Aggrieved White Men and the Danger They Pose to Democracy and Peace

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary: 

I am grateful for the opportunity to read and review this very interesting article that aims to connect increasing support for white supremacy and fascism in the West to perceived threats to (white) identity.  The authors’ focus on “status, honor, and dignity” as key factors which are connected to the resurgence in support for white supremacy on the part of (mainly) white men is useful. That being said, this manuscript needed further attention to existing scholarship on identity and white supremacy, and a clearer (and more thorough) methodological framework that is clearly outlined in the text.  

General concept comments:

Article: As noted above, the subject of the article and its argument is a useful contribution to existing scholarship on white supremacy in the West. However, there is a lack of a clear methodological standpoint or framework, a lack of citations throughout, and a need for deeper engagement with existing scholarship on this issue. Reworking the article and utilizing the framework of the theorists listed in the abstract to analyze the resurgence of white supremacy in the United States (the author’s focus remains on the US despite mention of “the West” in the abstract) would strengthen this paper. 

Specific comments: 

-While there is some mention of the economic grievance argument, a short overview of the key reasons provided by scholars for the rise of white supremacy and fascism in the West would be useful. As it is now, the paper lacks a clear set of “signposts” about where the authors’ argument is situated in the broader literature. Eg. VÂNIA PENHA-LOPES’ book on Trump, Bolsonaro, and whiteness would be one that the author(s) could review. Indeed, scholarship on “white anxiety” -including by some of the scholars the author themselves names in the abstract!- should be reviewed and evaluated. Same with a discussion of the role of white women. This is gestured at on pages 5 and 10 but an engagement with the debates about the roles of white women – including citations – is needed. 

-Lines 17-19: “It posits that contemporary right-wing movements in the U.S., Europe, and Latin America are less about economic grievances and more about defending a social hierarchy in which white identity is paramount. This pursuit of dignity mirrors struggles among historically marginalized communities, as discussed by scholars like Bhimrao Ambedkar and Gopal Guru, challenging traditional rational-choice models of political behavior.” —> what does “this pursuit of dignity” refer to here? This seems to imply equivalence between Ambedkar, et al and the white defense of social hierarchy and to claim that both are “in pursuit of dignity”. I am sorry if I misread this but surely the authors don’t mean to equate a fight for rights on the part of marginalized communities (Ambedkar) with a fight to maintain (racialized and gendered) hierarchies by white people in the West? 

Similar framings are continued in page 2 and there also seems to be a conflation of real marginalization (eg in the case of India, where Ambedkar was writing about) with perceived threats (to whiteness in the US) 

-There are parts in the paper which seem out of place/don’t contribute to the overall argument. E.g. Lines 104-106 on marginalized communities, 128-132 on African American symbols being globalized, etc 

-215-219: The authors write: “Successfully addressing the rise of fascism and authoritarianism must include a grappling with male identities and find a way to comfort and appease those men whose identities are threatened by sexual anxiety, possibly connected to binary gender norms that force them into uneasy, uncomfortable, or even unbearable social roles (Bosson, Vandello, and Bruckner, 2021; underline added).” -is this the authors’ recommendation? That the rise of fascism and authoritarianism means there is a need to “comfort and appease” men? Is there evidence for this and that it works? (rather than, eg., discrediting such views)? 

- The section on their personal perspectives in Texas, while interesting, seems to come out of nowhere. Some signposting (along with discussion of methods) in the abstract and in the early part of the paper is needed.

-A clear discussion of the paper’s research methods is needed-is this an autoethnography? A conceptual analysis? An intellectual history? Something else? 

-the different sections need to be better connected/integrated into an overall structure. There also needs to be a discussion of the author’s understanding of “status” earlier in the paper-they don’t define status until page 9. 

