Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conceptual analysis reveals rhetorical strategies in anti-woke political groups, highlighting how colorblind framing facilitates the mainstream circulation of supremacist ideology.
To illuminate the varied and sometimes contradictory modes of public engagement practiced by right and far-right publics, this forum contribution introduces a concept of anti-woke publics. Representing themselves as fair-minded occupants of a political middle ground, anti-woke publics characterize wokeness as a divisive and destructive leftist ideology. They draw on discursive strategies of abstraction, universalism, and ahistoricism that obscure their ideological orientation and divert public attention from the unequal, unjust, and anti-democratic consequences of their advocacy. Their public engagement exhibits a fundamental tension between professed commitments to equal opportunity and their public advocacy in defense of an unequal status quo. Anti-woke publics situate the individual as the primary social actor and champion colorblindness as the ethical orientation for engaging diverse public actors. Sharing advocacy networks with avowedly supremacist publics, anti-woke publics facilitate the wider circulation of supremacist discourses among influential and mainstream publics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert Asen (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: