This section includes book notes of 150-300 words as well as some book reviews of 600-900 words on books of particular interest to the members of our group. If you have either suggestions for books you would like to review or see reviewed (including recent books of your own), please contact Nigel Copsey of the University of Teesside (UK).
Book Notes
Terri E. Givens, Voting Radical Right in Western Europe, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 188 pp., GBP 35.00/USD 65.00, ISBN 0521-85134-3 (hbk). Reviewed by Elisabeth Carter (Keele University, UK) This book seeks to explain why some radical right parties have been electorally more successful than others. In order to solve this so-called ‘puzzle’, Givens compares the types of appeals made by parties of the radical right and the types of voters these parties attract. She then examines the relationship between the radical right party vote and aggregate levels of immigration and unemployment. As expected (by her and indeed by the reader), she concludes that these factors cannot explain the parties’ differing levels of electoral success. The parties have similar ideological appeals and they attract similar types of voters, and yet they experience varying levels of success. Furthermore, Givens finds that while levels of unemployment and immigration are positively related to the radical right party vote in Austria and France, there is no such relationship in Germany. In light of these findings, Givens then examines the relationship between party systems, electoral rules and the vote for the radical right parties. She pays particular attention to incentives for strategic voting and to the strategic behaviour of the mainstream parties. She concludes that radical right parties will have difficulty attracting voters and winning seats in electoral systems that encourage strategic voting and/or strategic coordination by the mainstream parties. The book discusses many different factors that potentially influence the success of parties of the radical right and the emphasis that Givens places on strategic voting and on mainstream party strategy in helping to account for the differing levels of electoral success of the parties is particularly welcome. That said, the study does have a number of limitations. First and foremost, since the analysis is based on only four countries, the hypotheses are not adequately tested and the conclusions reached in the book are not amenable to generalization. This is a shame, and
given that the book is very short, one wonders why the analysis was not extended to more countries. In addition to this, the book appears rather out of date in places (presumably because it was based on a thesis written some time ago), and it does not always refer to the most recent or pertinent literature.
Thomas Greven and Thomas Grumke (eds.) Globalisierter Rechtsextremismus? Die extreme Rechte in der Ära der Globalisierung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2006, 227 pp., EUR 26.90, ISBN: 3-531-14514-2 (pbk). Reviewed by Stephan Redlich (European University Viadrina, Germany) This volume, edited by Thomas Greven and Thomas Grumke, studies globalization and the extreme right - a phenomenon under researched so far. The book results from a transatlantic workshop series based on fruitful cooperation between the authors and institutions like the Anti-Defamation-League, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, Anne-Frank-Zentrum and Zentrum Demokratische Kultur. The book scrutinizes how and why the extreme right globalizes itself despite representing the most extreme anti-globalization position. Various authors address the reception of globalization and focus on numerous forms of ideological and structural globalization within the extreme right. The book consists of two major parts. Five essays deal with the extreme right’s ideological orientation towards globalization; four more essays deal with the structure of a globalized extreme right. The book analyses the extreme right’s criticism of globalization as a fundamental counter concept to the two major streams of globalization, that is to say, neoliberalism and global governance. Instead of globalization, the extreme right prefers a racist version of re-nationalization or ‘ethno-pluralism’. Nonetheless, the extreme right itself utilizes concepts, ideas and resources that are transnational and therefore globalized, such as anti-Semitism and denial of the Holocaust. AntiSemitism connects such ‘strange bedfellows’ as the extreme right and radical Islamists. However, for various reasons these ‘unholy alliances’ have only existed temporarily. Moreover, the extreme right has quickly managed to adopt structures of global communication. It uses the World Wide Web efficiently, taking advantage of its cost-benefit factor. This medium of communication has become the most powerful way of exchanging ideas and contacts as well as spreading extreme right propaganda without legal restrictions. This is a thorough volume, which offers a multitude of different perspectives. However, since the majority of the chapters are empirically oriented, there is less
emphasis on theory. As a result, the typological difference between the extreme right on a party level and on a movement level could have been highlighted more.
