Abstract: While concern about antisemitism is growing, especially online, agreement about what exactly constitutes antisemitism is declining, especially when it appears in contexts other than those associated with Nazism.
Based on four empirical case studies and combining various qualitative analyses of digital content and semi-structured interviews, this thesis explores expressions of antisemitic hate speech and how the discursive boundaries of what can and cannot be said about Jews are perceived, dealt with, and experienced by different actors in the Norwegian digital public sphere. These include key political actors on the far right and the left, as well as members of the small and historically vulnerable Jewish minority. Theoretically, the thesis combines sociological boundary theory with perspectives from media studies, antisemitism studies and multidisciplinary research on online hate.
The thesis shows how the neo-Nazi organisation Nordic Resistance Movement and online debaters in various comment sections push boundaries by producing and promoting antisemitic content in both explicit and implicit ways. It also shows how “anti-Islamic” far-right alternative media and left-wing political organisations draw boundaries through comment moderation on their digital platforms. A key finding is that antisemitic hate speech is a diverse and complex phenomenon that can be difficult to identify. Finally, the thesis also sheds light on the experiences of antisemitic hate speech among Norwegian “public Jews”.
Beyond the empirical findings, the thesis contributes to media studies by proposing an analytical framework for how the concepts of boundaries and boundary-making can be used to understand different key dimensions and dynamics of the digital public sphere, in particular, how hateful content is communicated and countered, and the consequences for those targeted.
Topics: Antisemitism, Antisemitism: Attitude Surveys, Antisemitism: Christian, Antisemitism: Definitions, Antisemitism: Discourse, Antisemitism: Education against, Antisemitism: Far right, Antisemitism: Left-Wing, Antisemitism: Monitoring, Antisemitism: Muslim, Antisemitism: New Antisemitism, Antisemitism: Online, Internet, Jewish Perceptions of Antisemitism, Attitudes to Jews, Anti-Zionism, Israel Criticism, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Methodology, Social Media
Abstract: This open access book is the first comprehensive guide to identifying antisemitism online today, in both its explicit and implicit (or coded) forms. Developed through years of on-the-ground analysis of over 100,000 authentic comments posted by social media users in the UK, France, Germany and beyond, the book introduces and explains the central historical, conceptual and linguistic-semiotic elements of 46 antisemitic concepts, stereotypes and speech acts. The guide was assembled by researchers working on the Decoding Antisemitism project at the Centre for Research on Antisemitism at Technische Universität Berlin, building on existing basic definitions of antisemitism, and drawing on expertise in various fields. Using authentic examples taken from social media over the past four years, it sets out a pioneering step-by-step approach to identifying and categorising antisemitic content, providing guidance on how to recognise a statement as antisemitic or not. This book will be an invaluable tool through which researchers, students, practitioners and social media moderators can learn to recognise contemporary antisemitism online – and the structural aspects of hate speech more generally – in all its breadth and diversity.
Topics: Antisemitism: Attitude Surveys, Antisemitism: Monitoring, Antisemitism: Online, Antisemitism: Left-Wing, Antisemitism: Muslim, Antisemitism: Discourse, Israel Criticism, Anti-Zionism, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Policy, October 7 2023 attacks + aftermath
Abstract: In this policy paper:
How have levels of antisemitism in the UK and across Europe changed since the October 7 attack on Israel and the war in Gaza? Using the most recent survey data from July 2024, this policy paper demonstrates how the antisemitic incident reporting figures most commonly quoted significantly underestimate the number of incidents happening in reality. The paper also introduces the concept of ‘ambient antisemitism’ – Jews experiencing antisemitism that isn’t personally directed at them –looking at how the context in which Jews are living today affects their perceptions of antisemitism. It also explores the general population’s attitudes to Jews and Israel before and after October 7, 2023.
The paper concludes that better research methods are required to accurately assess the general population’s attitudes to Jews and Israel and Jewish people’s perceptions and experiences of antisemitism. It points to a critical gap in research compared with the EU and calls on the UK Government and philanthropic community to plug it as a matter of urgency.
