hey read the reading and answer the question and please disregard question 6, this week has two readings you only have to pick one reading and answer the questions on the discussion preparation guide other than that its the same every week please indicate which reading in the section on the guide(WRITER 57853 FOR THIS TASK )
Required Reading:(PICK ONE )
ANTH3021 DISCUSSION PREPARATION GUIDE Name________________________________ Date___________________ Reading: Author / Title__________________________________________ __________________________________________ 1. What was the reading about? State in one complete sentence the theme of this work. 2. How did the author get the information? How did they put together and present this information? Was there a particular structure to the work? Was it qualitative, quantitative, and/or comparative? Was it based on textual research, observation, and/or participation? Etc. 3. What did you learn from this reading? Be specific and concrete. a. b. 4. Note words that are unfamiliar or seem to be used in a special manner to create a particular impression. Define the word in the context of the phrase where you found it. a. b. 5. What questions does this selection bring up for you? Write one or two questions that open the space for discussion about key points in the articles, gaps in the knowledge, new research questions raised. Avoid "yes/no" questions, try to open the space for people to share opinions without trying to lead them to particular conclusions. a. b. 6. (To be filled out in class during discussion) What are some of the best ideas that you heard from other people in your discussion group? Untitled Journal of the AIPIO | 2019 | Volume 27, Number 2 43 Ultra-right-wing white nationalism: Literature insights on Breivik and Tarrant, and the signifi cance of the phenomena in Australia Claudia Muller In a globalised world experiencing reactionary waves of populism, ultra-right-wing white nationalism is fl ourishing as an ideology and a motivator for mass killings such as those committed by Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant. The radicalisation literature has provided some value for understanding these attacks; however, there are restrictive knowledge gaps. This is due to the dominance of individual approaches of analysis and studies of group-based terrorists, which has impeded our ability to understand how Breivik and Tarrant were infl uenced by social and environmental contexts. Regarding the signifi cance of this phenomena in Australia, xenophobic and racist cultural elements and non-lethal attacks are most relevant. As these cultural elements empower white nationalists to become more vocal and physically violent, and due to the cyclic nature of terrorist activity, it is likely that the threat of mass killings by individuals with this ideology will continue to increase in Australia. Keywords: radicalisation; white nationalism; Tarrant Introduction In a globalised world experiencing reactionary waves of populism, ultra-right-wing white nationalism is fl ourishing as an ideology and a motivator for mass killings (Brown, 2019). Individuals radicalised by this ideology, such as Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant, are attracted to lone wolf-style attacks as a method of countering prevention, as security agencies and law enforcement are increasingly able to detect group-based terrorist behaviour. Though there are elements of the radicalisation literature which are valuable for understanding these attacks, there are also signifi cant defi ciencies in the body of knowledge which limit our understanding. This paper will fi rst assess the literature’s contribution to our understanding of the attacks by Breivik and Tarrant in terms of defi nitions, theoretical underpinnings and approaches of analysis of radicalisation. Secondly, this paper will address the signifi cance of this phenomena in the Australian context, arguing that cultural elements of xenophobia and racism and non-lethal attacks by the white nationalist community are more relevant than mass killing attacks at present. Journal of the AIPIO | 2019 | Volume 27, Number 2 44 Background On 22 July 2011, a thirty-two year old Norwegian man named Anders Breivik orchestrated two meticulously planned attacks which killed seventy-seven people (McCauley, Moskalenko, & Van Son, 2013). The fi rst attack was carried out through a car bomb outside the Norwegian Prime Minister’s offi ce and acted as a diversion for the second attack, a mass shooting at Utoya Island’s summer camp, which he conducted two hours later (Wessely, 2012). Breivik was motivated by an ultra-right- wing, white nationalist ideology – he self-identifi ed as a fascist, and fi ercely opposed immigration, especially of Muslims (Lutz & Lutz, 2013, pp.188-189; Seierstad, 2019). As such, he targeted the Norwegian Labor Party and its junior wing, who he perceived to be “traitors” to Europe for facilitating Muslim immigration (Lutz & Lutz, 2013, pp.188-189; Seierstad, 2019). Breivik is a diagnosed narcissist who was obsessed with population rates concerning what he thought was a threat to the white European race (McCauley et al., 2013; Seierstad, 2019). He wrote a 1,500 page manifesto titled “A European Declaration of Independence” which he uploaded online prior to the attack (Brown, 2019; Seierstad, 2019). Breivik’s ideology and manifesto, regarded as a call-to-arms, resonated intensely with a twenty-eight year old Australian man named Brenton Tarrant (Seierstad, 2019; Stewart, 2019). On 15 March 2019, Tarrant carried out shootings at two mosques in New Zealand which killed fi fty one people (Miller, 2019). Prior to the attack, Tarrant claimed to have communicated with Breivik and that he had expressed his endorsement (Stewart, 2019). Like Breivik, he also