Charlottesville paradox: The ‘liberalizing’ alt-right, ‘authoritarian’ left, and politics of dialogue

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

In the aftermath of the 2017 Charlottesville tragedy, the prevailing narrative is a Manichean division between ‘white supremacists’ and ‘anti-racists’. We suggest a more complicated, nuanced reality. While the so-called ‘Alt-Right’ includes those pursuing an atavistic political end of racial and ethnic separation, it is also characterised by pluralism and a strategy of nonviolent dialogue and social change, features associated with classic liberalism. The ‘Left,’ consistent with its historic mission, opposes the Alt-Right’s racial/ethnic prejudice; but, a highly visible movement goes farther, embracing an authoritarianism that would forcibly exclude these voices from the public sphere. This authoritarian element has influenced institutions historically committed to free expression and dialogue, notably universities and the ACLU. We discuss these paradoxes by analysing the discourse and actions of each movement, drawing from our study of hundreds of posts and articles on Alt-Right websites and our online exchanges on a leading site (AltRight.com). We consider related news reports and scholarly research, concluding with the case for dialogue.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)221-228
Number of pages8
JournalSociety
Volume55
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018 Jun 1

Fingerprint

dialogue
politics
news report
authoritarianism
liberalism
pluralism
prejudice
website
social change
narrative
university
discourse

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

@article{2ad0aaff5db042d39e2b30e1417327c3,
title = "Charlottesville paradox: The ‘liberalizing’ alt-right, ‘authoritarian’ left, and politics of dialogue",
abstract = "In the aftermath of the 2017 Charlottesville tragedy, the prevailing narrative is a Manichean division between ‘white supremacists’ and ‘anti-racists’. We suggest a more complicated, nuanced reality. While the so-called ‘Alt-Right’ includes those pursuing an atavistic political end of racial and ethnic separation, it is also characterised by pluralism and a strategy of nonviolent dialogue and social change, features associated with classic liberalism. The ‘Left,’ consistent with its historic mission, opposes the Alt-Right’s racial/ethnic prejudice; but, a highly visible movement goes farther, embracing an authoritarianism that would forcibly exclude these voices from the public sphere. This authoritarian element has influenced institutions historically committed to free expression and dialogue, notably universities and the ACLU. We discuss these paradoxes by analysing the discourse and actions of each movement, drawing from our study of hundreds of posts and articles on Alt-Right websites and our online exchanges on a leading site (AltRight.com). We consider related news reports and scholarly research, concluding with the case for dialogue.",
author = "Phillips, {Joe Carroll} and Joseph Yi",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12115-018-0243-0",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "221--228",
journal = "Society",
issn = "0147-2011",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

Charlottesville paradox : The ‘liberalizing’ alt-right, ‘authoritarian’ left, and politics of dialogue. / Phillips, Joe Carroll; Yi, Joseph.

In: Society, Vol. 55, No. 3, 01.06.2018, p. 221-228.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Charlottesville paradox

T2 - The ‘liberalizing’ alt-right, ‘authoritarian’ left, and politics of dialogue

AU - Phillips, Joe Carroll

AU - Yi, Joseph

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - In the aftermath of the 2017 Charlottesville tragedy, the prevailing narrative is a Manichean division between ‘white supremacists’ and ‘anti-racists’. We suggest a more complicated, nuanced reality. While the so-called ‘Alt-Right’ includes those pursuing an atavistic political end of racial and ethnic separation, it is also characterised by pluralism and a strategy of nonviolent dialogue and social change, features associated with classic liberalism. The ‘Left,’ consistent with its historic mission, opposes the Alt-Right’s racial/ethnic prejudice; but, a highly visible movement goes farther, embracing an authoritarianism that would forcibly exclude these voices from the public sphere. This authoritarian element has influenced institutions historically committed to free expression and dialogue, notably universities and the ACLU. We discuss these paradoxes by analysing the discourse and actions of each movement, drawing from our study of hundreds of posts and articles on Alt-Right websites and our online exchanges on a leading site (AltRight.com). We consider related news reports and scholarly research, concluding with the case for dialogue.

AB - In the aftermath of the 2017 Charlottesville tragedy, the prevailing narrative is a Manichean division between ‘white supremacists’ and ‘anti-racists’. We suggest a more complicated, nuanced reality. While the so-called ‘Alt-Right’ includes those pursuing an atavistic political end of racial and ethnic separation, it is also characterised by pluralism and a strategy of nonviolent dialogue and social change, features associated with classic liberalism. The ‘Left,’ consistent with its historic mission, opposes the Alt-Right’s racial/ethnic prejudice; but, a highly visible movement goes farther, embracing an authoritarianism that would forcibly exclude these voices from the public sphere. This authoritarian element has influenced institutions historically committed to free expression and dialogue, notably universities and the ACLU. We discuss these paradoxes by analysing the discourse and actions of each movement, drawing from our study of hundreds of posts and articles on Alt-Right websites and our online exchanges on a leading site (AltRight.com). We consider related news reports and scholarly research, concluding with the case for dialogue.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046822573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046822573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12115-018-0243-0

DO - 10.1007/s12115-018-0243-0

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85046822573

VL - 55

SP - 221

EP - 228

JO - Society

JF - Society

SN - 0147-2011

IS - 3

ER -