Some of the key findings in this policy paper:
Reports of antisemitic incidents increased dramatically in the months following the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7 in multiple European countries.
Survey data demonstrate that the number of antisemitic incidents being recorded by the police and community monitoring agencies vastly underestimates the amount of antisemitism taking place.
An evident rise in antisemitism since October 7 has had a significant impact on Jewish people’s feelings of safety and security in the UK and across Europe.
The degree to which the Hamas attacks on October 7 were marked by open celebration and affirmation of violence reveals a level of antisemitic hate that exists within parts of Western Europe that poses a severe threat to Jews living on the continent.
A culture of ‘ambient antisemitism’ has emerged in the post-October 7 period, marked by incidents such as defacing or tearing down posters of Israeli hostages, that, whether strictly antisemitic or not, create a broader milieu that feels threatening and hostile to many Jewish people.
Inaccurate and irresponsible media reporting can lead directly to an increase in antisemitism, although more research is required to understand how and when this occurs.
There has been a significant increase in sympathy for the Palestinians among young people and those on the political left since October 7; levels of sympathy for Israel are much lower, even in the very immediate aftermath of the Hamas attacks.
The lack of sympathy for Israel is likely to lead to many Jews feeling a greater sense of alienation from the societies in which they live over time.
Given the apparent levels of concern among Jews today, much more needs to be done to invest in a robust and systematic approach to measuring antisemitism in society and its effects on Jews as part of a serious strategy to combat it going forward. This is particularly the case in the UK, which has fallen far behind the EU since leaving the European Union in this respect.
Abstract: CST recorded 1,978 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of 2024, the highest total ever reported to CST in the first six months of any year. This is an increase of 105% from the 964 antisemitic incidents recorded by CST in the January-to-June period of 2023, which was the third-highest half year figure reported to CST. CST recorded 823 incidents in the first six months of 2022, 1,371 from January to June 2021, and 875 in the first half of 2020.
The 1,978 antisemitic incidents recorded in the first six months of 2024 is 44% higher than the previous half-year record of 1,371 incidents in 2021, and is a reflection of the ongoing high volume of anti-Jewish hate reported since the Hamas terror attack in Israel on 7 October 2023. As documented in CST’s Antisemitic Incidents Report 2023, there was an instant increase in antisemitic incident levels in the UK following Hamas’ attack on Israel, before Israel had coordinated any large scale military response in Gaza. The subsequent war, and the widespread public focus it has drawn, have continued to impact the scale and content of antisemitism so far this year.
Abstract: According to the Jewish Chronicle, on December 1, 2021, a group of Jewish bus passengers on their way to celebrate Chanukkah in London were attacked by a mob, spit upon, verbally abused, and subjected to Nazi salutes.1 Similarly, the monitoring group Tell MAMA reported that in the week after the Daily Telegraph published a column written by the then prime minister Boris Johnson, in which he compared Muslim women to “letterboxes” and “bank robbers,” Islamophobic incidents in the United Kingdom rose by 375 percent. In December 2019, a fourteen- year- old Muslim girl was violently attacked on her way home from school. The same month, a rabbi waiting in the Stamford Hill overground station was beaten by two men who shouted, “fucking Jew, dirty Jew” and “kill the Jews”; a month earlier a Jewish father and his two young sons were the targets of antisemitic abuse on the London Underground. While these forms of generalized Islamophobia and antisemitism have unfortunately become commonplace in the United Kingdom , there exists a largely unexamined form of antisemitic/Islamophobic violence perpetuated against LGBT Muslims and Jews— double minorities. In this chapter, I examine discourses present in the British print media that may contribute to a framing of LGBT Muslims and Jews in ways that can lead to the demonization of members of both communities. Robert Phillips My focus here is in the collective representation of double minorities by the British press. In choosing this focus, I should point out that those minorities who are the targets of harassment are targeted largely due to the saliency of their difference. As noted above, women wearing head or body coverings of any degree and men and boys wearing what are perceived to be “Muslim” or “Jewish” clothing or hairstyle (head coverings/payot) are often targeted. This includes Sikh men and boys wearing turbans, in that some may incorrectly identify them as Muslims. Because of outward appearance, many of the victims of these crimes may also be perceived to be observant in their