Antifascism: A Reason for Violence? : Antifascists Subjective Accounts on Their Endeavour and the Justification of Violence

(1)

Antifascism:

A Reason for

Violence?

COURSE:Bachelor Thesis in Global Studies, 15 credits

PROGRAMME: International Work – Global Studies

AUTHORS: Fabienne Jonsson Endl, Evelina Karlsson

EXAMINER: Åsa Westermark

SEMESTER:Spring, 2021

Antifascists Subjective Accounts on Their

Endeavour and the Justification of Violence

(2)

JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY Bachelor Thesis, 15 credits School of Education and Communication Global Studies, International Work Spring 2021

Abstract

__________________________________________________________________________________

Fabienne Jonsson Endl & Evelina Karlsson Pages: 36

Antifascism: A Reason for Violence?

Antifascists Subjective Accounts on Their Endeavour and the Justification of Violence

__________________________________________________________________________________ Given the social importance of understanding violence and why it is applied, this study offers a thorough discussion on antifascists actions and perceptions in relation to violence. While previous research has ex-amined antifascism, a substantial understanding of the concept and justification of violence through indi-vidual frames has fallen short. With the objective to contribute to the field of peace and conflict through theoretical approaches in the discipline of sociology, this study aims to contribute to decreasing this gap. With the help of Erving Goffman’s Framing Analysis, previous research, and thematic analysis, this study accounts for the individual perceptions and meanings ascribed to social situations and violence within anti-fascism. By conducting eight semi-structured interviews with individuals who identify themselves as active antifascists, this study has been able to demonstrate the importance of recognising the subjective under-standing of violence as a means for an antifascist goal. Indeed, the antifascist perceptions are highly vidual, where the mere notion that is agreed upon is that fascism has to be countered. While certain indi-viduals justify violence for an antifascist purpose, it is framed as self-defence – but that violence is justified for the greater aim of antifascism, is not proved as a commonality.

Keywords: Antifascism, Anti-fascism, Antifa, Violence, Justification, Justification of Violence, Erving Goffman, Frame,

Framing

__________________________________________________________________________________ Postal Address: School of Education and Communication, P.O Box 1026. 551 11, Jönköping, Sweden Visit Adress: Gjuterigatan 5

(3)

Sammanfattning

__________________________________________________________________________________ Med den sociala vikten av att förstå våld och varför det tillämpas, har denna studie ämnat att bidra med en djupgående diskussion om antifascistiska handlingar och uppfattningar i relation till våld. Även om tidigare forskning har undersökt antifascism, saknas det en grundlig förståelse för konceptet och rättfärdigandet av våld genom individuella ramar. Med syftet att bidra till området för fred och konflikt genom teoretiska angrepp inom sociologins disciplin, syftar denna studie till att minska detta gap. Med hjälp av Erving Goff-mans ramanalys, tidigare forskning och tematisk analys, har denna studie kunnat redogöra för individuella uppfattningar och den inneboende meningen som tillskrivs sociala situationer och våldsamma handlingar. Genom att genomföra åtta semistrukturerade intervjuer med individer som identifierar sig som aktiva anti-fascister har denna studie kunnat belysa vikten av att uppmärksamma de subjektiva förståelserna av våld som ett medel för ett antifascistiskt ändamål. De antifascistiska uppfattningarna är individuella, och den gemensamma uppfattningen som enar antifascister är att fascism måste motverkas. När våld är rättfärdigat av dessa individer är det inom ramen av självförsvar, men att våld är rättfärdigat för det större antifascistiska syftet, är bevisligen inte en konsensus.

Nyckelord: Antifascism, Antifa, Våld, Rättfärdigande, Rättfärdigande av Våld, Erving Goffman, Ram, Inramning __________________________________________________________________________________ Postadress: Högskolan för Lärande och Kommunikation, Box 1026. 551 11, Jönköping, Sverige

Besöksadress: Gjuterigatan 5 Telefon: 036-101000

(4)

Acknowledgements

__________________________________________________________________________________ We would like to express our deepest gratitude to all the respondents who took their time to participate in this study, by sharing your beliefs and perspectives you made this thesis possible. Thank you.

We are extremely grateful to our supervisor, Radu Harald Dinu, who guided us throughout the process of writing this thesis. When in doubt, you helped us see things clearly. Thank you.

