociology’s deep entwinement with colonialism and imperialism, and its birth within the confines of European empires, often at their service. This examination shows through ample argumentation and examples how the ‘sociological canon’ offers provincial Eurocentric knowledge, and claims it to be universal. Meghji argues that this colonial sociology has been ‘exported’ to the global South, transformed into the only mode of legitimate ‘social science’ within a global colonial political economy of knowledge. Conceptualizing the canon itself as ‘colonial sociology’, Meghji consequently introduces a ‘decolonial challenge’ through, specifically, a serious engagement with southern ‘indigenous’ sociologies that resist, critique and counter the work of colonial sociology. In this respect, Meghji draws on key figures in anti-, postand decolonial scholarship, including W. E. B. DuBois, Ali Shariati and Frantz Fanon, to argue that decolonial social thinking has long engaged with the canon by offering valuable contributions to its decolonization while at the Patterns of Prejudice, 2021 Vol. 55, No. 4, 391–398, https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071277
在过去的几年里，非殖民化在学术领域和分歧中引起了越来越多的关注。Ali Meghji的《去殖民化社会学》和Robbie Shilliam的《去殖民化政治》是对这一发展对话的两个重要的、及时的、可理解的介入。从这个意义上说，它们最好作为致力于当代教育和学科非殖民化的更大的学术成果的一部分来阅读，包括joss·伊茨索恩和卡丽达·布朗的《杜波依斯的社会学》(2020)，奥尔登·莫里斯的《被否认的学者》(2017)，古尔明德·巴姆布拉的《重新思考现代性》(2007)，以及赛义德·法里德·阿拉塔斯和维内塔·辛哈的《超越经典的社会学理论》(2017)等。在《去殖民化社会学》一书中，Ali Meghji考察了社会学与殖民主义和帝国主义的深刻纠缠，以及社会学在欧洲帝国范围内的诞生，通常是为他们服务的。本研究通过充分的论证和实例展示了“社会学经典”如何提供地方性的以欧洲为中心的知识，并声称它是普遍的。Meghji认为，这种殖民社会学已经被“出口”到全球南方国家，转变为全球殖民政治经济学知识中唯一合法的“社会科学”模式。梅格吉将经典本身概念化为“殖民社会学”，因此引入了“非殖民化挑战”，具体来说，通过与南方“本土”社会学的认真接触，抵制、批评和反对殖民社会学的工作。在这方面，Meghji引用了反、后非殖民化学术的关键人物，包括W. E. B. DuBois, Ali Shariati和Frantz Fanon，认为非殖民化社会思想长期以来一直与经典有关，为其非殖民化做出了宝贵的贡献，而在偏见模式，2021年第55卷，第4期，391-398,https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071277
{"title":"Epistemic strides: from decolonizing politics and sociology to non-colonial politics and sociology","authors":"Alia Kassem","doi":"10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071277","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past years, decolonization has attracted growing attention across academic fields and divides. Ali Meghji’s Decolonizing Sociology and Robbie Shilliam’s Decolonizing Politics are two significant, timely and accessible interventions into this developing conversation. In this sense, they are best read as parts of the larger accumulating scholarship working towards the decolonization of contemporary education and academic disciplines, including José Itzigsohn and Karida Brown’s The Sociology of W. E. B. DuBois (2020), Aldon Morris’s The Scholar Denied (2017), Gurminder Bhambra’s Rethinking Modernity (2007), and Syed Farid Alatas and Vineeta Sinha’s Sociological Theory beyond the Canon (2017), among others. Throughout Decolonizing Sociology, Ali Meghji examines sociology’s deep entwinement with colonialism and imperialism, and its birth within the confines of European empires, often at their service. This examination shows through ample argumentation and examples how the ‘sociological canon’ offers provincial Eurocentric knowledge, and claims it to be universal. Meghji argues that this colonial sociology has been ‘exported’ to the global South, transformed into the only mode of legitimate ‘social science’ within a global colonial political economy of knowledge. Conceptualizing the canon itself as ‘colonial sociology’, Meghji consequently introduces a ‘decolonial challenge’ through, specifically, a serious engagement with southern ‘indigenous’ sociologies that resist, critique and counter the work of colonial sociology. In this respect, Meghji draws on key figures in anti-, postand decolonial scholarship, including W. E. B. DuBois, Ali Shariati and Frantz Fanon, to argue that decolonial social thinking has long engaged with the canon by offering valuable contributions to its decolonization while at the Patterns of Prejudice, 2021 Vol. 55, No. 4, 391–398, https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2022.2071277","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41999113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-08DOI: 10.1080/0031322X.2021.2011098
Olivier Esteves