-the discussion on “deplorables” misquotes Clinton’s actual words, which said: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”—> she didn’t say all Trump supporters were deplorables

-There is also a part in the text that claims “deplorables are getting fatter”-why is this relevant to the authors’ argument? It detracts from overall argument which could/should focus on whiteness and the perceived threat to status. 

-Overall, a large part of the paper is a series of opinions about the author’s personal experiences—> this is fine but then generalizing from this to all Trump supporters-without supporting evidence-is problematic. This paper would work better as a conceptual piece where the author extends their argument regarding whiteness and status seeking/status maintenance. They can frame this with their personal experiences if they so desire. The abstract states they will be utilizing the framework of Gardiner, etc but Gardiner, etc are barely engaged with in the main body of the manuscript. A comprehensive rewriting that reduces the author’s own personal experiences or uses it as a framing device to critically examine questions of status and whiteness via the lens of these three scholars the author identifies is needed.

As it is now, the paper reads more like a series of opinions and observations about the author’s experiences (there are no citations for a series of fairly broad claims about Trump supporters’ preferences in pages 6-7 for example) that are then generalized into Trump supporters overall. If it is the case that the author(s) is more interested in analyzing their personal experiences in this town in Texas, then they could rework the article with that in mind, centre their personal experiences as the main standpoint, and theorize/write around it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

I am very thankful for the insightful comments I have received form Reviewer 1. I agree with all the points they make and I have made substantive changes to the article. I have added a lot of literature to embed my work into current academic discussion. I have also cut out some problematic paragraphs (e.g. on status symbols of African Americans) as they were indeed out of place. I have shifted several paragraphs around and changed the conclusion.I have also clarified my approach and methodology, which was indeed important.

I have highlighted all changes done for Reviewer 1 in red.

Here are my changes in detail:

Article: As noted above, the subject of the article and its argument is a useful contribution to existing scholarship on white supremacy in the West. However, there is a lack of a clear methodological standpoint or framework, a lack of citations throughout, and a need for deeper engagement with existing scholarship on this issue. Reworking the article and utilizing the framework of the theorists listed in the abstract to analyze the resurgence of white supremacy in the United States (the author’s focus remains on the US despite mention of “the West” in the abstract) would strengthen this paper. 

I HAVE ADDED AN EXPLANATION OF MY METHODOLOGY AND I HAVE ARTICULATED MY WORK WITH THE RESEARCH OF OTHERS. THE FOCUS IS STILL GLOBAL, BUT I HAVE MADE THE COMPARISONS AND GENERALIZABILITY OF MY FINDINGS MORE EXPLICIT.

Specific comments: 

-While there is some mention of the economic grievance argument, a short overview of the key reasons provided by scholars for the rise of white supremacy and fascism in the West would be useful. As it is now, the paper lacks a clear set of “signposts” about where the authors’ argument is situated in the broader literature. Eg. VÂNIA PENHA-LOPES’ book on Trump, Bolsonaro, and whiteness would be one that the author(s) could review. Indeed, scholarship on “white anxiety” -including by some of the scholars the author themselves names in the abstract!- should be reviewed and evaluated.

I HAVE INTEGRATED THE IMPORTANT WORK OF VÂNIA PENHA-LOPES AND OTHERS.

Same with a discussion of the role of white women. This is gestured at on pages 5 and 10 but an engagement with the debates about the roles of white women – including citations – is needed. 

I HAVE INTEGRATED MORE LITERATURE.

-Lines 17-19: “It posits that contemporary right-wing movements in the U.S., Europe, and Latin America are less about economic grievances and more about defending a social hierarchy in which white identity is paramount. This pursuit of dignity mirrors struggles among historically marginalized communities, as discussed by scholars like Bhimrao Ambedkar and Gopal Guru, challenging traditional rational-choice models of political behavior.” —> what does “this pursuit of dignity” refer to here? This seems to imply equivalence between Ambedkar, et al and the white defense of social hierarchy and to claim that both are “in pursuit of dignity”. I am sorry if I misread this but surely the authors don’t mean to equate a fight for rights on the part of marginalized communities (Ambedkar) with a fight to maintain (racialized and gendered) hierarchies by white people in the West? 