We would also like to express our deepest appreciation to all our loved ones, who always have supported us. We want to extend a special thanks to Evastina Björk and Hélène Blauwblomme who dedicated their time and gave us notable insights and above all, support. Thank you.

Lastly, we want to thank each other. Together, we did this.

(5)

«L‘antifascisme c’est l’affaire de toutes et tous»

– Wen (R3)

(7)

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

__________________________________________________________________________________ From revolutions, state coercions to wars, the concept of violence remains an enduring global reality. But what is violence? Research has found that people, when it comes to the term ‘violence’, often associate it with something that is ‘bad’ (Triplett et al., 2016:332). However, when defining a particular act as violence, the perception of ‘bad’ immediately becomes vague. The complexity of the phenomenon involves consid-erable uncertainty between the creation and destruction of order, as its understanding is individually de-pendent (Imbusch, 2003:13). Certain actions that in one person’s eyes are considered violence, might not necessarily be considered violence in another person’s eyes. Thus, the definition of violence is often de-pended upon what the act is intended to achieve; if the act is conducted on the cause of a ‘greater good’, the mischievous aspect of violence might be neglected (Hollander, 2009:267; Lamnek, 2003:1114; Triplett, et al., 2016:332f). But what is the ‘greater good’? At times, violent acts motivated by ideological beliefs that intend to establish political aims, generally defined as ‘political violence’ (della Porta, 2003:384; Maynard, 2019:635; Webber et al., 2020:107), can be considered the ‘greater good’ – by the ones who support the beliefs the acts are conducted upon. Yet, the ‘greater good’ can extend beyond ideological aspects. For instance, the argument of self-defence, unattached to being individual, communal, national, or political, is a common argument for justifying violent actions (Hollander, 2009:267f). If one person inflicts violence upon another person who has already inflicted violence, the acts are justified as it creates (or, at least is intended to create) a preferable outcome – a ‘greater good’.

Antifascism is a movement known for what they oppose, namely fascism. However, the spectrum of antifascism stretches beyond the resistance to fascism itself and includes the multitudes of oppositions to-wards Nazism, far-right ideas, racism, homophobia, authoritarianism, and the capitalist structures of society. This resistance has (when deemed indispensable) relied upon violent actions (Bray, 2017:xiv; Copsey, 2016:708,713; Copsey, 2018:244ff; LaFree, 2018:251f; Lundberg, 2020:276f; Pyrooz & Densley, 2018:233). Despite this rather intelligible definition of antifascism, the perceptions, motivations, goals, and actions differ amongst active antifascist; even though certain similarities and coherences do appear. While the indi-viduals drawn to different groups who exercise violence might share certain experiences, the aspect of jus-tification can be understood and weighted differently. The ambition of this study is to gain a further under-standing of the antifascist perspective, particularly on the aspects of violence and its justification. By con-tributing with a contextual understanding of the antifascists’ subjective perceptions, this study can allow for further comprehension of additional, similar contexts.

1.1 Aim and Research Questions

The aim of this study is to examine active antifascists’ individual perceptions, motivations, goals, and actions in relation to the antifascist strive and the concept of violence. By gaining an insight into the individual understanding of their context, this study aims to examine if, and in that case how, violence can be justified. This will be achieved by answering the following research questions:

o How do antifascists frame their antifascist involvement and actions?

o How do antifascists frame the concept and justification of violence, in relation to the antifascist context that they are involved in?

(8)

CHAPTER 2: Previous Research

__________________________________________________________________________________ This chapter presents previous research on violence, fascism, and antifascism. Firstly, it discusses violence with a focus on the concept and justifications of violence. Secondly, it provides a short preview of the history of fascism. Finally, this chapter presents the concept of antifascism and the contemporary movement Antifa, which constitutes a discussion on the complexity of the movement.