faith and perhaps even threatening to national security and identity. This chapter is concerned with members of these communities who also identify as LGBT, positioning them as double minorities. As with members of other diasporic communities around the globe, LGBT Muslims and Jews have assumed unique types of identity forged through a combination of factors brought about by, among other things, processes of transnational migration. As both Muslims and Jews form some of the smallest ethnic communities in Britain, they are far outnumbered by more dominant Anglo groups and share a type of liminal subjectivity. Gay Muslim and Jewish men are both an ethnic and a sexual minority, further complicating this relationship. This dual-minority status has had a distinctive effect on how nonminority British view these individuals. For instance, Yip focuses on kin relations when examining the narratives of non-heterosexual British Muslims and suggests that within these communities , there is a perception of homosexuality as a “Western” disease that did not exist in the family’s community of origin. They also point out the fraught negotiations between parents and children, complicated further by sociocultural and religious factors, when it comes time to marry and the subsequent strategies employed by the children. In terms of how the nation views Muslims in Britain, Jaspal and Cinnirella position such subjects as a hybridized threat— British Muslims are positioned solidly as “other” while simultaneously being framed as a threat to the survival of the “in- group.”
Abstract: In 2017 a conflict erupted among the Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was related to identity and self-image, in particular the role of Bosnian Muslims during World War II. Highly sensitive but seldom discussed issues were brought to the fore. Had not Muslim forces massacred Serb villages? Did not Croat and Muslim Ustasha kill most of the Jews in Bosnia? Why, then, regard antisemitic collaborators as national role models?
Reactions varied from condemnation to arguments that Muslims acted in self-defence. Even antisemitic rhetoric appeared. There was a divide between a liberal, secular opinion and religious-national views within the ruling party or the Islamic Community. Apparently, a certain continuity existed between Muslim elites during World War II and those in power since 1990. In the 1930s, Bosnian Muslims were familiar with currents in the Middle East, the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Jewish message of the Mufti of Jerusalem. The organization Young Muslims, inspired by Islamist ideas from Egypt, was violently supressed by the Communists 1945–48, but reappeared in 1990, forming the nucleus of the Party of Democratic Action, led by Alija Izetbegović. After the war, high-level contacts with the Muslim Brothers were cordial and regular.
The crisis revealed tensions between the religious foundation of Bosniak identity and the building of a modern nation. Parts of society had been nurturing a discourse of martyrdom where history had to be ignored or revised.
Abstract: Social media platforms and the interactive web have had a significant impact on political socialisation, creating new pathways of community-building that shifted the focus from real-life, localised networks (such as unions or neighbourhood associations) to vast, diffuse and globalised communities (Finin et al. 2008, Rainie and Wellman 2012, Olson 2014, Miller 2017). Celebrities or influencers are often focal nodes for the spread of information and opinions across these new types of networks in the digital space (see Hutchins and Tindall 2021). Unfortunately, this means that celebrities’ endorsement of extremist discourse or narratives can potently drive the dissemination and normalisation of hate ideologies.
This paper sets out to analyse the reaction of French social media audiences to antisemitism controversies involving pop culture celebrities. I will focus on two such episodes, one with a ‘national’ celebrity at its centre and the other a ‘global’ celebrity: the social media ban of the French-Cameroonian comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala in June–July 2020 and the controversy following US rapper Kanye West’s spate of antisemitic statements in October–November 2022. The empirical corpus comprises over 4,000 user comments on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter (now X). My methodological approach is two-pronged: a preliminary mapping of the text through content analysis is followed by a qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis that examines linguistic strategies and discursive constructions employed by social media users to legitimise antisemitic worldviews. We lay particular emphasis on the manner in which memes, dog-whistling or coded language (such as allusions or inside jokes popular within certain communities or fandoms) are used not only to convey antisemitic meaning covertly but also to build a specific form of counter-cultural solidarity. This solidarity expresses itself in the form of “ deviant communities” (see Proust et al. 2020) based on the performative and deliberate transgression of societal taboos and norms.