Nathan D. Larson, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the Modern Russo-Jewish Question, Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 2005, 164pp., EUR 27.90, ISBN: 3-89821483-4 (pbk). Reviewed by Nickolai Butkevich (Washington D.C.) Nathan D. Larson has written a well-balanced survey of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s writings on Russian-Jewish relations. Larson characterizes this relationship as one of the great love-hate relationships in history, replete with contradictions and mutually exclusive narratives of victimization, many of which are reflected throughout Solzhenitsyn’s work. Larson traces Solzhenitsyn’s perceptions of Jews from his childhood, when some Jewish Young Pioneers mocked him for wearing a cross, to his camp experiences, when a Jewish prisoner disabused him of the atheism he acquired in early adulthood. Larson examines his benevolent and malevolent Jewish literary characters, giving a useful summary of the polemics and accusations they inspired among literary critics and Jewish activists. Larson persuasively characterizes Solzhenitsyn as a moderate nationalist, contrasting his views on the Jewish Question favorably with the writers and politicians of the Russian extreme right. He cites Walter Laqueur’s dichotomy between extreme and moderate nationalists—the extremists blame Russia’s problems on `fifth columns and foreigners`, while moderates are willing to `engage in introspection, self-criticism, and, where called for, penitence`. On the other hand, the writer has committed literary faux pas in sensitive Jewish areas such as publishing photos in The Gulag Archipelago of Jewish camp administrators only, while ignoring the ethnic Russians there who were just as complicit. Solzhenitsyn’s earlier writings largely ignored Jewish suffering during the Tsarist period, which he at times glorified, especially in contrast to the horrors of the Soviet period. Larson sees this as Solzhenitsyn’s reaction to the world’s indifference towards Russian suffering under Communism. His emphasis on Russianess being defined not by blood, as the extremists see it, but by the Russian spirit is also problematic, since while it is more tolerant than the alternative, it also smacks of a desire for assimilation rather than respect for Russian Jewish culture. Finally, Larson shows Solzhenitsyn at his most controversial in his call for Jews to repent for their role in the Soviet system. Jews and Russians, he argues, worked together under an evil system, but while Russians have recognized their guilt (a
stunning assertion to make in Putin’s Russia), Solzhenitsyn argues that it is time for Jews to do the same.
Jens Rydgren (ed.) Movements of Exclusion: Radical Right-Wing Populism in the Western World, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2005, 190 pp., GBP 55.99, ISBN 1-59454-096-9 (hbk). Reviewed by Harvey G. Simmons (York University, Canada) This volume is composed of nine essays; five of them cover the radical right-wing political parties of Holland, Italy, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria and Norway. The four remaining essays look at questions of definition (what are the differences between the radical right, the extreme right, and the populist right?), the usefulness of the term ‘charisma’, and finally, what limits, if any, should be put on extremist discourse in public discussion and debate. Over the past decade or so, analysts of the radical right have arrived at three main conclusions. First, voter support for the radical right does not come mainly from ‘modernization losers’, that is to say, from people who have been hurt by globalization and modernization. Rather, as many of the authors in this study point out, voting support for the radical right is motivated by a complex series of factors including xenophobia, a desire to protect one's ‘own’ culture and identity, and/or the attraction of a charismatic leader. Second, unlike extreme right parties, most radical right parties do not today seriously threaten democracy. Rather, the radical right wishes to diminish representative democracy and increase the role of plebiscites and referenda in decision-making. Third, the radical right has gradually forced mainstream parties to take account of, and sometimes implement, restrictions on immigration or immigrant rights. Readers will find something of interest in each of the essays. The essays by Fennema on populism, Betz on the challenge to liberal democracy, Johnson et al. on Canada and the Antipodes, Rydgren and van Holsteyn on Pim Fortuyn, Hagelund on Norway's Progress Party and Fennema and Maussen on extremism and public debate are clearly written and well-organized. The essay by Wodak on Jörg Haider included a few complicated and, for me, confusing charts, while Eatwell's discussion of charisma occasionally wandered into an analytical wilderness. On a minor point, the editor should have done a better job in correcting the typos, bad grammar and bad English scattered throughout the book. In sum,Movements of Exclusion is an excellent introduction to the radical right for undergraduates, graduate students and interested readers.