2.1 The Concept of Violence

“Violence is intriguing. It is universally condemned yet to be found everywhere.” (Litke, 1992:173) – essen-tially everyone knows what violence implies, yet it is one of the most complex and elusive phenomena within the social sciences (Imbusch, 2003:13). The complexity of the phenomenon involves considerable uncer-tainty between the creation and destruction of order, as it is understood differently, by different people, in different contexts. The understanding of violence ranges from physical to psychological, socio-political, and criminal or rough behaviours, including aspects of individuality, expressiveness, intentionality, instrumen-tality, illegality, illegitimacy, and legitimacy (Imbush, 2003:13f; Lamnek, 2003:1113). Moreover, the dimen-sions of violence also come to differ between the opposing views by on the one hand being ascribed to human nature as perpetual, and on the other, as a part of social conditions, constructive and changeable (Imbush, 2003:13). Due to this intricacy, there is no universal definition of violence. However, in an attempt to approach a generally accepted definition of the concept, the World Health Organization (WHO) pro-posed a definition of violence in the 2002 World Report on Violence and Health. Violence, according to WHO is “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another per-son, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation” (WHO, 2002:5). This type of comprehensive and non-specific definition of violence is problematised by Patrick Tolan (2007), as he argues that it might undermine the clarity of what type of behaviour classifies as violent. Notably, this regards the distinction of the seriousness of violence. Tolan continues and argues for an understanding of violence as generally ‘un-desirable’, but also underlines the necessity of understanding different types of violence distinctively (Tolan, 2007:7f). Moreover, in agreement with Peter Imbusch (2003), other scholars such as Donna della Porta (2003), Ruth Triplett et al. (2016), and Sigfried Lamnek (2003), explain the concept of violence as ambiguous and conflicting. The concept is framed differently by people, as well as social scientists, to describe different events, actions, feelings, and damages (della Porta, 2003:383; Imbusch, 2003:13; Lamnek, 2003:1113; Tri-plett, et al., 2016:332ff). For instance, the definite concept of political violence is identified by della Porta (2003), Jonathan Maynard (2019), and David Webber et al. (2020). Political violence is defined as violence motivated by ideological conviction to impose political aims, characterised by a behaviour that violates the prevailing understanding of legitimate political action (della Porta, 2003:384; Maynard, 2019:635ff; Webber et al., 2020:107).

Specific use of the concept of violence may be hampered by aspects that moderately overlap with related concepts such as power, aggression, conflict, force, and compulsion (Imbush, 2003:14). Henceforth, another apparent distinction on different types of violence is put forward by Johan Galtung (1969) who sought to expand the understanding of violence. One of these distinctions Galtung makes is between indi-rect structural violence and diindi-rect personal violence. While personal violence is characterised by ‘bodily destruction’ committed by a distinct actor, structural violence extends beyond this and is identified as vio-lence without a distinct beginning nor a definite actor that imposes the viovio-lence. Thus, structural viovio-lence is the social injustice built into the structures of society. It is this structural violence that generates inequality, unequal power- and resource distribution, uneven life opportunities, and impairment of the fundamental human needs (Galtung, 1969:171fff).

(9)

The meaning applied to violence varies across time, place, and depends on individual perception. Still, distinct definitions of specific violent actions are vital to be able to study violent expressions. Because re-gardless of the different approaches to the definition of violence, scholars agree on the recognition of the harm that violence does to those who fall victim to it (della Porta, 2003:383; Galtung, 1986:185; Imbusch, 2003:13; Lamnek, 2003:1113; Tolan, 2007:7; Triplett, et al., 2016:334).

2.2 The Justification of Violence

To understand the justification of violent actions, one has to recognise that it is not a “unified theoretical concept [...] reduced to a single dimension” (Lamnek, 2003:1124), but individually dependent. When Sigfried Lamnek (2003) discusses individual justification strategies on violence, he borrows Alfred Schütz (1981:115) concept on ‘in-order-to’- and ‘because’ motives, to distinguish the dimension of time. ‘In-order-to’ motives entail that the meaning of an act revolves around a future goal and an expected outcome. The ‘because’ motive relates to the actors’ past experiences that constitute meaning to the action. Lamnek (2003) adds on internal and external aspects, where the first is how the actor justifies the action to oneself, and the latter how it is justified to third parties such as peers, the police, and a court. Accordingly, the justification strate-gies of violent actions are empirically external (Lamnek, 2003:1114f).