ABSTRACT In November 1969, a quite odd and ludicrous case of alleged discrimination was blown out of all proportion, perhaps wilfully, by Conservative politicians and the media in Britain, some eighteen months after Enoch Powell’s Birmingham speech. A quite high-profile issue at the time, the case has now been completely forgotten. Yet, Esteves’s article suggests that the event itself is helpful to make better sense of the British—rather than merely English—ramifications of debates on race relations and discrimination, particularly at a time of an upsurge in Scottish nationalism. More importantly, the case partakes of what Esteves calls the ‘white backlash archive’, a populist and popular repertoire that nativists—not only in Britain—draw from in order to underline that the state is inefficient and counter-productive when it tries to legislate against discrimination, as well as that ethnic minorities and immigrants get undue protection from the state authorities, even though the 1969 case itself had nothing to do with ethnic minorities or immigration.
{"title":"The ‘Scots porridge case’ of 1969: bogus discrimination, the loony state and the white backlash archive","authors":"Olivier Esteves","doi":"10.1080/0031322X.2021.2011098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2021.2011098","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In November 1969, a quite odd and ludicrous case of alleged discrimination was blown out of all proportion, perhaps wilfully, by Conservative politicians and the media in Britain, some eighteen months after Enoch Powell’s Birmingham speech. A quite high-profile issue at the time, the case has now been completely forgotten. Yet, Esteves’s article suggests that the event itself is helpful to make better sense of the British—rather than merely English—ramifications of debates on race relations and discrimination, particularly at a time of an upsurge in Scottish nationalism. More importantly, the case partakes of what Esteves calls the ‘white backlash archive’, a populist and popular repertoire that nativists—not only in Britain—draw from in order to underline that the state is inefficient and counter-productive when it tries to legislate against discrimination, as well as that ethnic minorities and immigrants get undue protection from the state authorities, even though the 1969 case itself had nothing to do with ethnic minorities or immigration.","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45022435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-08DOI: 10.1080/0031322X.2021.2014087
Henry Maher, Eda Gunaydin, J. McSwiney
ABSTRACT This article examines the intersection of discourses of ‘western civilizationism’ and white supremacy through a case study of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation, a philanthropic foundation that has established undergraduate degrees in ‘western civilization’ at Australian universities. Proponents of the Centre argue there is nothing harmful about celebrating western civilization and reject any suggestion of a link between what Maher, Gunaydin and McSwiney describe as a ‘civilizationist discourse’ and racism. The authors draw on neo-racism scholarship to inform a critical discourse analysis of the Centre and supporters’ publications, demonstrating that the themes of western civilization articulated by the Centre are linked to the logics of white supremacy. Accordingly, they argue that the Ramsay Centre discourse uncritically reproduces central pillars of white supremacist ideology through its cultural essentialism and veneration of western civilization. Following Rogers Brubaker’s work on western civilizationism, they find evidence in the Centre and supporters’ output of the three themes Brubaker claims make up western civilizationism, namely, Christian identitarianism, secularism and liberalism. They also offer three additional themes—decline and renewal, academic capture and teleology—that they contend are central to the Centre’s western civilizationist discourse. In addition to the notion of civilizational clash inherent to civilizationism, the Ramsay discourse evidences an inwards turn that emphasizes the threat of cultural degeneration caused by an allegedly ‘anti-western’ internal Other. They argue that this inward turn is driven by concerns of academic capture by these anti-western elements, narratives of civilizational decline and renewal, and a teleological reading of history that situates the West as the pinnacle of civilizational development. Examining constructions of western civilization in the context of an Australian case therefore improves the representativity of the literature on civilizationism, demonstrating that it is not limited to the northern and western European far right, but can also be identified in the mainstream political discourse of settler-colonial societies such as Australia.
