Talking with racists: insights from discourse and communication studies on the containment of far-right movements

The paper addresses whether and how to engage in dialogue with individuals espousing racist or far‑right positions. It situates the question within a broader rise of far‑right politics and the persistent presence of both overt and latent racism in Western societies. Using the contrasting approaches of Özlem Cekic (advocating dialogue with adversaries) and Reni Eddo‑Lodge (refusing to debate those who deny structural racism) as orienting cases, the authors argue that democratic responses and mainstream media reactions are underexplored contributors to the success or containment of far‑right discourses. The purpose is to analyze the material and symbolic effects of political contestation practices and to inform counter‑strategies against hate, drawing on discourse studies that link language to power, norms, and social structures. The paper posits that speech acts intended to counter far‑right discourses can inadvertently reinforce them, depending on context, power asymmetries, and communicative frames.

The paper reviews key strands in discourse studies relevant to racism and far‑right communication: - Critical Discourse Analysis and the Discourse‑Historical Approach (e.g., van Dijk; Reisigl & Wodak) uncover the logics of racist discourse, including coded forms of “racism without race,” and common metaphors (e.g., natural disaster metaphors; container metaphors) that normalize exclusion. - A second‑order hermeneutic view sees racist utterances as reproducing socially available discourses rather than merely expressing individual intent, enabling analysts to surface implicit meanings. - Pragmatics emphasizes that speech acts are embedded in symbolic/material contexts and preexisting knowledge, shaping their effects. - (Post)structuralist perspectives analyze how discourses create and stabilize orders, while also being precarious and open to subversion. - The analytical “triangles”: (a) text–context–practice (how written/oral texts, sociohistorical and interactional contexts, and practices co‑constitute discourses); and (b) knowledge–power–subjectivation (how accepted knowledge legitimates power relations and offers subject positions). - Racism is framed as discursive exclusion: minorities are negatively constructed in text/speech, excluded from hegemonic discourse production arenas, and subject to material exclusions (e.g., hierarchical citizenship). - The review engages Foucault (orders of discourse and exclusion), Goffman (frames), Habermas (validity claims and meta‑discourse), Butler (performative contradictions), Bourdieu (reproduction of structures), Lakoff (framing), and others to ground analysis of counter‑strategies.

The study is a theoretical and analytical essay in discourse studies rather than an empirical experiment. Its approach includes: - Conceptual framework: Integrates hermeneutic (second‑order) discourse analysis, pragmatics, and (post)structuralism to examine how speech acts operate within power‑laden contexts and produce material and symbolic effects. - Analytical lenses: The triangles of text–context–practice and knowledge–power–subjectivation guide examination of how antiracist speech acts can reproduce or challenge structures. - Canonical theorists: Applies insights from Habermas (validity claims; meta‑discourse), Foucault (exclusion and orders of discourse), Goffman (frames), Butler (performative contradictions), Lakoff (framing), Bourdieu (practice/structure), and Simmel (the “Third”). - Illustrative cases: Uses the public interventions and books of Özlem Cekic and Reni Eddo‑Lodge as exemplifying cases to explore dialogic engagement versus refusal, and to show how speaker position (racialized, female, educated) affects discursive dynamics. - Scope: Focuses on theorizing mechanisms by which counter‑speech can legitimize or contain far‑right discourse, addressing addressees, bystanders, frames, and power asymmetries. No new primary data are collected.

- Racism is not merely hate or prejudice; it is hate plus power. Speech acts draw on socially legitimated racist knowledge and can create material effects, subject positions, and hierarchies. - Antiracist speech can backfire. Due to media attention economies and discursive infrastructures, counter‑speech often legitimizes racist claims by accepting them as debate‑worthy, producing performative contradictions. - Context and power asymmetry matter. Racialized speakers bear personal risks and psychological costs; white interlocutors can disengage at low cost. Dialogues occur within structurally racist societies that shape outcomes independent of intentions. - Addressee and bystanders (“the Third”) are crucial. Counter‑speech affects not only antagonists but also observers who can confer legitimacy by their mere presence or silence. - Framing is decisive. Accepting frames like “migration as a problem” constrains discourse so that even progressive interventions reinforce the underlying problematic frame. - Two strategic orientations contrasted: • Dialogue (Cekic): Humanizes opponents and may reduce hostility but risks accepting biased frames, obscuring structural power, and placing racialized speakers in defensive roles. • Refusal/Exclusion (Eddo‑Lodge): Declines to debate denials of structural racism to avoid legitimizing unequal speech situations; focuses on structural critique and bystander/public education. - Meta‑discursive strategies: Following Habermas, shifting to meta‑discourse about who gets to speak, how they are heard, and the unequal consequences can expose and contest power asymmetries. - Exclusion as contestation: Following Foucault, treating some utterances as outside legitimate truth‑production (e.g., Holocaust denial) can be a practical contestation that withholds legitimacy. - Subject positions and counternarratives: Effective counternarratives need not split identities into good/bad; they can instead foreground shared participation in reproducing racism and invite acknowledgment and change. - White ally practice: Sometimes stepping aside to enable minorities to co‑construct discourse can alter power relations and visibility. - No one‑size‑fits‑all: Whether to talk with racists depends on addressees, goals, frames, spaces, bystanders, legal/ethical constraints, and available power to exclude or reshape discourse.

The findings address the core question—whether and how to engage racists in dialogue—by demonstrating that outcomes hinge less on argument quality and more on power structures, frames, and audience dynamics. Engaging can inadvertently validate racist premises by accepting the terms and legitimacy of debate, especially in public or media settings with attention economies. Refusal to debate certain claims can be a strategic way to avoid conferring legitimacy and to protect racialized speakers from unequal burdens. However, dialogue may still be useful in carefully chosen contexts (e.g., private settings, with supportive framing, and clear goals such as influencing bystanders). The significance lies in redirecting antiracist strategy from purely deliberative ideals to a reflexive assessment of discursive conditions—who speaks, under what frames, to whom, and with what material and symbolic effects. The paper emphasizes meta‑discursive moves (surfacing power to speak and be heard), framing contests, and audience design (targeting bystanders) as critical to countering far‑right discourse without reproducing it.

There is no universal prescription for talking with racists. Unreflective dialogue can reinforce racist frames and legitimize harmful claims, while categorical refusal risks forfeiting opportunities to influence bystanders or reframe debates. Effective practice requires situational analysis of addressees, frames, bystanders, power asymmetries, and norms. Discourse studies offers tools—attention to materialities, norms, frames, and the interdependence of text, context, and practice—to anticipate how speech acts may produce unintended effects. For durable change, antiracist communication must aim beyond exchanging arguments to transforming underlying racialized power structures, cultivating awareness of structural racism, and creating conditions where minorities co‑produce discourse. Future work could operationalize these insights in specific arenas (education, media, policy communication) and evaluate which combinations of refusal, meta‑discourse, and dialogue best reduce the uptake and legitimacy of far‑right narratives.

- The analysis is theoretical and conceptual; it does not present new empirical data or systematic evaluation of interventions across contexts. - Illustrative cases (Cekic and Eddo‑Lodge) are context‑specific and may not generalize to other countries, media systems, or interactional settings. - The paper acknowledges complexity and contingency, offering no definitive prescriptions; practical effectiveness of proposed strategies (e.g., exclusion vs. engagement, meta‑discourse) remains to be empirically tested.