Alexei Titkov, Party Number Four. Rodina: Whence and Why? Ed. by E. Mikhailovskaaia with Grigorz Belonuchkin. Translated from Russian by Mischa Gabowitsch. Moscow: Panorama, 2006, 70 pp., ISBN 5-94420-021-9. Reviewed by Andreas Umland (National Taras Shevchenko, University of Kyiv) This short study is the first analysis of the history of the infamous Russian nationalist Rodina (Motherland) bloc which appeared as an alliance of three minor parties in September 2003 and, less than three months later, entered the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, with the surprisingly high federal election result of 9.02%. Since then, the origins, emergence, evolution, transformations, and splits of the Rodina bloc and Duma faction have become major themes in Russian political journalism and publicism. Rodina’s relatively strong showing in these national and later regional elections as well as its sharp public profile have led to a re-configuration of the Russian political spectrum, and a re-assessment of the prospects of Russian nationalism in post-Soviet politics. This is why this brief, descriptive summary of the rise and recent fall of Rodina constitutes a timely and useful contribution to the study of Russian party politics, in general, and the extreme right, in particular.
Tom Wicker, Shooting Star: The Brief Arc of Joe McCarthy, Orlando: Harcourt Inc., 2006, 212pp., USD 22.00, ISBN: 0-181-01082-X (hbk). Reviewed by D.J. Mulloy (Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario) Given that there is no shortage of books on the strange, brief career of Senator Joe McCarthy, nor of the neologistic `ism` he added to the political lexicon, one is entitled to ask why the celebrated American journalist Tom Wicker has decided to write another one. Wicker doesn’t answer this question directly in Shooting Star, but oblique references to the Abu Ghraib scandal (p59) and criticisms of the Democrats and Republicans for wrangling “more often over patriotism than policies” (p80) seem to suggest that he has the current state of U.S. politics somewhere towards the forefront of his mind. Aside from a fleeting personal encounter with a disheveled, post-censured McCarthy in the Senate Office Building in 1957, Wicker adds little that is new to the senator’s well-known story— the book relies almost exclusively on secondary sources—but he tells it in a brisk, clear and even-handed way. Indeed, while Wicker is certain that McCarthy was a dangerous demagogue, he also suggests that McCarthy can be properly regarded as a “master politician” (p192) with a flair for campaigning and publicity which was, in many ways, ahead of its time. More on the anti-Communist network that preceded, supported and survived the McCarthy years would have certainly helped to round-out Wicker’s account (the absence of any discussion of Ellen Schrecker’s work is a major
omission in this regard), but overall the book provides an excellent introduction to both the man and the period, especially for undergraduate students.
Book Reviews Andreas Klärner and Michael Kohlstruck (eds), Moderner Rechtsextremismus in Deutschland, Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, EUR 35.00, ISBN: 3-936-09662-7 (hbk). Reviewed
by
Kai
Arzheimer
(University
of
Mainz,
Germany)
More often than not, collected volumes are like the proverbial box of chocolates. Unless the editors are willing and able to force a common structure and theoretical framework on the individual authors, you never know what you are going to get. The chapters in this volume were originally presented as papers at a conference on ‘recent developments in empirical research on right wing extremism’ organized by Andreas Klärner in 2003, and they are indeed quite heterogeneous. Nonetheless, they have something in common, too. All authors subscribe to a ‘social movement approach’ (though it is not always obvious what follows from that) and have a pronounced preference for qualitative methods. Moreover, all contributions could be described as case-studies and almost all deliberately restrict the analysis to ‘modern’, i.e. post-unification right wing extremism in Germany. The editors have arranged the chapters into three broad categories. The first part of the volume is labelled ‘movement and counter-movement’. It starts with a detailed analysis of the evolution of the