The resurgence of far-right movements poses a significant threat to the post-World War II antifascist consensus. While electoral successes of far-right parties are concerning, the underlying issue is a deeper social phenomenon—the persistence of racism, even during periods of limited far-right political representation. The increased visibility of far-right parties and the activism of racialized minorities are bringing racism to the forefront of public discourse. This paper examines the strategies employed by individuals like Özlem Cekic, who engages in dialogue with racists, and Reni Eddo-Lodge, who advocates for refraining from such dialogue. The research question centers on the effectiveness of different communicative approaches in countering far-right rhetoric. The study's purpose is to understand the material and symbolic effects of various political contestation practices, aiming to develop effective counter-strategies against the far-right and hate speech. The importance of this research lies in its potential to provide practical guidance for anti-racist activists and public communicators.

The paper reviews existing discourse studies which have illuminated the structure and strategies of far-right and racist discourses. It cites Critical Discourse Analysis (van Dijk) and the Discourse Historical Approach (Reisigl & Wodak) for their contributions in understanding the inner logic and subtle manifestations of racism, including “racism without race.” The authors summarize the four basic principles of racist discourse: an “us vs. them” dichotomy, negative characterizations of the “other,” an emphasis on the “other’s” excessive presence, and “container thinking.” The review also highlights the importance of discourse studies in analyzing the relationship between the textual (symbolic) level of analysis, material realities, and power structures. The triangle of discourse analysis—combining text, context, and practice—is presented, underscoring the interconnected nature of these elements in understanding and countering racism. The paper further discusses how knowledge, power, and subjectivation interact within discourse, focusing on how racist knowledge contributes to the creation of specific social identities and positions. The interplay of hermeneutics, pragmatics, and (post)structuralism within discourse studies is also examined, emphasizing their contributions to analyzing meaning, the production of meaning, its relation to social order, and practical effects.

This research essay employs a qualitative methodology, drawing primarily on secondary sources. The central methodology is discourse analysis, informed by the theoretical frameworks of Foucault, Goffman, and Habermas. The authors utilize the books by Reni Eddo-Lodge (“Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race”) and Özlem Cekic (“Overcoming Hate Through Dialogue”) as case studies to illustrate their theoretical arguments and connect theoretical concepts to the practices of anti-racist activists. The analysis focuses on examining the textual content, contexts of utterance, and the practical effects of the communicative strategies employed by Cekic and Eddo-Lodge. By analyzing their chosen approaches to engaging with or avoiding dialogue with racists, the authors illuminate the complexities and potential pitfalls inherent in these strategies. The analysis considers the power dynamics inherent in such interactions, acknowledging the different positions and resources available to the speakers. Additionally, the authors consider the impact of bystanders and the broader social and political contexts in shaping the effectiveness of communicative interventions. The concept of “performative contradictions,” where the intended message differs from the actual effect, is a key analytical lens. The analysis also incorporates insights from pragmatics, focusing on the actions performed through speech acts and their consequences. Finally, (post)structuralist perspectives are utilized to examine the creation and subversion of social order and the role of power relations in shaping discourse.

The authors identify several key aspects influencing the effectiveness of engaging with racist discourse: 1. **Power Dynamics:** Racism is not merely prejudice but prejudice coupled with power. Racist speech acts draw on socially available racist knowledge and the power structures that legitimize them. The racialized individual is often in a weaker position, facing psychological stress and the burden of justifying their very existence. 2. **Structural Inequalities:** The lack of minority voices in discussions about minorities perpetuates biased narratives and reinforces unequal power structures. Addressing structural racism requires acknowledging and challenging these power imbalances. 3. **Strategies for Countering Racism:** The paper contrasts Cekic's approach of engaging in dialogue with racists and Eddo-Lodge's approach of refusing such engagement. Cekic's strategy, while seemingly open-minded, can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures by normalizing racist discourse. Eddo-Lodge's approach prioritizes the preservation of mental well-being and the avoidance of legitimizing racist narratives. 4. **The Role of Bystanders:** The presence of bystanders significantly affects the communicative situation. Their non-intervention can implicitly legitimize the racist discourse. 5. **Framing the Conversation:** The framing of a conversation significantly shapes its trajectory and outcome. Accepting the far-right's framing of an issue (e.g., framing migration as a problem) constrains the potential for meaningful counter-arguments and can unintentionally reinforce the initial framing. 6. **Meta-discourse:** Engaging in meta-discourse, which focuses on the power dynamics and inequalities within the communication situation itself, rather than directly addressing the specific topic, can be a more effective strategy in challenging racist discourse and raising awareness of systemic issues. 7. **Color-Blindness vs. Acknowledging Structural Racism:** Ignoring the impact of race and ethnicity, with the hope of fostering equality, can inadvertently reinforce color-blind racism. Acknowledging and addressing structural racism is crucial for meaningful change. 8. **Norms of Communicative Action:** The authors discuss Habermas’ concept of the four universal validity claims (comprehensibility, truth, rightness, and truthfulness), highlighting how even by contesting a statement, one implicitly legitimizes its presence within the discourse. They contrast this with Foucault's concept of excluding certain discourses, considering the challenges and limitations of both strategies.

The findings challenge the simplistic notion that engaging in dialogue with racists is always a productive strategy for combating hate speech. The paper demonstrates that the effectiveness of communicative interventions depends on a complex interplay of power dynamics, social contexts, and framing. While dialogue can be a valuable tool in certain situations, it is crucial to analyze the power dynamics, potential for performative contradictions, and the impact on bystanders. The paper highlights the importance of acknowledging structural racism and challenging the unequal power structures that perpetuate it. The contrasting approaches of Cekic and Eddo-Lodge illustrate the necessity of carefully considering the context and potential outcomes before engaging in such interactions. The findings suggest that anti-racist strategies should not solely focus on direct confrontation but also on broader structural changes and empowering marginalized voices.

This research underscores the need for a nuanced approach to engaging with racist discourse. It highlights the limitations of a purely dialogue-centric strategy, emphasizing the role of power structures and social context in determining the effectiveness of communicative interventions. Future research could explore the effectiveness of different communicative strategies in diverse contexts, examining the impact of various factors such as audience composition, media platforms, and specific types of racist narratives. Further research could also focus on developing empirically grounded guidelines for effective anti-racist communication in diverse social settings.

The study’s reliance on secondary sources, namely the books by Cekic and Eddo-Lodge, limits its generalizability. While these sources provide valuable insights, they may not fully represent the diversity of experiences and approaches to addressing racism. The analysis focuses primarily on Western contexts, potentially limiting its applicability to other cultural and political environments. Further, the theoretical frameworks employed, while robust, may not encompass all aspects of the complex interaction between language, power, and social change.