{"title":"Western civilizationism and white supremacy: the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation","authors":"Henry Maher, Eda Gunaydin, J. McSwiney","doi":"10.1080/0031322X.2021.2014087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2021.2014087","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the intersection of discourses of ‘western civilizationism’ and white supremacy through a case study of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation, a philanthropic foundation that has established undergraduate degrees in ‘western civilization’ at Australian universities. Proponents of the Centre argue there is nothing harmful about celebrating western civilization and reject any suggestion of a link between what Maher, Gunaydin and McSwiney describe as a ‘civilizationist discourse’ and racism. The authors draw on neo-racism scholarship to inform a critical discourse analysis of the Centre and supporters’ publications, demonstrating that the themes of western civilization articulated by the Centre are linked to the logics of white supremacy. Accordingly, they argue that the Ramsay Centre discourse uncritically reproduces central pillars of white supremacist ideology through its cultural essentialism and veneration of western civilization. Following Rogers Brubaker’s work on western civilizationism, they find evidence in the Centre and supporters’ output of the three themes Brubaker claims make up western civilizationism, namely, Christian identitarianism, secularism and liberalism. They also offer three additional themes—decline and renewal, academic capture and teleology—that they contend are central to the Centre’s western civilizationist discourse. In addition to the notion of civilizational clash inherent to civilizationism, the Ramsay discourse evidences an inwards turn that emphasizes the threat of cultural degeneration caused by an allegedly ‘anti-western’ internal Other. They argue that this inward turn is driven by concerns of academic capture by these anti-western elements, narratives of civilizational decline and renewal, and a teleological reading of history that situates the West as the pinnacle of civilizational development. Examining constructions of western civilization in the context of an Australian case therefore improves the representativity of the literature on civilizationism, demonstrating that it is not limited to the northern and western European far right, but can also be identified in the mainstream political discourse of settler-colonial societies such as Australia.","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45891526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-08DOI: 10.1080/0031322X.2021.2011088
Scott Burnett, J. Richardson
ABSTRACT Burnett and Richardson’s paper has two related aims. First, it develops a model of how gender is articulated within fascist and other far-right discourses based on a review of the relevant scholarship. This model is presented in the first section. Researchers have in the past suggested a gap, or even a wilful ignorance, of gender in studies of the far right, and claimed that the topic is ‘neglected’ and ‘under-researched’. This gap is to some extent held open by disciplinary, historical and definitional boundaries that work fractally to split inquiry. Burnett and Richardson have thus read the literature in a kaleidoscopic fashion, including analysis across different historical periods and country contexts, to examine how gender surfaces in various ‘fascist’ discourses. This approach covered psychoanalytical, discourse analytical, historical, art historical, literary, political and anthropological approaches to gender and fascism. The second aim of the paper is to show how the model proposed is brought into relief in a particular country context: that of the United Kingdom since the Second World War. Gender in post-war British fascism has been the subject of several important studies, though none of them have specifically traced the textual journey of key ideas and themes related to gender in mediatized far-right discourse. Building on a discourse-historical analytic approach to the development of fascist politics of this period, Burnett and Richardson argue that paying attention to gender in fascist discourse is a useful lens through which to analyse the local and historical contingencies that make one fascist discursive formation differ from another.