The notion of individuality and singularity is continuous in the discussion of justification strategies. For certain individuals, physical actions of force might not be considered ‘violence’ if they are perceived to be an act to achieve ‘the greater good’. In such cases, certain factors extend beyond the nature of the violent act itself, but include the meaning attached to it (Triplett, et al., 2016:332f). Essentially, it is the underlying meaning that exceeds the act itself, and thus, violence might be justified (Lamnek, 2003:1114; Triplett, et al., 2016:333). Similarly, Paul Hollander (2009) states that when justifying violent actions, it is the higher purpose of the action that justifies it. The motivation for violent actions might derive from a collective or individual intention, in particular as it regards defence. In this aspect, physical defence is a self-evidently adequate justification for using violence. Thus, it is the perceived victimhood, regardless of it being present, past or potential, collective or individual, that justifies violence as self-defence. As such, the violent act often requires an elaborate perception of an evil enemy (Hollander, 2009:272, 267f). In accordance with Hollander (2009), Webber et al. (2020:108ff) focus on the higher purpose and meaning prescribed to violent actions as a tool for justification. However, contrary to Hollander (2009), Webber et al. (2020) connect the justification of violence rather explicitly to ideologies. They state that ideologies can act as a platform that develops motives that justifies violence, both by the strive to achieve political objectives and through a collective identity and unity. Ideologies can then push people to take on personal obligations, as a way of fulfilling individual responsibilities and to obtain a feeling of significance (Webber, et al., 2020:108ff). Con-trary to this notion of motivation based on personal prestige, Jasko et al. (2019) found that personal signif-icance is not enough of a motive to partake in violent action. Yet, they discover that collective inclusion connects to feelings of relatedness, qualification, autonomy, as well as exhilaration. Consequently, personal sacrifice, such as enduring pain or risking one’s life, is more likely when one does it for the collective higher cause. Even though people are willing to endure physical pain for a higher cause, they conclude that people find violence indefensible (Jasko et al., 2019:317, 342). Furthermore, the aspect of exhilaration is underlined as an important element of committing violent extremist actions by Kevin Haggerty and Sandra Bucerius (2020). However, they also notice that one cannot solely focus on a single aspect as a motive for committing violent actions. Thus, they draw up a framework to illustrate the progression to violence, what they call a martialization process, focusing on conventional soldiers and terrorists. What Haggerty and Bucerius come to identify as motives for violence is a mixture of an individual’s sense of injustice, identity, belonging, group solidarity, active recruitment, and the creation of meaning, excitement, and glory (Haggerty & Bucerius, 2020:768, 782).

Evidently, there is not one universal understanding of what justifies the use of violence. This notion is also the one scholars’ seem to agree on, namely the complexity of the phenomenon ‘justification of violence’.

(10)

Thus, the justification of violence is highly contextual, depending on singular understandings of what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’, which in turn is what establishes the motive to the violent act itself.

2.3 Fascism: A Historical Preview

In order to gain a profound understanding of the antifascist perspective, one first has to familiarise oneself with the concept of fascism. Fascism is often discussed in an early twentieth-century European context, as a predominantly undesirable, yet critical, part of modernity (Allardyce, 1979:367; Iordachi, 2010:11, Mann, 2004:1fff). Despite this historical focus, fascism is not merely a historical event. In the 1980s, the term ‘neo-fascism’ became popular as of the development of further support of right-wing nationalistic parties throughout Europe, together with the emergence of a wave of far-right terrorist attacks. As such, militant fascism which had slowly ceased in the post-1945-era came to the surface once again. However, the concept of ‘neo-fascism’ did not come unchallenged as others argued that the rise of the extreme right did not stem from fascism, but rather from the post-industrial and post-material political right (Copsey, 2013:6ff). Robert Paxton (2004) develops the understanding of the phenomenon of fascism as a system, highlight-ing nationalist militantism and the abandonment of democratic liberties as core elements (Paxton, 2004:218). A further development on the understanding of fascism is put forward by Michael Mann (2004), who argues that the nation-states of today primarily rule under ‘fairly harmless nationalism’, while fascism is a ‘second-level escalation’ of this moderate nationalism (Mann, 2004:1f). Nationalism, paramilitarism, and statism are, according to Mann, the three main components of fascism. Yet, he argues that fascists are diverse and opportunistic (much like any other political movements), but what is distinct for fascism, according to Mann, is the strive for economic, military, political, and ideological power. However, Mann opposes simple deterministic models when identifying fascism, such as the ones that solely focus on economic aspects (Mann, 2004:2, 4f). In contrast to Mann (2004), Samir Amin (2014) discusses fascism precisely in correlation to the contemporary capitalist society, where fascism acts as a political response to capitalistic challenges. The fascist solutions, as argued by Amin, are based upon the rejection of ‘democratic principles’. Hence-forth, Amin exemplifies this form of fascism with the early twentieth-century Nazi regime of Germany aspiring to become the hegemonic power (Amin, 2014:1f). The notion of fascism being an outcome and a symptom of the crisis of capitalism has however been challenged ever since the 1990s, where scholars came to include a rather comparative perspective when examining fascism (Reichardt, 2020:52). The comparative perspective is further presented by Sven Reichardt (2020) who discusses fascism and violence, arguing that “Fascism can only be understood in relation to the concrete situations that fascists sought to influence through their organisations and actions” (Reichardt, 2020:52). Additionally, Reichardt argues that fascism has been permeated with violence.