Abstract: Contre toute attente, l’antisémitisme est redevenu un phénomène politique et social d’actualité en France. Au-delà d’une simple persistance de préjugés anciens, il s’incarne depuis la fin de la guerre de 1939-1945 dans une expansion sans précédent des violences antijuives, allant des insultes jusqu’au meurtre. Sa reviviscence dans l’une des plus vieilles nations démocratiques d’Europe est le signe d’un malaise social et politique qui reste à interpréter. Quels sont les lieux, les milieux et les significations de cette animosité haineuse ? Doit-on y voir l’effet de la persistance de l’ancien ? d’un déplacement ? de la recomposition de formes inédites, portées par des acteurs nouveaux, dans un contexte pourtant gagné aux principes démocratiques ?
Alors même que l’ampleur du phénomène est de nature à mobiliser les sciences sociales pour l’élucider et aider à le combattre, cet antisémitisme s’est accompagné d’un certain déni : longtemps minimisé dans les médias, il peine à être reconnu dans le monde judiciaire et reste peu exploré par les sciences sociales. Cet ouvrage entend donc contribuer à l’analyse rigoureuse du phénomène, en proposant à la réflexion les textes d’historiens, de philosophes, de sociologues et de politistes.
Abstract: Reflecting on the months since the recent October 7 attack, rarely has the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day 2024, ‘The Fragility of Freedom’, felt so poignant. Communities globally experienced the shattering of presumed security, and antisemitic incidents responsively spiked.
Antisemitism rose across both mainstream and fringe social media platforms, and communities resultantly reported a rise in insecurity and fear. CCOA constituent countries have recorded significant rises in antisemitic incidents, including an immediate 240% increase in Germany, a three-fold rise in France, and a marked increase in Italy.
The antisemitism landscape, including Holocaust denial and distortion, had shifted so drastically since October 7 that previous assumptions and understands now demand re-examination. In the run up to Holocaust Memorial Day 2024, this research compilation by members of the Coalition to Counter Online Antisemitism offers a vital contemporary examination of the current and emergent issues facing Holocaust denial and distortion online. As unique forms of antisemitism, denial and distortion are a tool of historical revisionism which specifically targets Jews, eroding Jewish experience and threatening democracy.
Across different geographies and knowledge fields, this compilation unites experts around the central and sustained proliferation of Holocaust denial and distortion on social media.
Abstract: This chapter introduces the notion of ‘enabling concepts’: concepts which may or may not themselves constitute a mode of hate speech, but which through their broad social acceptability facilitate or legitimate the articulation of concepts which can be more directly classed as hate speech. We argue that each distinct hate ideology will contain its own, partly overlapping set of ‘enabling concepts.’ In this chapter, we will focus on the enabling role of references to apartheid for the constitution of antisemitism in British online discourse around Israel. This argument does not rest on agreement as to whether the ‘apartheid analogy’—comparisons between contemporary Israel and the former Apartheid regime in South Africa—itself constitutes a form of antisemitism. The chapter draws on qualitative analysis of more than 10,000 user comments posted on social media profiles of mainstream media in the UK, undertaken by the Decoding Antisemitism project in the wake of the May 2021 escalation phase of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We will show how web commenters frequently use the apartheid analogy to trigger more extreme antisemitic stereotypes, including age-old tropes, intensifying and distorting analogies (such as Nazi comparisons) or calls for Israel’s elimination. The results will be presented in detail based on a pragmalinguistic approach taking into account the immediate context of the comment thread and broader world knowledge. Both of these aspects are relevant preconditions for examining all forms of antisemitic hate speech that can remain undetected when conducting solely statistical analysis. Based on this large dataset, we suggest that—under the cover of its widespread social acceptability—the apartheid analogy thus facilitates the articulation and legitimation of extreme antisemitic concepts that would, without this prior legitimation, be more likely to be rejected or countered.
