AD: Welcome to Right Rising, a podcast from the Center for the Analysis of the Radical Right. I'm your host, Augusta DellÕOmo. Today I'm joined by Dr. Eviane Leidig, a postdoctoral affiliate at the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo, and she's the Head of Publishing at the Center for the Analysis of the Radical Right. She's here to talk to us today about what exactly is the Òradical right.Ó Eviane, thanks for being here.

EL: Thanks for having me.

AD: So I wanted to start off with what do scholars mean when they describe an organization as part of the radical right. We see this term floating around a lot in media, in research, and in policy. So what does this mean and what is an example of a radical right organization?

EL: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is a foundational question, isn't it? So what scholars refer to the Òradical rightÓ they often mean an organization or actor that falls further to the right of the center-right on the traditional left-right political spectrum. An example of a Òradical rightÓ organization could be a political party like the National Rally, which is previously the Front National in France, the Alternative fŸr Deutschland or AfD for short, in Germany, or the Sweden Democrats. Now there are some characteristics of the radical right, and the sociologist, Jens Rydgren kind of sums that up nicely, although it is quite jargony and he describes the radical right as being that of ethno-nationalist xenophobia and anti-establishment populism. So the first part, ethno-nationalists xenophobia, basically means that you know, one belongs to the nation by virtue of their ethnicity, and the xenophobia component would be the anti-immigrant stance that the radical right takes. And when it comes to anti-establishment populism, this essentially views the political and media establishment as being quite left leaning, so sort of anti-incumbent establishment in that sense.

And I also wanted to touch upon this word populism because I think it comes up all the time when we talk about the radical, right. So, populism can be either what the political scientists Cas Mudde describes as Òa thin ideology of the people versus the corrupt elite,Ó and there's both a left and right wing populism. Now, when it comes to the left, the corrupt elite might be seen as corporations, or party politics, which furthers capitalism. On the right, the corrupt elite are basically those who see the furthering of initiatives like diversity and multiculturalism in Western societies. So that's one way of understanding populism is the people versus the corrupt elite. But there's some scholars who actually see populism more as a style like bad manners, and Donald Trump is definitely a figure who embraces that definition.

AD: Awesome. Thanks for clarifying that Eviane especially because as scholars, we take some of these distinctions for granted. But I think it's important to set out clear definition so we can put groups in the right categories. So how does the radical right then differ - now that you've given us this context - from the extreme right or the far right?

EL: Yeah, that's a very important distinction. So far-right, is basically an umbrella term for both the radical right and the extreme right. So oftentimes, the radical right is seen as pro-democracy and anti-violence and achieving its means. And this is often being used to describe political parties and sometimes social movements. So think again National Rally, as I had mentioned earlier, and the AfD in Germany, but also the Justice and Development Party in Turkey could be considered radical right or Lega, in Italy. And then on the other hand, you have the extreme right, which is that of anti-democracy and pro-violence to achieve their ends. And this is often used for groups like Atomwaffen Division or the prescribed, now prescribed group, National Action, as well as the Uyoku dantai in Japan, which is a group of ultra-nationalist groups that operates based on anti-Korean minority activism. And there's three main characteristics for understanding far right ideology in general. That's nativism, extreme nationalism and authoritarianism. But I just want to make a point that all of these terms radical versus extreme right as well as the characteristics of far right ideology. They're all dominated in the literature by political science. For instance, terms like nativism and authoritarianism to describe the far right, are contested by sociologists and cultural studies scholars. So for example, when we think about nativism, Òwho is a native,Ó for instance, white European settlers in the US certainly aren't native to that territory. And we think about authoritarianism - this is often used to describe very specific historical regimes. But what about colonialism and slavery as authoritarian projects? And finally, I just want to raise the point that even conversations about racism is left out of these analyses, but it's really a crucial element to understanding the foundation for the far right and Western countries.

AD: That's extremely helpful and I think that transitions well into the next point that we wanted to discuss of how fixed are these distinctions? Can organizations like the ones that you mentioned, traverse multiple categories and if they're in these multiple categories, are they cooperating together? Do they form connections specifically - do far right organizations only work with far right organizations? Or, are they capable of partnering with groups that are maybe outside the distinctions that scholars would put on them?

