Suchergebnisse

chapter Studying racist activism: methods and lessons -- chapter SECTION I Fear, stigma, and other consequences of studying racists -- chapter Preface to Section I -- chapter 1 Studying the enemy -- chapter 2 Why I returned to studying the far-right -- chapter 3 White-knuckle research: emotional dynamics in fieldwork with racist activists -- chapter SECTION II Methods of studying racist activism -- chapter Preface to Section II -- chapter 4 White on white: interviewing women in United States white supremacist groups -- chapter 5 The banality of violence -- chapter SECTION III Theoretical lens and templates -- chapter Preface to Section III -- chapter 6 Positioning hate -- chapter 7 Does gender matter in the United States far-right? -- chapter 8 Methods, interpretation, and ethics in the study of white supremacist perpetrators -- chapter SECTION IV Entering and leaving white supremacism -- chapter Preface to Section IV -- chapter 9 Women in the 1920s Ku Klux Klan movement -- chapter 10 Becoming a racist: women in contemporary Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups -- chapter 11 Personal effects from far-right activism -- chapter SECTION V Directions for future research -- chapter Preface to Section V -- chapter 12 Women and organized racial terrorism in the United States -- chapter 13 Women in extreme right parties and movements: a comparison of the Netherlands and the United States (co-authored with Annette Linden) -- chapter 14 The duality of spectacle and secrecy: a case study of fraternalism in the 1920s U.S. Ku Klux Klan (co-authored with Amy McDowell).

Scholars of white supremacism adopted the framework of social movement research later and less completely than did scholars of progressive movements. Although the shift to considering racist groups as a social movement had many analytic benefits, it also nudged analysis away from some of the most central aspects of white supremacism. This article suggests how social movement research and scholarship on organized racism can benefit from a more reflective engagement with each other.

Interpretive and ethical frameworks circumscribe how we study the perpetrators of politically motivated violence against civilian populations. This article revisits the author's studies of two eras of white supremacism in the United States, the 1920s and 1980s–1990s, to examine how these were affected by four frameworks of inquiry: the assumption of agency, the allure of the extraordinary, the tendency to categorical analysis, and the presumption of net benefit. It concludes with suggestions on how scholars can avoid the limitations of these frameworks.