right wing scene in a medium-sized east German town over the last 15 years by Andreas Klärner, one of the editors. This chapter is followed by an instructive study of the extreme right’s changing ‘parade politics’ by Fabian Virchow and a shorter but very conclusive essay on the emerging economics of hate music by Henning Flad. Probably the most interesting contribution to this part is the chapter by Jana Klemm, Rainer Strobl and Stefanie Würtz, who analyse the reactions of local elites to right wing extremism in two medium-sized towns in East Germany. Although they have only two cases at hand, they aim at a systematic, theory-guided comparison of successful strategies to keep the extreme right at bay at the local level. Given that the groups of right wing thugs in the street and their (few) allies in the local councils affect most peoples’ lives much more than the marginal electoral returns of the extreme right on the national and Land level, this a very important strand of research which should be pursued further. Three more cases studies comprise the volume’s second part, which is labelled ‘strategies, actors and parties’, though it is hard to see what sets these
contributions apart from those of the first part. Rainer Erb argues that it is time to take the concept of the ‘social movement entrepreneur’ seriously and presents a detailed portrait of Christian Worch, a political veteran who has been organizing neo-nazi parades on a semi-professional basis for the last twenty years. Uta Döring traces the origins of the concept of the so-called ‘national liberated zones’ within the extreme right’s discourse and reflects on its adoption by the quality papers. Her contribution is one of the few that apply quantitative methods and examines at least in brief the cross-national links between right wing groups in Europe. Finally, the chapter by Sonja Kock looks at two small cities in the southwestern Land Baden-Württemberg that were both Republikaner strongholds in the 1990s. While her thesis that political culture must figure prominently in any explanation of the party’s success since one city is prospering while the other has suffered from economic decline for years is interesting and plausible, the evidence is necessarily very limited. The third part of the volume is labelled ‘Entry into the scene, self- and roleimages’. Christine Wiezorek argues that biographical analysis can help to understand how youths become right wing extremists. As a case in point, she presents excerpts from an interview with ‘Rolf’, a young right-winger, whose need for an identity was fulfilled by joining the scene. A very similar approach is taken by Michaela Köttig in her in-depth study of the biography of ’Svenja’, a young woman who became a right winger at the age of 12. Köttig holds that this can be explained by examining the dynamics of Svenja’s family in general and the construction of gender roles in particular. Obviously, gender aspects play an important role in Oliver Geden’s analysis of the discourse of manliness within the FPÖ as well. While his argument that the images of manliness which are transported by the FPÖ’s papers are attractive for the young male party activists who feel threatened and confused by the decline of the traditional male role model, it is very difficult to see how the same mechanisms could explain the party’s tremendous electoral success during the 1990s. Lastly, Michael Kohlstruck and Anna Verena Münch try to reconstruct the role of ‘hypermasculine’ images in the particular horrid case of a young man who was tortured and killed by three acquaintances for no other reason than being a ‘sissy’ who could not drink as much as them. Finally, the editors’ introduction to the volume is of particular interest. Klärner and Kohlstruck provide the reader with something that is rarely found in the literature: an overview of the research on right wing extremism in post war Germany as well as an assessment of the concept’s use a political weapon. However, the introduction thereby points to the one major shortcoming of this volume: the editors do not present a comprehensive approach that would bind the disparate contributions together, nor is there any other obvious connection between the introduction and the volume’s contents. The book as a whole suspiciously resembles Forrest Gump’s chocolate box.