EL: Yeah, that's a really important point. I would say that these distinctions, these categories, are definitely geared towards Western Europe and to some extent, the US. I mean, parties that are extreme right, could be the Golden Dawn in Greece or Jobbik in Hungry or the BJP in India, which is what I've studied to a great extent, and these political parties, use or they work with, actors who do engage in violence. So it sort of blends the radical slash extreme distinction. And another problem with distinctions like this is, how do we label media and intellectual organizations? For example, publishing houses like Counter-Currents which is based in the US or Arktos Media, which is based in Europe, or even intellectual movements like the Nouvelle Droite or the New Right in Europe. I mean, how do we label them within these distinctions, as well as I think, more importantly today, subcultures or online communities like the Chan sphere, for instance, or even subcultures like fashion, and music and sports, these don't fit neatly within these categories. 

I've been thinking lately about figures like Bolsonaro in Brazil, or Duterte in the Philippines who don't come from a traditional far right party or movement. So how do we sort of situate them within these distinctions? Lastly, I just wanted to point that, you know, compounding this issue with fixed distinctions, is really the mainstreaming of far right ideas and narratives. So as I mentioned, Cas Mudde earlier he calls this the Òfourth wave,Ó which is where far right parties are no longer considered to be outsider or challenger parties because they've essentially entered the mainstream. I would want to take it a step further than just far right parties. So just as an example, last summer, the Hungarian far right Prime Minister Viktor Orb‡n met with the Burmese pro-democracy politician Aung San Suu Kyi. And they had both described concerns with Òcontinuously growing Muslim populations,Ó in Europe and in Southeast Asia. Orb‡n has described Muslim migrants during the refugee crisis as ÒMuslim invaders,Ó while Aung San Suu Kyi has stood silent on the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, and Aung San Suu Chi - she is not a far right politician - but she represents the popularity of Buddhist nationalism, which is a far right movements in Myanmar, and the continued persecution of the ethnic Rohingya. So I think it's important to think about it - not even foreign politicians or actors have to necessarily promote far right ideas and narratives. I mean, this has become unfortunately part of our mainstream political discourse.

AD: No, I think that point is absolutely critical and the intrusion of far right ideas into mainstream parties is something that scholars and media have really focused on in the past four or five years. So I guess that leads to the next question, then, if there's all of this movement of radical right ideas into the mainstream, why is it important to create distinct categories for radical right, far right, extreme right organizations?

EL: Well, I certainly think that it can help us particularly as scholars to map the landscape of these organizations and it can provide a basis for comparison cross nationally, or transnationally. But I personally think that this is becoming more futile these days precisely because of what you mentioned Augusta, with the mainstreaming of these ideas and narratives. 

AD: I think this also leads to a really important question about the role of fascist ideology in all of these movements. There's been a lot - as a scholar that's based in the United States - there's been a lot of discussion about is Donald Trump a proto-fascist? How does fascism impact his political party? How does fascism impact the policy directions of the presidency? So the next question that I have for you Eviane, is how are radical extreme or far right groups different from what we would say are fascist organizations, or is there not really a difference at all?

EL: Yeah, I mean, I think this is where we start to get into the nitty gritty of terminology, because if you ask a historian, they'll likely say that fascism is derived from a very specific time period, namely the interwar period that gave rise to Italian fascism and German Nazism. So groups today who have their origins to these movements would be considered fascist. But then there's other historians who focus less on fascism as historical regimes per se, but it's born out of specific historical conditions, the ones that we saw the 1920s and 1930s in Europe, which helps create the mood for discontent and radicalism against the status quo. But then there are finally other historians who say that fascism is somewhat a Òhistorical without a capital F.Ó It's a much more generic phenomenon that isn't tied to a specific time and place. 

For example, I look at the RSS, which stands for National Volunteer Organization in India, and it has roots to fascism, but it may not necessarily fit into the first two categories. So the founders of the RSS actually traveled to meet Mussolini in Italy, and were inspired by the paramilitary drills of the Black Shirts, and that later became the modus operandi for the RSS. Suddenly, with the rise of Nazi Germany, they developed collaborations both officially and unofficially through things like letter correspondences and newspaper editorials and even covert intelligence operations. But again, would a scholar of fascism necessarily consider the RSS to be a fascist organization? But I think despite all three of these variants, I mean, fascism is often understood as a revolutionary movement, which aims for a sort of quote unquote, Òrebirth to create a utopian society.Ó And this is often achieved by mass mobilization into charismatic leadership often through violent means. Just a last point on this, that sort of following the Second World War, scholars in Europe started to use the term Òextreme rightÓ instead of fascism, but you'll still find all three conceptions of fascism in the scholarship today.