I HAVE CLARIFIED THIS AND I AM THANKFUL FOR THIS COMMENT AS I DO NOT WANT TO ARGUE THAT THE STRUGGLE OF DALITS ARE THE SAME AS THOSE OF AGGRIEVED WHITE MEN. I HAVE SPECIFIED THAT IT IS THE PERCEPTION OF LOSING STATUS THAT MOTIVATES THEM, EVEN WHEN THEY STILL LIVE IN WHITE SUPREMACY SOCIETIES. I HAVE ALSO CUT OUT SOME PARTS OF THIS SECTION, AS IT WENT TOO DEEPLY INTO SOMETHING NOT DIRECTLY RELATED.

Similar framings are continued in page 2 and there also seems to be a conflation of real marginalization (eg in the case of India, where Ambedkar was writing about) with perceived threats (to whiteness in the US).

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR POINTING THIS OUT. I HAVE NOW CLARIFIED THIS AND ALSO DELETED SOME SECTIONS THAT WERE SLOPPY IN THIS REGARD.

-There are parts in the paper which seem out of place/don’t contribute to the overall argument. E.g. Lines 104-106 on marginalized communities, 128-132 on African American symbols being globalized, etc 

I DELETED THOSE.

-215-219: The authors write: “Successfully addressing the rise of fascism and authoritarianism must include a grappling with male identities and find a way to comfort and appease those men whose identities are threatened by sexual anxiety, possibly connected to binary gender norms that force them into uneasy, uncomfortable, or even unbearable social roles (Bosson, Vandello, and Bruckner, 2021; underline added).” -is this the authors’ recommendation? That the rise of fascism and authoritarianism means there is a need to “comfort and appease” men? Is there evidence for this and that it works? (rather than, eg., discrediting such views)? 

I HAVE FORMULATED THIS MORE CAREFULLY TO ARGUE THAT WE INDEED NEED TO THINK OF WAYS HOW TO ADDRESS THE KIND OF TOXIC MASCULINITY THAT SEEMS A HALLMARK OF THE WHITE MEN STORMING CAPITALS, THREATENING MINORITIES, AND VOTING FOR PROTO-FASCIST LEADERS.

- The section on their personal perspectives in Texas, while interesting, seems to come out of nowhere. Some signposting (along with discussion of methods) in the abstract and in the early part of the paper is needed.

I HAVE FRAMED THIS BETTER NOW, EXPLAINING HOW MY AUTO-ETHNOGRAPHIC ACCOUNT FITS INTO THIS.

-A clear discussion of the paper’s research methods is needed-is this an autoethnography? A conceptual analysis? An intellectual history? Something else? 

DONE.

-the different sections need to be better connected/integrated into an overall structure. There also needs to be a discussion of the author’s understanding of “status” earlier in the paper-they don’t define status until page 9. 

I HAVE SHIFTED THIS DEFINITION TO THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE AND SHIFTED DIFFERENT SECTIONS AROUND FOR BETTER FLOW.

-the discussion on “deplorables” misquotes Clinton’s actual words, which said: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”—> she didn’t say all Trump supporters were deplorables

I HAVE CORRECTED THIS.

-There is also a part in the text that claims “deplorables are getting fatter”-why is this relevant to the authors’ argument? It detracts from overall argument which could/should focus on whiteness and the perceived threat to status. 

I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS, REFERENCING BOURDIEU. I ARGUE THAT BEING PERCEIVED AS UNCOOL AND DEPLORABLE HAS BECOME EMBODIED.