Abstract: Over the past 3.5 years, the Decoding Antisemitism research project has been analysing antisemitism on the internet in terms of content, structure, and frequency. Over this time, there has been no shortage of flashpoints which have generated antisemitic responses. Yet the online response to the Hamas attacks of 7 October and the subsequent Israeli operations in Gaza has surpassed anything the project has witnessed before. In no preceding escalation phase of the Arab-Israeli conflict has the predominant antisemitic reaction been one of open jubilation and joy over the deaths of Israeli Jews. As demonstrated in the sixth and final Discourse Report, this explicit approval of the Hamas attacks was the primary response from web users. The response to 7 October therefore represents a turning point in antisemitic online discourse, and its repercussions will be felt long into the future.
The report contains analysis of the various stages of online reactions to events in the Middle East, from the immediate aftermath to the Israeli retaliations and subsequent accusations of genocide against Israel. As well as examining online reactions in the project’s core focus—the United Kingdom, France, and Germany—this report also, for the first time, extends its view to analyse Israel-related web discourses in six further countries, including those in Southern and Eastern Europe as well as in North Africa. Alongside reactions to the escalation phase, the report also examines online responses to billionaire Elon Musk’s explosive comments about Jewish individuals and institutions.
Additionally, the report provides a retrospective overview of the project’s development over the past 3.5 years, tracking its successes and challenges, particularly regarding the conditions for successful interdisciplinary work and the ability of machine learning to capture the versatility and complexity of authentic web communication.
To mark the publication of the report, we are also sharing our new, interactive data visualisations tool, which lets you examine any two discourse events analysed by our research team between 2021 and 2023. You can compare the frequencies and co-occurrences of antisemitic concepts and speech acts by type and by country, look at frequencies of keywords in antisemitic comments, and plot keyword networks.
Topics: Antisemitism, Antisemitism: Discourse, Antisemitism: Monitoring, Internet, Social Media, Main Topic: Antisemitism, War, Terrorism, Attitudes to Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)
Abstract: Common antisemitic visual representations are rooted in Ancient Christianity and the Middle Ages, but we have also witnessed new developments after the Holocaust and the condemnation of fascism. Stereotyping and dehumanization through zoomorphism, demonization, exaggeration of certain physical features anchored in the false presumptions of physiognomy and other visual devices have been weaponized across the centuries for racist and antisemitic agendas. This study undergoes a comparative analysis of two corpuses of antisemitic images from the Romanian press and social media at a distance of one century between them. I analyze the persistency, transformations, and new developments of antisemitic image codes popularized by the Romanian far-right from the start of the 20th century, through to the rise of fascism and the Second World War, up to the present-day social media. This visual qualitative analysis with critical historical insights is carried out on the following corpuses: a) a contemporary subset of 81 memes, digital stickers, and other visuals from 17 Romanian far-right Telegram channels and groups posted over the course of one year (August 2022 – August 2023); and b) 70 archival political cartoons published by 17 far-right ultranationalist newspapers (and one pro-Soviet communist newspaper) between 1911 and 1948. Findings show how persistent certain antisemitic stereotypes have proven across time and different cultural spaces – the hook-nose, zoomorphism, the blood-libel accusations, Judeo-Bolshevism, the satanic representations – and how the visual dimension serves to efficiently implant antisemitic narratives in the collective mind. These (visual) narratives are skillfully recontextualized to fit new (geo-)political realities – the post-Holocaust times, the COVID-19 crisis, the war in Ukraine.
Abstract: CST’s Antisemitic Incidents Report 2023 shows 4,103 instances of anti-Jewish hate recorded across the UK in 2023. This is the highest annual total ever reported to CST. It is a 147% rise from the 1,662 antisemitic incidents in 2022, and 81% higher than the previous yearly record of 2,261 incidents, reported in 2021. CST recorded 1,684 antisemitic incidents in 2020, and 1,813 in 2019.
A further 2,185 potential incidents were reported to CST that are not included among this report’s statistics as, upon investigation, they were not deemed to be antisemitic. Many of these incidents involve suspicious activity or possible hostile reconnaissance at Jewish locations, criminal activity affecting Jewish people and buildings, and anti-Israel activity that did not include antisemitic language, motivation or targeting.