opposed Muslim immigration and believed that the white race was threatened by the immigrant population (Seierstad, 2019). Tarrant deliberately conducted his attacks in New Zealand because of less restrictive gun laws compared to Australia which enabled his access to six weapons, as well as the perceived peacefulness of the country, which he thought would generate greater shock thus maximising media attention given to his ideology (Feast, 2019; Stewart, 2019). Tarrant also displayed narcissistic tendencies and wrote a manifesto which he uploaded to the online forum 8chan prior to his attack (Stewart, 2019). Tarrant broadcast his entire attack through live stream video on Facebook (Miller, 2019). Theoretical insight provided by the radicalisation literature on Breivik and Tarrant Radicalisation is an immensely complex issue for which there is no agreed defi nition within the literature, nor a universal framework for assessment. The literature attempts to understand radicalisation through individual, group and environmental approaches; however, there has been an emphasis on individual approaches, with mixed success and value (Schmid, 2013). Journal of the AIPIO | 2019 | Volume 27, Number 2 45 This has detracted from the body of knowledge regarding the infl uence of group and environmental contexts on people who become radicalised (Schmid, 2013). A further limitation is that the literature has previously focused on the radicalisation processes of group-based attackers as opposed to those of individual lone wolf attackers (McCauley et al., 2013). Thus, whilst the literature does provide some insight into the attacks of Breivik and Tarrant, there remain signifi cant gaps in our ability to understand and frame these events. Defi nition and theoretical underpinnings of radicalisation As there is not an agreed defi nition for radicalisation, for the purposes of this paper, a working defi nition of radicalisation will refer to a collection of diverse processes by which an individual comes to adopt principles that condone and can ultimately incite violence (Borum, 2011, p.8). This defi nition attempts to acknowledge that whilst radicalisation can be a precursor to terroristic violence, this escalation does not always occur (Schmid, 2013). Though the literature has reached agreement on this sentiment, it has been unable to accurately predict or explain why some radicalised individuals become violent extremists and why others do not (Borum, 2011; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2014). McCauley and Moskalenko (2014) have begun exploring the transition from radicalised beliefs to violent radicalised action, arguing that a feeling of personal responsibility to take action is one explanation. This can provide a useful lens to enhance our understanding of Breivik and Tarrant, as their perceived moral obligation to the white race is depicted in their ideologies and manifestos (Lutz & Lutz, 2013; Stewart, 2019). However, the literature is inconclusive as to why and how individuals move through radicalisation differently (Borum, 2011; Dalgaard- Nielsen, 2008). Though Borum (2011) has suggested the relevance of the Social Movement Theory to studying radicalisation, this theory is signifi cantly less useful for understanding lone wolf attackers, such as Breivik and Tarrant, than for understanding group-based attackers, as emphasis is placed on recruitment. Applications of the related Framing Theory in the study of lone wolf radicalisation could be more fruitful, as the theory posits that individuals identify with a collective movement when they accept how the movement frames events and socio-political and economic circumstances (Borum, 2011; Dalgaard-Nielsen, 2008). As such, Framing Theory can partially explain how online engagement with extreme right-wing individuals and materials resulted in Breivik and Tarrant adopting, and later violently acting on, the movement’s ideology (Dalgaard-Nielsen, 2008; Jennings, 2019). Journal of the AIPIO | 2019 | Volume 27, Number 2 46 Individual, group and environmental approaches to radicalisation The literature has been dominated by the study of radicalisation at the individual level, which mostly assesses the personal contexts of individuals in terms of ideologies, psychological factors, education, and their familial circumstances (Schmid, 2013). These individual approaches have focused on profi ling radicalised terrorists and attempting to understand their motivations, as well as the chronologies and mediums through which they became radicalised (Schmid, 2013). Young males appear to be most prone to radicalisation, although attempts to profi le radicals and terrorists beyond this have thus far proven to be unproductive (Lutz & Lutz, 2013, p.17; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2014). For example, the attempt to link radicalisation and mental health issues has been unhelpful in attempting to understand Breivik and Tarrant; neither have been diagnosed with mental illnesses excluding Breivik’s Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and both were deemed fi t to stand trial (McCauley et al., 2013; Miller, 2019; Wessely, 2012). One group approach of analysis was proposed by Sengupta, Osborne and Sibley (2019) regarding the application of Group-based Relative Deprivation Theory to understand why ethnic majorities are attracted to nationalism. As such, they argue that nationalism appeals to white people in white-majority countries when they perceive that ethnic minorities are depriving them of socioeconomic and political advantages, and are unable to accept their inherent institutionalised privileges (Sengupta et al., 2019). This can assist in understanding the broader circumstances of Breivik and Tarrant’s respective radicalisations, as well as why there is an underground