-Overall, a large part of the paper is a series of opinions about the author’s personal experiences—> this is fine but then generalizing from this to all Trump supporters-without supporting evidence-is problematic. This paper would work better as a conceptual piece where the author extends their argument regarding whiteness and status seeking/status maintenance. They can frame this with their personal experiences if they so desire. The abstract states they will be utilizing the framework of Gardiner, etc but Gardiner, etc are barely engaged with in the main body of the manuscript. A comprehensive rewriting that reduces the author’s own personal experiences or uses it as a framing device to critically examine questions of status and whiteness via the lens of these three scholars the author identifies is needed.

I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH GARDINER AND GARDINER IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE. I DO AGREE THAT A LARGE PART OF THIS ARTICLE RELIES ON MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN LUBBOCK. I HAVE NOW PRESENTED THIS AS AN AUTO-ETHNOGRAPHY AND INTEGRATED IT WITH A LOT MORE LITERATURE. HOWEVER, I AM CERTAINLY OPEN TO HAVE THIS PUBLISHED AS A CONCEPTUAL PIECE. 

As it is now, the paper reads more like a series of opinions and observations about the author’s experiences (there are no citations for a series of fairly broad claims about Trump supporters’ preferences in pages 6-7 for example) that are then generalized into Trump supporters overall. If it is the case that the author(s) is more interested in analyzing their personal experiences in this town in Texas, then they could rework the article with that in mind, centre their personal experiences as the main standpoint, and theorize/write around it. 

I HOPE I HAV ACHIEVED THIS BY DELETING SOME IRRLELVEANT SECTIONS, INTEGRATING A LOT MORE LITERATURE, AND INTEGRATING  MY AUTO-ETHNOGRAPHIC WORK WITH THE RELEVANT LITERATURE.

OVERALL, I AM VERY THANKFUL FOR THE TIME THIS REVIEWER HAS SPENT WITH MY WORK AND I THINK THAT THE ARTICLE HAS IMPROVED A LOT BECAUSE OF THEIR INPUT.

AGAIN, ALL CHANGES DONE IN RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1 ARE IN RED.

THANK YOU!

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I reviewed “Aggrieved white men and the Danger they pose to Democracy and Peace,” which sought to explain why it was that figures like Trump, Bolsonaro, and Orbán are appealing to white men in their respective countries. It is a question that has been raised on numerous accounts—a fair enough question, given the purported stakes. However, I did not find the authors’ discussion of the issue to be convincing, largely due to two reasons. First is the fact that capitalism was not mentioned once throughout the article. This was striking, especially given that fascism, as numerous historians have argued, is both a political-economic and social psychological phenomenon, both of which must be engaged analytically in order to understand fascism’s sources. Second is the transhistorical way in which the concept of “whiteness” was employed in the paper, failing to take into account the particular circumstances in which whiteness is understood in each of the countries in question. A white man in America is not a white man in Brazil and nor is he white man in Hungary. This is not to deny the immense value that comparative analyses can bring. But it should be done fastidiously and with an eye towards theory which I did not find present in the authors’ work. For these reasons, while I believe the question to be a potentially important one, without a solid theoretical grounding of both the conditions that lead to what Theodore Adorno once called “the authoritarian personality,” or of the processes of racialization which shape people’s subjectivity and, thus, their politics, I do not believe the paper is suitable for publication.

Author Response

I am grateful for the comments I have received from Reviewer 2. 

I believe that there a 2 issues that needed to be addressed, according to this reviewer:

First is the fact that capitalism was not mentioned once throughout the article. This was striking, especially given that fascism, as numerous historians have argued, is both a political-economic and social psychological phenomenon, both of which must be engaged analytically in order to understand fascism’s sources.