Violence defined all fascist movements. Violence permeated their political actions, their symbols, propa-ganda, and party aesthetics, their organisation in paramilitary combat groups, their party events, and their everyday ‘party work’ on the streets [...] A defining attribute of fascism was its inability to deal with political conflict by any means other than violence. (Reichardt, 2020:60)

Furthermore, Daniel Woodly (2010) identifies fascism and notes that “fascism presents a serious intellectual challenge: combining a syncretic (heterogenous) mix of nationalism, militarism and recreationist myth, it lacks a coherent theoretical core and is therefore difficult to categorise.” (Woodley, 2010:2). Following this rather diluted definition of fascism, Gilbert Allardyce (1979) claims that fascism is merely a word used amongst scholars in order to identify a ‘generic concept’. However, when studying political expressions, one has to analyse them ‘just as they are’ and thus exclude such pre-existing definitions (Allardyce, 1979:388). One cannot put a definite and universal explanation on the concept of fascism or its followers. How-ever, a distinctive trait that comes to emerge amongst scholarly studies on fascism is militarism, violence, as well as the exclusion of democratic principles. Yet, one also has to keep in mind that there is a difference between how fascism is discussed within academic- versus activist contexts. To understand antifascism, one

(11)

must also acknowledge that fascist regimes of the past could not have survived without significant public support (Bray, 2017:203).

2.4 Antifascism and the Contemporary Movement Antifa

The phenomenon of antifascism has existed ever since there has been fascism. As fascism arose, the devel-opment of a collective physical strive against far-right and fascist violence developed. This resistance sus-tains up until this day under the collective term Antifa (Bray, 2017:xiv, xix, 81; Copsey, 2016:243f; Lafree, 2018:248, Lundberg, 2020:273ff; Pyrooz & Densley, 2018:233). Despite the term antifascism and Antifa being recognised as an oppositional strive, the term has a history of being related to communism and so-cialist politics. But with the development of antifascism as a transnational movement, stretching beyond a European (pre-1945) context, this understanding came to dissipate (García, 2016:563ff). In contempt of the long-lasting history of the fascist opposition, there are limited scholarly studies on Antifa (Bray, 2017:xxi; Copsey, 2016:707f). Certain scholars who have studied antifascism, have often aimed to define distinct classifications and definitions of the phenomenon; and despite differences, they agree on the fact that Antifa cannot be understood as a homogenous entity (Bray, 2017:xiv; Copsey, 2016:708,713; Copsey, 2018:244ff; LaFree, 2018:251f; Lundberg, 2020:276f; Pyrooz & Densley, 2018:233). In contempt of this, Mark Bray (2017) argues that Antifa can be identified as an ideology, an identity or an activity of self-defence; a trans-national movement with socialist, communist and anarchist values, with the purpose to react to the threat of fascism and oppressive behaviour (Bray, 2017:xiv). Hugo García (2016) follows this notion and argues that antifascism is a parallel to other transnational movements such as feminism, anticapitalism, anticoloni-alism, humanitarianism, and pacifism (García, 2016:567f). Thus, the antifascist movement aims to under-mine not simply fascism per se, but also the pillars of a society based on capitalism, racism, white supremacy, patriarchy, heteronormativity, nationalism, and class differences, to mention a few. Fascism, thus, becomes a facade for a larger systemic threat (Bray, 2017:159, 209; García, 2016:567f). Furthermore, Bray (2017) describes Antifa as an illiberal politics of social revolutionism, as the fight against fascism suppresses free-dom of speech; the antifascist rejections of oppression, in all its forms, overcome human liberties (Bray, 2017:xv, 156). Continuing on the path of antifascism overcoming human liberties, Bray argues that antifas-cists occasionally do come to conduct violent actions. He recognises three main arguments amongst anti-fascists to use violence, the first being founded upon the history of fascism and that the authoritarian insti-tutions of society have failed to hinder its development. Secondly, antifascists argue that violent actions have been successful since the end of World War II, thus, violence is an effective tool to counteract fascists. Lastly, Bray recognised that as the fascists commit violence, antifascists use violence as self-defence for themselves, their community, and their beliefs. Thus, offensive violent tactics are necessary since it decreases the need for exceeding violence in the future (Bray, 2017:169).

