Theorising backlash politics: Conclusion to a special issue on backlash politics in comparison

Alter, Karen J.; Zürn, Michael

doi:10.1177/1369148120947956

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Britain has left the EU, but we should be sceptical of Boris Johnson’s (2020) claim, on the eve of this exit, that Britain is ushering in a new era for itself in which it is both ‘a great European power’, and one ‘truly global in our range and ambitions’. ‘Backlash politics may succeed in their extraordinary objectives’, Alter and Zürn (2020b, this issue) explain, when they ‘[reconstitute] the polity to fit the vision of the movement’. Where does Brexit leave us then?…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Back of the queue: Brexit, status loss, and the politics of backlash

Freedman

2020

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Status anxiety is not a necessary condition for backlash movements, and yet, both are highly complementary. Across political levels, from the community and state to the international system, status anxiety is often cited as a principal grievance and motivator of backlash politics. This article challenges the basic premise behind this framing by arguing that status loss – as a subset of status anxiety – and backlash politics, are essentially co-constitutive phenomena. Status loss can certainly propel backlash movements to form, but claims of status loss and decline are also uniquely exploitable mechanisms for bringing backlash movements into existence. Rather than treat objective status loss as an obvious cause of backlash movements, then, this article switches the focus to how subjective narratives of status loss are constructed, promoted, retrieved, and contested, in order to either advance, or oppose, the cause of backlash entrepreneurs. Doing so illustrates a primary mechanism of backlash politics, but also a primary mechanism of status loss, challenging dominant intrinsic and material premises on the role of status in international relations. This discussion is illustrated through a focus on Britain’s 2016 referendum on the European Union, and the extent to which both Leave and Remain campaigners elevated the rhetoric of status loss in defence of alternative pasts, presents, and futures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Back of the queue: Brexit, status loss, and the politics of backlash

Freedman

2020

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research has shown that dominant group members can resist equity‐oriented change depending on how the inequality and their own advantage is framed (Lowery et al., 2012; Rosette & Koval, 2018), and can also have social change motives that are regressive, meaning motives that seek to maintain or increase inequality (Sweetman et al., 2013). Regressive change motives are usually framed under backlash politics (Alter & Zürn, 2020), referring to the aim of powerful groups to regain power that has been lost or is threatened (Mansbridge & Shames, 2008). Taking this argument a step further, we propose that regressive social change can also occur when the dominant group is purposefully inactive for the sake of preserving the status quo.…”

Section: A Normative Framework Of System‐supporting Inactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers have suggested that when the disadvantaged openly share their discontent and grievances, the powerful have no other choice than to engage in (violent) backlash. Such backlash is considered a special form of contentious politics with separate causes, mediators and outcomes (Alter & Zürn, 2020; Shepherd et al., 2018). It is evident, for example, in the rise of populist sentiments, such as anti‐feminism, and pushback against reproductive rights and immigrant groups, which have received ample media and research attention (e.g., Clarke, 2021).…”

Section: A Conceptual Model Of Privilege Maintenancementioning

confidence: 99%

Collective system‐supporting inaction: A conceptual framework of privilege maintenance

Täuber

Moughalian

2022

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent protest movements such as #MeToo exposed that institutional change initiatives targeting harassment and discrimination have so far failed to achieve equity.We propose that this is because such policy initiatives fail to account for the motivation of those privileged by inequality regimes to maintain and perpetuate these systems. Addressing gaps in collective action scholarship, we introduce a normative framework conceptualising the inaction of dominant groups as system-supporting behaviour to preserve the status quo. System-supporting inaction is a central and highly effective technique used by dominant group members to hinder processes of change and preserve their power, and it often preludes escalation to violent backlash over time. Building on sociological models of inequality and power, we develop a conceptual model that accounts for the group dynamics associated with collective system-supporting (in)action. We propose an agenda for future research that focuses on resistance to change as a means of maintaining privilege.

show abstract

“…Stie (2021) argues that a growing range of crises show that the 'input' legitimacy of the EU cannot be divorced from 'output' legitimacy -just because IRAs are effective in regulating the quality of goods in the Single Market does not make the EU immune from allegations of a 'democratic deficit'. Alter and Zürn (2020) and Zürn (2021) have even theorised that the growth of IRAs can be linked to the growth in electoral politics of authoritarian populism, via a 'backlash' against so-called 'liberal elite' unelected bodies. Key questions have hence been raised about the practices of IRAs to promote democratic values of inclusion, diversity and engagement (Schmidt and Wood, 2019).…”

Section: Iras and The Eu's 'Democratic Deficit'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can independent regulatory agencies mend Europe’s democracy? The case of the European Medicines Agency’s public hearing on Valproate

Wood

2021

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2017, the European Medicines Agency staged the first effort at democratic innovation within transnational European Union institutions directly influencing the transnational regulation of medicines. Alongside its public consultation on epilepsy drug Valproate, European Medicines Agency included a public hearing involving representatives of patients and testimony from those directly affected by the medicines. Using this critical case study, the article argues from a deliberative democratic perspective that although the hearing in many ways exhibited the traditional shortcomings of elite-driven deliberation, it also demonstrated unexpected and surprising deliberative qualities. Based on new quantitative analysis of the hearing using the Discourse Quality Index, and qualitative observation of over 4 hours of footage, the article argues European Medicines Agency’s hearing facilitated equitable access and influence of patients and members of the public who had previously been excluded from decision making on drug distribution. These findings provide important new evidence of the deliberative democratic value of public hearings.

show abstract

Theorising backlash politics: Conclusion to a special issue on backlash politics in comparison

Cited by 16 publications

References 25 publications

Back of the queue: Brexit, status loss, and the politics of backlash

Back of the queue: Brexit, status loss, and the politics of backlash

Collective system‐supporting inaction: A conceptual framework of privilege maintenance

Can independent regulatory agencies mend Europe’s democracy? The case of the European Medicines Agency’s public hearing on Valproate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About