{"title":"‘Breeders for race and nation’: gender, sexuality and fecundity in post-war British fascist discourse","authors":"Scott Burnett, J. Richardson","doi":"10.1080/0031322X.2021.2011088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2021.2011088","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Burnett and Richardson’s paper has two related aims. First, it develops a model of how gender is articulated within fascist and other far-right discourses based on a review of the relevant scholarship. This model is presented in the first section. Researchers have in the past suggested a gap, or even a wilful ignorance, of gender in studies of the far right, and claimed that the topic is ‘neglected’ and ‘under-researched’. This gap is to some extent held open by disciplinary, historical and definitional boundaries that work fractally to split inquiry. Burnett and Richardson have thus read the literature in a kaleidoscopic fashion, including analysis across different historical periods and country contexts, to examine how gender surfaces in various ‘fascist’ discourses. This approach covered psychoanalytical, discourse analytical, historical, art historical, literary, political and anthropological approaches to gender and fascism. The second aim of the paper is to show how the model proposed is brought into relief in a particular country context: that of the United Kingdom since the Second World War. Gender in post-war British fascism has been the subject of several important studies, though none of them have specifically traced the textual journey of key ideas and themes related to gender in mediatized far-right discourse. Building on a discourse-historical analytic approach to the development of fascist politics of this period, Burnett and Richardson argue that paying attention to gender in fascist discourse is a useful lens through which to analyse the local and historical contingencies that make one fascist discursive formation differ from another.","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42289603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-29DOI: 10.1080/0031322x.2021.1898812
ABSTRACT
Before the twentieth century, debates about slavery, segregation and racial inequality in the United States were often bound up with the meanings of racial ‘prejudice’. In this article, Alexander suggests that the concept was often double-edged: deployed both against racial inequality and oppression, but also to maintain it. Since the end of the eighteenth century, abolitionists and other advocates of racial equality charged that their opponents were possessed by irrational prejudice that they sought to stamp out through a variety of means. In another line of argument, however, racial prejudice was natural or, at least, so deeply rooted from centuries of slavery as to be basically ineradicable. This meant that attempts to abolish slavery and establish an egalitarian, multiracial society were forever doomed to failure. Some people drew the lesson from this conception of prejudice that it might be best to remove Blacks from American soil altogether by colonizing them elsewhere, particularly in West Africa. Abolitionists, however, did not accept the idea that racial prejudice was indestructible and thought it could be removed through greater education. After the Civil War, with the end of slavery, defenders of segregation drew on similar arguments, suggesting that, if there were prejudices between the races, these resulted from the wisdom of the ages and should be respected, even as supporters of racial equality sought to show that these prejudices need not be permanent. Alexander’s article therefore explores the complex and sometimes counter-intuitive uses of the concept of racial ‘prejudice’ from the late eighteenth century up until the subsequent development of the Jim Crow segregation regime in the late nineteenth century.
{"title":"‘The curse of race prejudice’: debates about racial ‘prejudice’ in the United States, c. 1750–1900","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/0031322x.2021.1898812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322x.2021.1898812","url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>ABSTRACT</b></p><p>Before the twentieth century, debates about slavery, segregation and racial inequality in the United States were often bound up with the meanings of racial ‘prejudice’. In this article, Alexander suggests that the concept was often double-edged: deployed both against racial inequality and oppression, but also to maintain it. Since the end of the eighteenth century, abolitionists and other advocates of racial equality charged that their opponents were possessed by irrational prejudice that they sought to stamp out through a variety of means. In another line of argument, however, racial prejudice was natural or, at least, so deeply rooted from centuries of slavery as to be basically ineradicable. This meant that attempts to abolish slavery and establish an egalitarian, multiracial society were forever doomed to failure. Some people drew the lesson from this conception of prejudice that it