Nigel Copsey (2018) states that Antifa is a transnational, ideologically motivated movement with a fundamental opposition towards fascistic oppression and exploitation (Copsey, 2018:244f). According to both Bray (2017) and Copsey (2016; 2018) antifascism can on one hand be of a moral character, when it is operating within legal frames. On the other hand, it can be militant, when it strives for a ‘revolution of emancipation’ from the capitalistic system as a whole. The militant antifascism, according to both Copsey and Bray, identifies the capitalist state as the root cause of fascism. Militant antifascism, therefore, is both the physical opposition to fascism and the systemic ideological opposition against the capitalist state (Bray, 2017:158; Copsey, 2016:708ff; 2018:246f). Physically violent actions are permeated with political and ideo-logical meaning, thus, “the anti-fascist struggle isn’t only the fight against fascism but also involves the fight for anti-fascism” (Copsey, 2018:247). In relation to this militant antifascism, Victor Lundberg (2020), argues that violence is used amongst antifascists as encouragement of antifascists engagement, a legitimate act, a defining segment of left-wing morality, while also dehumanising fascists, promoting group unity, and at certain times commending aggressive masculinity (Lundberg, 2020:274). Lundberg further notes that due to the fact that violence is deeply embedded in the fascist culture, antifascists argue that they inevitably have

(12)

to rely on violent means. Thus, antifascists fight fascism with their own weapons. Violence, in this aspect, includes different tactics such as physical, symbolic, and psychological actions (Lundberg, 2020:276f). Con-trary to Copsey’s (2016:710; 2018:246f) focus on the antifascist capitalist struggle, Lundberg (2020:276) rather focuses on antifascists perceived inherent right of self-defence and the safeguarding of values and structures of society. As such, Lundberg understands Antifa as they want to safeguard society, while Copsey argues that antifascism aims to change it. Moreover, even though Lundberg does recognise that solidarity and class-consciousness are important values within the resistance against fascism (Lundeberg, 2020:279), he does not do this to the same extent as Bray (2017) and Copsey (2016; 2018).

Gary Lafree (2018) as well as David Pyrooz and James Densley (2018) discuss how contemporary antifascism ought to be identified in rather general terms. LaFree examines whether antifascism can be understood as a terrorist organisation, using the classifications rules of the Global Terrorism Database. On this basis, he concludes that antifascism should not be defined as a terrorist organisation, instead he recog-nises antifascism as a countermovement much because of its non-structural and non-hierarchical character (LaFree, 2018:251f). When Pyrooz and Densley (2018) examined the classification of Antifa, they investi-gated the probability of Antifa being a ‘street gang’. According to their description, Antifa is a group of people, who react to the threat of fascism and oppressive behaviour by direct action. They argue that vio-lence is integral to Antifas collective identity and behaviour, which in turn is what constitutes fractions within Antifa as ‘gangs’. By making this statement Pyrooz and Densley actively exclude the notion that gangs usually do not include or act upon ideological motivations (Pyrooz & Densley, 2018:229, 234). How-ever, this gang definition is not universally accepted. For example, Copsey (2018) argues that ideological motivation is the paramount factor that excludes Antifa as a ‘gang’. He further argues that by discounting the political and ideological motives of Antifa and regarding them as ‘gangs’, the definition of the movement becomes diminishing (Copsey, 2018:243f, 247).