Евгений Мороз. История «Мёртвой воды» -- от страшной сказки к большой политике. Политическое неоязычество в постсоветской России. [Evgenii Moroz, The Story of “Water of Death” – from scary tale to big politics. Political Neo-Paganism in post-Soviet Russia], Stuttgart: ibidemVerlag, 2005, 172 pp., EUR 22.00, ISBN: 3-89821-551-2 (pbk) Вячеслав Лихачев, Владимир Прибыловский. Русское Национальное Единство I: История и идеология, 1990-2000 [Viacheslav Likhachev, Vladimir Pribylovskii, Russian National Unity Vol. I: History and Ideology, 1999-2000], 308 pp.; Русское Национальное Единство II: Документы и материалы, 1990-2000. Под редакцией Вячеслава Лихачева и Владимира Прибыловского [Viacheslav Likhachev, Vladimir Pribylovskii (eds.) Russian National Unity Vol. II: Documents and sources], 272 pp., Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 2005, EUR 39.90, ISBN: 3-89821-523-7 (for both volumes, pbk) Этническая и религиозная интолерантность в российских СМИ. Результаты мониторинга 2001-2004 гг. Под редакцией Александра Верховского и Галины Кожевниковой [Aleksandr Verkhovskii, Galina Kozhevnikova (eds.) Ethnic and religious intolerance in Russian mass media. Results of a 2001-4 monitoring project], Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 2005, 246 pp., EUR 29.90, ISBN: 3-89821-569-5 (pbk)
Reviewed by Mischa Gabowitsch (Berlin) Fortunately for students of extremism and the far right, ibidem’s book series on Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society is edited by Andreas Umland, himself a well-known and prolific expert in the field of post-Soviet extreme-right movements. The three books under review are part of a whole range of volumes in this series that are relevant to the topic of nationalism and xenophobia. Of the three works, the short book by Evgenii Moroz (a 65 page article plus a selection of documents) is the most original contribution to the field of nationalism studies. Moroz provides one of the best available surveys of Russian neopaganism and describes the activities of the Dead Water/Internal Predictor group, which ran in the 2003 Duma elections under the label of Unification Party [Edinenie], garnering over 700,000 votes (1.3%), the best result of any political groupuscule. Moroz gives an account of the organisation’s peculiar mix of Stalinism, neo-paganism, anti-Semitism and belief in an age-old global conspiracy against Russia. He analyses the social milieu (essentially post-Marxist academics and former military or secret service officers) that nurtures such ideologies. He also cites details about Dead Water’s influence on academic curricula and the group’s links with members of the political elite.
Moroz’s excellent article offers much-needed background about a party that seemed to come out of nowhere just before the elections, but his short account leaves many issues open. A more detailed description of Vladimir Puzakov’s Anastasiite sect, which teamed up with Dead Water in 2003, would have been useful (see Aleksandr Shubin, Khrupkost’ normalizatsii, Neprikosnovenny Zapas No. 6/2003), as would have been a word or two about the international context of the neo-pagan revival, which Moroz discusses only in the context of the 1930s and 40s. Moroz has interesting things to say about the social and intellectual conditions of the emergence and spread of ‘lunatic fringe’ groups such as Dead Water and provides other examples, such as the pseudo-scientific torsion field theory. However, to assess the long-term impact of groups such as Dead Water one would need to compare them to the other lunatic fringe groups that abound in Russia today, from small sect-like organisations such as PORTOS to wide-spread theories such as Anatolii Fomenko’s New Chronology. Viacheslav Likhachev and Vladimir Pribylovskii, probably the most knowledgeable experts on Russian extreme-right parties and groups, have produced a work that is likely to remain the definitive study of Russian National Unity for a very long time. RNU was the closest thing Russia has had to a nationwide Nazi-type paramilitary organization, and the most graphic illustration of the still-popular thesis that some kind of a Weimar scenario may be in stock for the country. Likhachev and Pribylovskii have systematised their earlier work on RNU, charting the party’s history from its creation in 1990 to its dissolution into numerous splinter groups (which could have been treated in some more detail) in 2000. The sources used range from press reports and party leaflets to personal observations and interviews. Some of the data comes from Labyrinth, a database on parties and politicians in Russia and the other post-Soviet states maintained by the Panorama Centre, making it hard to trace some of the original sources. The material from that database has enabled the authors to include brief profiles of most if not all regional branches of RNU. Still, as with all organizations mainly known through unsystematic press reports and interviews, a general discussion of the respective value of different sources would have been useful, although there seems to be no reason to question the authors’ use of their sources. The second volume contains a comprehensive selection of documents, many of them previously unpublished, as well as an extensive bibliography. An index would have made the two volumes easier to use as a reference work. It is also unfortunate that the book includes no discussion of reactions to RNU in Russian society at large, or the conditions of its emergence: after all, its apparent success throughout the 1990s was largely due to extensive (and welcome) media attention to a group whose potential was obviously overestimated. Mikhail Sokolov will apparently address these issues in a forthcoming book in the same series, which will deal specifically with the larger societal context that facilitated the ‘rise’ of Russian National Unity and the National Bolshevik Party.