The record total of anti-Jewish hate incidents in 2023 is a result of the unparallelled volume of antisemitism perpetrated following the Hamas terror attack on Israel on 7 October. Of the 4,103 instances of anti-Jewish hate reported, 2,699 (66%) occurred on or after 7 October. This figure alone exceeds any previous annual antisemitic incident total recorded by CST, and marks an increase of 589% from the 392 instances of antisemitism reported to CST over the same time period in 2022.
Abstract: The article aims to tease out the relationship between, on the one hand, changing rhetorical strategies for dealing with ‘post-war-tabooed’ antisemitism in the Austrian parliament and, on the other, shifts in democratic culture – that is, the expression of democratic equality in the publicly sayable. Starting from the theoretical assumptions that parliament symbolises democracy tout court and that parliamentarism is a ‘rhetorical condition of democracy’ (Kari Palonen), we seek to explore the nexus between parliamentary rhetoric and democracy in depth. We do so, first, by identifying the successive postwar rhetorical strategies for dealing with antisemitism in their (historical) political context and, second, by delineating how those strategies mark shifting boundaries of the sayable in relation to antisemitism in Austrian postwar parliamentary rhetoric. Third, we show how those strategies and shifts signify transformations of Austrian democratic culture and democracy and that this process has a gendered dimension. Methodologically, we draw on a multidisciplinary mix of qualitative approaches, combining discourse and rhetoric analysis, specialised approaches to the analysis of parliamentary debate, and Conceptual History.
Abstract: Książka Więcej niż stereotyp. „Żydokomuna” jako wzór kultury polskiej oparta jest na analizie dyskursu ntykomunistycznego i antysemickiego we współczesnej Polsce i ich wzajemnych powiązań. Jej powstaniu towarzyszyła intencja uszeregowania trzech zachodzących na siebie procesów: 1) intensyfikacji i rozwoju dyskursu antysemickiego w synergii z wciąż zyskującą na znaczeniu polityką historyczną, 2) powstawania nowych teorii interweniujących w pole badań nad antysemityzmem, 3) pojawiania się nowych zjawisk w sferze społecznej, które miałyby być tymi teoriami wyjaśniane.
Na tle dotychczasowych ujęć tematu podejście autorki wyróżniają rozbudowane rozważania metodologiczne, a zwłaszcza wypunktowanie niedostatków kategorii stereotypu i wyjście poza nią w kierunku kategorii wzoru kultury. Kategoria stereotypu sugeruje, że mamy do czynienia z błędem poznawczym, aberracją lub pomyłką. Zaproponowaną w książce analizę antysemityzmu charakteryzuje tymczasem całkowite zerwanie z koncepcją „ziarna prawdy”, na której zasadza się większość definicji stereotypu jako uproszczonej wizji jakiegoś wycinka rzeczywistości. Podążając tropem Sandera Gilmana, autorka traktuje treści stereotypów jako materiał do analizy grupy
wytwarzającej stereotypy. Takie podejście pozwala na wykorzystanie motywu „żydokomuny” do opisania status quo współczesnej kultury polskiej w zakresie wyobrażeń o żydowskości i o komunizmie. Autorka dowodzi, że przekonania na temat Żydów są integralną częścią kultury, wypracowaną i reprodukowaną w jej prawomocnych obiegach. Są one generowane, produkowane i używane do podtrzymywania pewnej całości kulturowej i pozostają w harmonii z jej pozostałymi elementami. Autorka broni tezy o „żydokomunie” jako motywie współcześnie konstytutywnym dla koherencji kulturowej, generowanej w ramach paradygmatu antykomunistycznego.