AD: Thank you for that Eviane. And I actually wanted to go back to a point that you brought up earlier about the role of race in radical right organizations, specifically coming from the United States. We hear a lot about white nationalism and the importance of white national identity to extreme groups on the right in the United States. So how do questions of nationalism and questions of race intersect with radical, extreme, and far right groups, particularly, as you pointed out, a lot of these terms have a very Western European context and your research really pulls on questions of the far right in India. So I was hoping you could speak to that a little bit.

EL: Yeah, I mean, definitely terms like white nationalism or white supremacism is more often used in the US. And that is, by and large, informed by the integral role or really the original sin of slavery in the U.S. in the sort of co-evolution of racial supremacy to justify oppression. Europe, of course, did participate in slavery and genocide through colonial projects. But that was always seen as something done abroad rather than at home, where it was most visible in the US. And you touched on something in particular, which is the nationalism component of white nationalism. So I just wanted to sort of break through some of that terminology. 

When it comes to nationalism, this does have a very important intersection with the far right. So we mentioned nativism earlier, I mean, we can understand this, as you know, biological racism, or ethnic nationalism. Biological racism is the idea that certain races are biologically more superior than others and it essentially argues that race correlates with intelligence, so this rise of scientific racism, if you will. This is definitely more common in Neo-Nazi, Aryan circles and the Ku Klux Klan in the US. On the other hand, we have ideas of ethnic nationalism, which I sort of touched upon a bit earlier, which is the idea that - nations should be constituted by ethnicity. This is much more common amongst the far right today. So, for example, amongst the so called ÒAlt RightÓ for the US or the Identitarian Movement in Europe, but this has definitely been viewed by scholars as much more strategic decision of framing, so that certain aspects of the far right can seem to be more legitimate, or to be more appealing, in public discourse. And then just lastly, you know, there's this related concept of cultural nationalism. So, for example, the Counter-jihad Movement, which sees Islam as having different cultural values than the West, but again, this has been viewed as sort of a strategic move to circumvent criticism. Definitely the boundary between ethnic and cultural nationalism isn't always so clear cut and there's certainly a good argument to be made, but even ideas of biological racism have been reinvented through ethnic and cultural nationalism.

AD: Thank you for that Eviane and I think the last point that you touched on, as thinking about these particular movements is making strategic calculations, is incredibly important. I think, in mainstream media, popular culture, we tend to view far right organizations as convoluted, disconnected, lacking any sort of particular agenda. And I think you draw a really important point that these groups are adjusting to geopolitical realities and the particular dynamics of the local countries that they're operating in, or groups that have more transnational ambitions as well, situating themselves and situating their arguments in a particular context. So I'm really glad that you drew that point out. Now, from your own research, I wanted to ask if these terms and categorizations vary geographically? For instance, and you've touched on this a little bit, but I wanted you to expand a bit more based on your research on the far-right in India, do these categories hold up as well? You know, they seem particularly suited again, as you mentioned, to a Western and a specifically European and US context. So I just wanted to ask, do these categories hold up from your research?

EL: Yeah that is a really important question and I think that there is a major issue when it comes to recognizing what is the far right even among scholars of the far right. So in other contexts, like Latin America, it's frequently called right-wing authoritarianism, and other regions, it's called ethnic conflict. Definitely in India, it's often referred to as majoritarian nationalism or Hindu supremacism. And of course there are local dynamics that are important to understanding these phenomenon. But what I've been trying to do in my research is push for a universal framework for understanding the far right as a global phenomenon. I think too often scholars are siloed into area or regional studies to explain the cultural relativism of a far right presence, and there isn't enough collaboration across geographies and disciplines. 

But I do want to make a really important point here, which is that moving beyond eurocentrism in the study of the far right does not mean just looking at case studies in the Global South and applying categories designed for Europeans slash North American far right to these case studies. So we don't necessarily want to replicate preexisting approaches. I think it's important to integrate knowledge from local contexts, towards actually creating a universal framework that is more reflective of this global phenomenon and this is especially important, in addition to recognizing what I see as this double standard in studies of the far right. 

AD: Thank you Eviane so much for joining us today. Where can our listeners go if they want to hear more from you, if they want to read some of your work? Do you have anything that's just come out or is coming out?

EL: Sure. So if anyone's interested, you can see my latest article in Patterns of Prejudice, where I make the case that we need to understand right extremism in India as part of the field of far right studies and there I also touch upon some other cases in the Global South to look at as well.

AD: Thank you so much, Eviane for joining us. This has been another episode of Right Rising. See you all next time.