Scholarship on social movements, racism, and nationalism increasingly falls under the purview of “extremism studies” and its subfield “far-right studies.” Prominent extremism scholars have developed generalist theories purportedly explaining far-right politics and power dynamics (or “mainstreaming”) across liberal societies. They define “far-right” as “illiberal” politics promoting dehumanization, exclusion, and inequality. Their theory of mainstreaming suggests that “the” far-right is a coherent entity that “enters” mainstream institutions or discourse from the outside. For these scholars, strengthening liberal-civic principles prevents far-right political power (mainstreaming). I call these approaches “grand theory templates,” which I critique for simplistic interpretations of power and for overlooking critical theory scholarship showing how liberalism accommodates far-right politics. Using the Canadian nationalist movement as a case study, I show how liberal chauvinism can be crucial to empowering right-wing populist movements. My data include over 40 hours of participant-observation at 20 right-wing events and 35 interviews with 42 current leaders and members of on-the-ground nationalist groups. Right-wing nationalists foregrounded liberal-civic ideas, such as “security,” “rights,” “objectivity,” and “tolerance,” to advance anti-Muslim sentiment and populist conspiracism. My findings suggest that far-right movements can gain power by embracing liberalism’s ambiguity and contradictions. In other words, mastering liberal messaging can be essential to the growth of far-right movements, challenging any easy dismissal of these politics as “illiberal.” Altogether, “top–down” grand theory templates oversimplify political distinctions and power, compromising research design and analysis. I advocate for more granular and “bottom–up” inductive approaches that prioritize sociological traditions over theories recently popularized by extremism scholars.

中文翻译：

---

自由主义如何适应极右翼社会运动：关于极右翼研究中对批判理论的“主流化”和需求


关于社会运动、种族主义和民族主义的学术研究越来越多地属于“极端主义研究”及其子领域“极右翼研究”的范畴。著名的极端主义学者已经发展出通才理论，据称可以解释自由社会中的极右翼政治和权力动态（或“主流化”）。他们将“极右翼”定义为促进非人化、排斥和不平等的“非自由”政治。他们的主流化理论表明，“极右翼”是一个连贯的实体，从外部“进入”主流机构或话语。对于这些学者来说，加强自由公民原则会阻止极右翼政治权力（主流化）。我称这些方法为“宏大理论模板”，我批评它们对权力的简单化解释，以及忽视了展示自由主义如何适应极右翼政治的批判理论学术。以加拿大民族主义运动为例，我展示了自由沙文主义对于赋予右翼民粹主义运动权力如何至关重要。我的数据包括对 20 场右翼活动的 40 多个小时的参与者观察，以及对 42 位现任领导人和当地民族主义团体成员的 35 次采访。右翼民族主义者将“安全”、“权利”、“客观性”和“宽容”等自由主义公民理念放在首位，以推动反穆斯林情绪和民粹主义阴谋论。我的研究结果表明，极右翼运动可以通过接受自由主义的模糊性和矛盾性来获得权力。换句话说，掌握自由主义信息对于极右翼运动的发展至关重要，挑战了任何轻易将这些政治视为“不自由”的说法。“ 总而言之，”自上而下“的大理论模板过度简化了政治区别和权力，损害了研究设计和分析。我提倡更细致和“自下而上”的归纳方法，优先考虑社会学传统，而不是极端主义学者最近流行的理论。