The third book is a joint product of several Moscow-based research centres specializing in human rights and xenophobia issues. It includes several reports on hate speech in the Russian media between 2001 and 2004, based on four quantitative studies of nationwide and regional newspapers, magazines, web sites and TV channels. The period covered was a crucial time in the ongoing rise of popular xenophobia, coinciding with a gradual clampdown on a number of freedoms and a tougher political rhetoric against all kind of ‘enemies’, much of which is supported by, and reflected in, media outlets across the country. The editors of the book, Aleksandr Verkhovskii and Galina Kozhevnikova, are respectively the director and deputy director of the SOVA Centre, which has been instrumental in importing the American term ‘hate speech’ into Russian. In a useful introduction that briefly outlines the methodology used, they discuss the uses and limitations of the term, rendered literally as ‘hostility speech’ in Russian, given the differences in legal and cultural context between Russia and the United States. They also caution against finger-pointing at journalists and over-reliance on exact figures in connection with sources as difficult to quantify as media discourse. However, the massive work carried out by the team does indicate certain general tendencies. Here are some of them: firstly, Americans remain the most-hated group, and deep-seated anti-American prejudice easily surfaces during times of real or imaginary crisis. Secondly, hostile feelings towards foreigners (American, Western, Muslim etc) and ethnic groups within Russia (especially Chechens and other so-called ‘Southerners’) are mutually reinforcing, often fuelled by a more or less conscious belief in a global conspiracy against Russia. Thirdly, the study also monitored hate speech against Russians and Orthodox Christians, as well as against political parties during the 2003 Duma election. The results show that hate speech remains mainly directed at minority ethnic and religious groups rather than political organizations or the ethnic majority, although the latter may have something to do with regional sampling bias. Fourthly, the study found that while journalists often repudiate xenophobia in general, they rarely have qualms about relaying expressions of hostility towards specific groups, such as Tajik migrants, Chechens, or ‘gypsies’. This attitude is surely rooted in the Soviet view of ethnic groups as objective entities with specific qualities: irrespective of their own ethnic background, many journalists believe there is nothing xenophobic in pointing out what they think are inherent features of particular groups. The team also specifically monitored conscious media efforts to avoid hate speech, and the book includes a short essay by Galina Kozhevnikova and Kseniia Izotova that discusses attempts to de-ethnicise coverage of the Beslan tragedy. Thus, rather than an indictment, the book is actually a constructive contribution to a crucial debate about media-endorsed intolerance which has once again flared up in Russia in recent months. However, the authors should have summarised their findings and recommendations in a general conclusion – it is doubtful whether many journalists will have the patience to wade through pages of tables to pick out the many useful observations made throughout the book.
With the partial exception of the Verkhovskii/Kozhevnikova volume, the three books reviewed here are indicative of the general state of Russian nationalism studies: while authors working in Russia have the facts at their fingertips and regularly produce thoroughly researched accounts of Russian movements and tendencies, they often lack the comparative interests and conceptual apparatus to draw any general conclusions from their material. Conversely, ‘Western’ authors often tend to build intricate conceptual frameworks around a limited amount of sources. This prompts two remarks about editorial and publishing strategy. Firstly, most of the expertise in the field of Russian nationalism studies is concentrated in Russian-speaking countries, and authors writing in other languages often neglect Russian secondary sources. Thus it is highly commendable to make original works by Russian authors available to a Western audience by publishing them in Germany. However, Western book prices are forbidding for Russian readers, who surely remain the main intended audience; and foreign readers with an interest in the subject but no knowledge of Russian will have little use for the books. Secondly, the impressive turnout of books in the series is partly due to the fact that all or most books are author-edited, and this shows. For example, photo captions are printed twice in Moroz’s book, whereas Likhachev and Pribylovskii give no sources for the photographs in the second volume of the book. Typing errors are not uncommon. More importantly, additional editorial feedback might have encouraged the authors to devote more space to conceptual issues in addition to their excellent empirical work. But the funding situation in Russian Studies being what it is, such imperfections may well be the inevitable price to pay for these highly useful books, which one hopes will contribute to more intensive exchanges between Russian and foreign scholars working in the field.