Książka ma dowieść, że antykomunizm nie tylko stanowi komponent tradycji antysemickiej, ale w dużej mierze ukształtował taki model badań nad antysemityzmem, w którym możliwość zdiagnozowania i rozmontowania tego ideologicznego konstruktu jest strukturalnie zablokowana. Strukturę tę umacnia fakt, że – za sprawą szantażu antysemicką zbitką „żydokomuny” zastosowanym wobec szkoły frankfurckiej na uchodźctwie – zbudowano ją niejako „rękami Żydów” – badaczek i badaczy, którzy po drugiej stronie żelaznej kurtyny w początkach zimnej wojny rozwinęli koncepcję relacji międzygrupowych, próbując ten szantaż obejść. Podążając tropem Stuarta Svonkina i Avivy Weingarten, autorka śledzi historię powojennego konstruowania narzędzi badawczych antysemityzmu w duchu psychologii społecznej przy równoczesnym odchodzeniu od kategorii socjologicznych. W książce wypunktowane zostają niedostatki takiego podejścia, ponieważ koncentruje się ono na szacowaniu indywidualnych podmiotów antysemityzmu, definiując antysemityzm podług cech nieadekwatnych do jego współczesnej konstrukcji. Tymczasem kategoria wzoru kultury pozwala przenieść punkt ciężkości z pytania o to, kto jest antysemitą, na pytanie o to, jakie
treści kulturowe cyrkulujące w rozmaitych rejestrach kultury, także tych najbardziej oficjalnych, są zakorzenione w antysemickich kategoriach postrzegania rzeczywistości oraz jakie są funkcje tych kategorii dla stabilizowania zastanego porządku. Takie ujęcie pozwala na uchwycenie mechanizmów odtwarzania motywu „żydokomuny” we
współczesnym dyskursie i jego funkcjonalności.
Zaproponowana w książce krytyka słownika pojęć używanych do analizy antysemityzmu obejmuje także terminy wypracowane w łonie nauk społecznych na Zachodzie, stosowane do półperyferyjnych warunków ostkomunistycznego kraju Europy Wschodniej. W książce znajdziemy krytykę powierzchownego przyswojenia kategorii: intersekcjonalność, białość, imperializm. Rozważając przystawalność amerykańskiego dyskursu o rasie i rasizmie do warunków polskich, autorka stara się dowieść, że użycie niektórych pojęć bez zważania na lokalny kontekst okazuje się mieć odwrotny wydźwięk w stosunku do intencji, które stały za ich wypracowaniem.
Ostatnia część książki poświęcona jest recepcji piętna „żydokomuny” przez napiętnowanych. Rozważania na ten temat wynikają z założenia autorki, że tylko przemoc symboliczna – przemoc, którą jednostki i grupy zadają same sobie, uwewnętrzniając przekonania grupy dominującej na własny temat i odgrywając przeznaczone im
przez grupę dominującą role (gościa, sublokatora, aspirującego, podejrzanego, niszczyciela, wroga itd.) – zapewnia tym przekonaniom pełną stabilność kulturową i możliwość bezkolizyjnego wypełniania określonych funkcji w kulturze. Zadając pytanie o to, w jaki sposób czytać narracje mniejszościowe, autorka mierzy się z metodologicznym impasem powodowanym faktem, że struktura dyskursywna stawia w upośledzonej pozycji tych uczestników dyskursu, którzy – bez względu na to, jaką mają tożsamość wybraną – postrzegani są przez pryzmat tożsamości wymuszonej. Nosicielki
i nosiciele piętna są w kulturze dominującej pozycjonowani jako stronniczy. Jest to jeden z efektów mistyfikacyjnego uniwersalizmu. Czy zatem, analizując narracje napiętnowanych, należy brać pod uwagę piętno podmiotu? Czy nie jest to powtórzenie – w imię analizy – gestu napiętnowania? Z drugiej strony, czy pominięcie piętna nie byłoby niedopuszczalnym przeoczeniem, skoro wiemy, że autorka/autor pisze w obrębie kultury, która z przyczyn strukturalnych, pod groźbą przemocy, nie chce dopuścić jej/go do głosu na równych prawach? By przełamać ten impas, autorka proponuje oryginalny, czterostopniowy schemat analizy dyskursu w badaniach nad recepcją piętna.