I HAVE ADDRESSED THIS CONCERN ON PAGES 2-3. ALL CHANGES DONE IN RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 ARE IN GREEN. I HAVE NOW ACKNOWLEDGED THE VALUE OF ANALYZES FOCUSED ON ECONOMIC FACTORS, NEOLIBERALISM, AND CAPITALISM IN GENERAL AND I HAVE EXPLAINED THAT A FOCUS ON STATUS DOES NOT CLAIM TO EXPLAIN THE WORLDWIDE RISE OF THE RIGHT ON ITS OWN. INSTEAD, I SEEK TO OFFER ANOTHER LENS, IN ADDITION TO THOSE ALREADY PRODUCED, TO ANALYZE THIS PHENOMENON FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE. I ARGUE THAT NO SINGLE EXPLANATION CAN ACCOUNT FOR THIS OUTCOME, AS MOST PHENOMENA HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES. I QUOTE ROY BHASKAR ON THIS.

Second is the transhistorical way in which the concept of “whiteness” was employed in the paper, failing to take into account the particular circumstances in which whiteness is understood in each of the countries in question. A white man in America is not a white man in Brazil and nor is he white man in Hungary. This is not to deny the immense value that comparative analyses can bring. But it should be done fastidiously and with an eye towards theory which I did not find present in the authors’ work.

I HAVE ADDRESSED THIS ON PAGE 5, IN GREEN. 

OVERALL, I HOPE THAT REVIEWER 2 IS WILLING TO CONTEMPLATE DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS THAN THOSE THEY FAVOR. I AM OF THE CONVICTION THAT ALL SOCIAL SCIENCE PROBLEMS CAN BE  EXPLAINED IN DIFFERENT WAYS  AND THAT EXAMINING A PHENOMENON FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES IS A HELPFUL EXERCISE. I HOPE THAT REVIEWER 2 AGREES, EVEN IF THEY FAVOR A DIFFERENT APPROACH.

THANK YOU!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I am flattered by the comments of Reviewer 3 and thankful for the support expressed. I agree that spelling out the arguments on page 10 earlier makes for more clarity. I have now done this, on page 3. I have highlighted all changed done for Reviewer 3 in yellow (the paragrpah on page 3 being the only change).

I have integrated a whole lot more literature into this article, mostly responding to reviewer 2. Hopefully, this expansion also addresses the suggestion to expand my article further made by reviewer 3. All additions made in response to reviewer 2 are in red.

Thank you!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this comprehensive and thorough revision-I appreciate the author's extensive engagement with my comments and thank them for their revisions. I still don't think the section on "pride and dignity" works at all with the rest of the author's argument regarding whiteness as the list of scholars the author reviews in that section theorize dignity and pride from the perspective of the oppressed and marginalized. This is plainly not the case for those who want to maintain a racial hierarchy in the US.

This, to me, conflates real loss of dignity and pride (that the Indian scholars and the Frankfurt school were theorizing about) with perceived loss of status (in the US example the author is interested in). The comparison of aggrieved white men in the US with the Dalits (when any other case of "groupness" could have been used) implies their goals/hopes are similar when they obviously are not at all. Does the author think that a "groupness" that emerges from historical oppression is the same as one that emerges from being the oppressors? 

That being said, the author has done a good job of clarifying some other questions/concerns I had earlier. 

Author Response

Thank you for your continued engagement with my work. I have highlighted repeatedly that it is the perceived loss of status that is at play here and I even argue that Brubaker's theory needs to be amended as it is not objective status loss that mobilizes people, but perceived status loss (on page 8, in red). The world "perceived" appears 25 times in the article. At this point, it is my sense that I can not highlight this any more. I also explicitly state the plight of the Dalits is not the same as the one of white men, on page 8:

"This does not mean that the grievances of Dalits are the same as those of white men supporting Trump and Bolsonaro; they are certainly not on objective moral grounds. However, white men feeling aggrieved has had a similar effect on them as being effectively excluded has had on Dalits. It let them to identify as a group and mobilize around their shared group identity." (p.8)

I do not know how to address thus issue further.

If the reviewer still finds my article not worth publishing, so be it. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the thoughtful revisions!

Author Response

I am grateful for the comments I have received from reviewer 2 and glad that they are satisfied with my revisions.