might be best to remove Blacks from American soil altogether by colonizing them elsewhere, particularly in West Africa. Abolitionists, however, did not accept the idea that racial prejudice was indestructible and thought it could be removed through greater education. After the Civil War, with the end of slavery, defenders of segregation drew on similar arguments, suggesting that, if there were prejudices between the races, these resulted from the wisdom of the ages and should be respected, even as supporters of racial equality sought to show that these prejudices need not be permanent. Alexander’s article therefore explores the complex and sometimes counter-intuitive uses of the concept of racial ‘prejudice’ from the late eighteenth century up until the subsequent development of the Jim Crow segregation regime in the late nineteenth century.</p>","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138525074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-27DOI: 10.1080/0031322x.2021.2008156
A. Fair
Historian Joe Mulhall’s British Fascism after the Holocaust: From the Birth of Denial to the Notting Hill Riots, 1939–1958 begins with a celebration. The relief and jubilation are almost palpable in the British newspapers that marked the end of the Second World War. Headlines described Britain as the nation that ‘stood alone’ against fascism and confidently proclaimed ‘fascism had had its day in England. There could be no “come back”’ (1). But, just as quickly as Mulhall introduces the celebratory articles, he dispels such mythology. British Fascism after the Holocaust traces British fascists’ political activities during and after the war. Linking interwar and war-time fascist ideology with post-war groups challenges the cherished national discourse about Britain as a beacon of anti-fascist activism. Mulhall demonstrates that fascists were not only present in the post-war political landscape, they were relentlessly active. The individuals and organizations that re-articulated fascist ideology in post-war Britain became the genesis of both Holocaust denial and anti-immigrant sentiment in the country. Indeed, he argues, it is impossible to understand the later electoral gains of fascist parties like the 1970s-era National Front without charting the ideological continuities between interwar fascism and post-war fascist ideology. Mulhall’s book joins an extensive body of scholarship on British fascism and its place in the nation’s political landscape. His intervention is particularly salient for fascist ‘origins studies’ where scholars have rightly questioned whether similarities in fascist ideology across historical periods ‘necessarily amount to the same thing’. British Fascism after the Holocaust suggests that a high degree of transference between ‘periods’ of fascism means it is impossible to wholly separate one iteration of fascism from another. Instead, he charts ‘an unbroken thread’ that persists through wildly different interwar and post-war political climates (2). Divided into seven chapters, British Fascism after the Holocaust provides readers with a number of important interventions. Its early chapters chart
{"title":"The long life of British fascism","authors":"A. Fair","doi":"10.1080/0031322x.2021.2008156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322x.2021.2008156","url":null,"abstract":"Historian Joe Mulhall’s British Fascism after the Holocaust: From the Birth of Denial to the Notting Hill Riots, 1939–1958 begins with a celebration. The relief and jubilation are almost palpable in the British newspapers that marked the end of the Second World War. Headlines described Britain as the nation that ‘stood alone’ against fascism and confidently proclaimed ‘fascism had had its day in England. There could be no “come back”’ (1). But, just as quickly as Mulhall introduces the celebratory articles, he dispels such mythology. British Fascism after the Holocaust traces British fascists’ political activities during and after the war. Linking interwar and war-time fascist ideology with post-war groups challenges the cherished national discourse about Britain as a beacon of anti-fascist activism. Mulhall demonstrates that fascists were not only present in the post-war political landscape, they were relentlessly active. The individuals and organizations that re-articulated fascist ideology in post-war Britain became the genesis of both Holocaust denial and anti-immigrant sentiment in the country. Indeed, he argues, it is impossible to understand the later electoral gains of fascist parties like the 1970s-era National Front without charting the ideological continuities between interwar fascism and post-war fascist ideology. Mulhall’s book joins an extensive body of scholarship on British fascism and its place in the nation’s political landscape. His intervention is particularly salient for fascist ‘origins studies’ where scholars have rightly questioned whether similarities in fascist ideology across historical periods ‘necessarily amount to the same thing’. British Fascism after the Holocaust suggests that a high degree of transference between ‘periods’ of fascism means it is impossible to wholly separate one iteration of fascism from another. Instead, he charts ‘an unbroken thread’ that persists through wildly different interwar and post-war political climates (2). Divided into seven chapters, British Fascism after the Holocaust provides readers with a number of important interventions. Its early chapters chart","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46869346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-27DOI: 10.1080/0031322X.2021.2008159
