THE GOOD FIGHT: VARIATIONS IN EXPLANATIONS OF THE TACTICAL CHOICES MADE BY ACTIVISTS WHO CONFRONT ORGANIZED WHITE SUPREMACISTS

OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Northeastern University, April 2009 3 ABSTRACT This dissertation seeks to understand the tactical differences between two groups of anti-racist activists who confront white supremacists. I dub these activists non-militant and militant anti-racists based on their tactical preferences. Non-militant anti-racists engage in what are understood to be conventional and demonstrative tactics. While militants are also likely to engage in similar tactics, their tactical repertoire also includes confrontational and violent approaches. I am particularly interested in how the two groups of activists explain the differences in their tactical choices; and therefore, posit that each group will use ideological explanations and perceptions of threat to explain their tactical choices. Using a snowball sampling methodology, I developed a sample of 24 anti-racist activists. These activists were given a quantitative survey in order to establish their tactical preference. The survey consisted of an original index developed to establish the militancy of the respondent. Survey results yielded a bi-modal distribution of scores that suggests a distinct difference in tactical preferences among anti-racist activists and confirms the categorization of activists into non-militant and militant categories. Additionally, interviews were conducted with all of the participants in order to 1) validate the results of the quantitative measure of militancy, 2) establish ideological orientation and test whether it had an influence of discussion of tactical preference, and 3) gauge the level of threat perceived and its influence on tactical preference. The results of the survey and interview data indicate distinct differences in tactical preferences between non-militants and militants. Non-militants worked with existing 4 community and state institutions, developed educational campaigns, used symbols to demonstrate opposition to white supremacists in their community, and held explicitly non-violent and non-confrontational rallies away from the site of white supremacist events. Militants are also willing to engage in such tactics, but their tactical repertoire also includes disruption of white supremacist activity, confrontational rallies at the sites of white supremacist events, acts of violence, and activity in subcultures where white supremacists operate and organize. The interview data demonstrate a clear difference in how non-militants and militants explain their tactical preferences. Non-militants adhered to a liberal ideology, but did not make explicit reference to their ideological position to explain their tactical preferences. I posit that this is a result of hegemonic dominance of liberalism. Nonmilitants need not use ideological language to explain their tactical choices because they are considered normative in contemporary, American society. Conversely, militants, who self-identified ideologically as anarchists, were more likely to explain their tactics in ideological terms. They were more likely to explain their militancy in terms of direct action and a hostility toward the state and formal institutions. I conceptualize threat as taking three unique forms: 1) physical threat based on the anti-racists membership in a group targeted by white supremacists, 2) political threat based on the ideological difference between supremacists and anti-racists, and 3) spatial threat based on the contestation of physical and metaphorical subcultural spaces. Nonmilitants perceived little to no threat; and therefore, their tactical preferences reflect the lack of threat that they perceived. Militants, on the other hand, had a much stronger sense 5 of threat. The respondents in this study reported that they had been targeted for violence as a result of their sexual orientation or their categorization by white supremacists as “race traitors. ” Additionally, militants perceive white supremacists as a political threat because supremacists stand in direct ideological opposition to the militants and attempt to subvert their political activity. White supremacists were also seen as posing a spatial threat because their presence in certain subcultures signals an ideological shift within the subculture which is also accompanied by increased levels of violence. 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A project such as this is impossible without the words and ideas of the participants who volunteered to be interviewed for this dissertation. I would like to begin by thanking the twenty-four individuals who took the time from their busy lives and hectic activist schedules to take part in this project and the countless others who are part of the broader movement in opposition to organized white supremacists. Their beliefs and dedication served not only as inspiration for this work, but for my own commitment to anti-racism. I hope that this project does justice to the importance of opposing white supremacy in all its forms and aids the anti-racist movements that I have studied in their work against organized supremacists. I would like to also thank my dissertation committee: Prof. Jack Levin, Prof. Judith Perrolle, Prof. Kathrin Zippel, and Prof. Dianne Dentice. Since my first Sociology of Prejudice course with Jack Levin fifteen years ago, he has served as a vital supporter of my work in sociology. Over the years his input and support has helped me to develop professionally and personally into the scholar that I am today. I consider him to be more than an advisor and colleague, but a genuine friend. Judith Perrolle has served as a constant source of support since my first teaching assistant assignment with her in my first year of graduate school. Her theoretical input has challenged me to develop a strong analysis of concepts and ideas that has aided me greatly in the dissertation writing process. She once bragged to me that every student that has her on a dissertation committee finishes, and I’m proud to say that I will not disappoint her. Kathrin Zippel’s expertise in social movements has been vital to this project. Her knowledge of social 7 movement theory and scholarship has kept me grounded in the literature on a project that could have easily devolved into simple description or ideological ranting. The commentary and critique that she has provided to this project from its inception has served to produce a work that I am truly proud of. The scholarly and professional advice that she has provided me has been invaluable in my professional development over the last few years. Finally, Dianne Dentice’s scholarly insight into the inner workings of the white supremacist movement gave her a unique perspective on the social movement that opposes it. Her comments have aided me in drafting a strong work on a countermovement that has rarely received scholarly attention. I thank you all for your support and input in this process. In addition to my dissertation committee, I would like to thank the community of scholars who have also supported me in this endeavor. Specifically, I am indebted to my colleagues on the faculty and staff of the Sociology Department at Willamette University: Jade Aguilar, Emily Drew, Linda Heuser, Kelley Straw, and Honey Wilson. By giving me endless support (both material and emotional), advice, and encouragement, you enabled me to complete this project and move into a new stage in my development as a sociologist. I look forward to working with you for years to come. I would like to acknowledge the support that I have received from all my friends. My fellow graduate students at Northeastern University have given me more aid than they could ever know. Although there are too many who have come and gone over the years to list everyone individually, I’d like to specifically thank Eric Madfis, Tammi Arford, Sarah Cope, and Trish Morris for keeping me connected even when I was so far away. 8 I’d like to thank all my friends in Portland and Baltimore who are too numerous to name individually who have had to listen to me kvetch and explain my work for years; your patience and understanding has been most-valuable. I must give a special acknowledgment to Marci Gerulis-Darcy. Since my first days in the graduate program at Northeastern University we have been the best of friends. You have given me a plethora of advice, support, and appropriate distraction that has kept me grounded throughout this process. I truly appreciate our friendship and thank you for being there for me over the years. An endeavor such as this would be impossible without the support of my family. I would like to thank Kay and Larry Orrell for giving me a space where I could work without distraction, giving me endless amounts of material and emotional support, and understanding when I would emerge dazed at the end of a day of writing. This dissertation would not have been possible without everything that you have provided me for the last five years. You have always welcomed me into your home and treated me like family and for that I am forever grateful. I’d like to thank my parents, Arkady and Faina, and my brother and sister, Radim and Lena. You have always given me the love and support that I’ve needed. This project could not have been done without you. While I struggled to make this project a reality, you have fed me and given me a quiet space to work in, distracted me when I needed it, listened to me when I complain, and politely beared with me while I made grandiose plans for the future. I thank you for being a truly loving family and making all of this possible. You now have a doctor in the family! 9 Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to Elizabeth Orrell. Since the moment we met, you have giving me endless inspiration, encouragement, entertainment, understanding, and especially, love. You have always been there for me through th