A. Sutcliffe
{"title":"Difficult conversations on campus","authors":"A. Sutcliffe","doi":"10.1080/0031322X.2021.2008159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2021.2008159","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44786932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-27DOI: 10.1080/0031322X.2021.1968585
Kinga Polynczuk-Alenius
ABSTRACT Polynczuk-Alenius’s article contributes to a better understanding of the racist moment in Poland that began in the aftermath of the ‘refugee crisis’ in 2015. It does so by zooming in on Christian far-right discourse and reconstructing a cognitive map of the social world manufactured therein. To this end, it analyses the blog of the former Catholic priest Jacek Międlar, now a far-right activist and one of the leaders of the anti-refugee movement. In doing so, the article relies on two compatible bodies of research that have rarely been used together. Theoretically, the article approaches Christian far-right discourse as an articulation of the paranoid style and concentrates on its conspiratorial aspect. Analytically, it uses the fourfold model of authoritarian communication developed by the Frankfurt School to dissect systematically the conspiratorial tale expounded on Międlar’s blog. Accordingly, the empirical analysis of 116 blog posts treats the following themes: 1) the discontent diagnosed by Międlar (anti-Polonism, epitomized by the suppression of nationalist and Christian values in favour of European universalism); 2) the alleged operators of anti-Polonism (the Jewish-orchestrated conspiracy bent on dominating the world and its puppets); 3) the movement that will rise up against this cabal (namely, the Polish Catholic nationalists armed with conservative values); and 4) the leader of the struggle (Międlar himself as a Christ-like martyr figure). The article concludes that the anti-Muslim discourse, premised on an appeal to racist sentiments, served as a gateway into the conspiratorial, deeply antisemitic world-view of the Christian far-right milieu. In Poland, as elsewhere, such a world-view, stored and transmitted through the fringe far-right discourse, usually seems to gain traction in wider society during times of crisis.
{"title":"The menace of Jewish anti-Polonism during the 2015 ‘refugee crisis’: antisemitic conspiratorial thinking on the Christian far right in Poland","authors":"Kinga Polynczuk-Alenius","doi":"10.1080/0031322X.2021.1968585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2021.1968585","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Polynczuk-Alenius’s article contributes to a better understanding of the racist moment in Poland that began in the aftermath of the ‘refugee crisis’ in 2015. It does so by zooming in on Christian far-right discourse and reconstructing a cognitive map of the social world manufactured therein. To this end, it analyses the blog of the former Catholic priest Jacek Międlar, now a far-right activist and one of the leaders of the anti-refugee movement. In doing so, the article relies on two compatible bodies of research that have rarely been used together. Theoretically, the article approaches Christian far-right discourse as an articulation of the paranoid style and concentrates on its conspiratorial aspect. Analytically, it uses the fourfold model of authoritarian communication developed by the Frankfurt School to dissect systematically the conspiratorial tale expounded on Międlar’s blog. Accordingly, the empirical analysis of 116 blog posts treats the following themes: 1) the discontent diagnosed by Międlar (anti-Polonism, epitomized by the suppression of nationalist and Christian values in favour of European universalism); 2) the alleged operators of anti-Polonism (the Jewish-orchestrated conspiracy bent on dominating the world and its puppets); 3) the movement that will rise up against this cabal (namely, the Polish Catholic nationalists armed with conservative values); and 4) the leader of the struggle (Międlar himself as a Christ-like martyr figure). The article concludes that the anti-Muslim discourse, premised on an appeal to racist sentiments, served as a gateway into the conspiratorial, deeply antisemitic world-view of the Christian far-right milieu. In Poland, as elsewhere, such a world-view, stored and transmitted through the fringe far-right discourse, usually seems to gain traction in wider society during times of crisis.","PeriodicalId":46766,"journal":{"name":"Patterns of Prejudice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48656410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：