Despite the different classifications and identification of Antifa, the common ground among scholars is that it is a movement opposing fascism. The usage of violence is a core element within the militant anti-fascist collective strive, however, this does not constitute homogeneity within the movement. What brings antifascists together in a common struggle is the notion that fascism must be countered; in any form it appears.

CHAPTER 3: Theoretical Framework

__________________________________________________________________________________ This chapter presents the theoretical framework applied in the analysis of the empirical data. Erving Goffman’s frame analysis contributes to the foundation of a thorough understanding of the antifascists’ frames, perceptions, motivation, goals, and actions, as well as the understanding of the concept and justifi-cation of violence. Thus, the applied theoretical framework is correlated and founded upon the purpose and research questions of the study.

3.1 Erving Goffman: Frame Analysis

Erving Goffman presented his analytical concept of framing in his work Frame Analysis (1986), focusing on the micro-level of social interactions. The concept revolves around the notion that making sense of a social situation is achieved by the construction of meaning through frames of understanding. The term frame is assumed as “[...] definitions of situations [that] are built up in accordance with principles of organisation which govern events [...] and our subjective involvement in them” (Goffman, 1986:10f). Thus, frames are constructions used in order to understand the world and what meaning events and actions hold. The frame analysis refers to the examination of the organisation of experience to understand social action and interac-tion (Goffman, 1986:11). This has come to play a versatile role in the aim to find a comprehensive under-standing of people’s, what Goffman denotes as, ‘schemata of interpretation’; a term referring to individuals’

(13)

interpretations, definitions, and perceptions of their social context (Arvidson & Johansson, 2016:349; Goffman, 1986:21; Persson, 2019:49). As illustrated by Persson (2019),

Aframe demarcates something from something else. Within the frame exists or is created a certain mean-ing. One might think of the frame of a painting that frames and thus emphasises one thing and excludes other things. We become aware of this if we imagine an empty frame hanging on a white wall. In this case, the frame itself causes the white inside of it and the white outside of it to acquire different meanings, in spite of the whiteness being something that has the same appearance in both cases. If, on the other hand, the frame frames a canvas painted white and hung on a white wall in an exhibition, what is framed acquires a different meaning. (Persson, 2019:52)

Goffman suggests that people understand their reality through their primary framework, a kind of granted framework of interpretation, independent from other frameworks. It is this primary framework that renders what would otherwise be considered a meaningless aspect of events, into something meaningful (Goffman, 1986:21). The primary framework is divided into social- and natural frameworks, which both play the role of facilitating the interpretation of data for experiences to be understood in a wider societal context. Natural frameworks identify events as unguided, solely physical, and entirely dependent upon natural, biophysical incitements. Hence, there is no attribution of intentional forces which guides the outcome of events. On the contrary, the social frameworks are precisely just that, namely affected by intentional forces. Social frames offer a background understanding of events that incorporate wilfulness, what Goffman entitles as ‘guided doings’ influenced by ‘social appraisal’. Laws, norms, power, culture, institutions, and organisations are examples of such frames where the human will is in control (Goffman, 1986:22). As Goffman describes, “Motive and intent are involved, and their imputations help select which of the various social frameworks of understanding is to be applied.” (Goffman, 1986:22). For instance, such an institution controlling the individual will, can be the human perception of time and how it influences hunger at the socially appropriate times of breakfast, lunch, and dinner (Persson, 2019:51). As such, social frames are dependent and contin-uously conditioned upon natural frames where guided doings require the use of the natural conditions (Goffman, 1986:23). Accordingly, the concept of frames intends to contribute to the creation of meaning as well as the understanding of individuals’ social situations, perceptions, motivations, goals, and actions within their antifascist involvement. Thus, the concept of frames will account for how antifascists under-stand and perceive their involvement and actions, as well as the concept and justification of violence in relation to the context that they are involved in.

CHAPTER 4: Methodology

__________________________________________________________________________________ This chapter presents the applied method together with a thoroughgoing discussion on precautions. The chapter begins with a presentation of the research design, the choice and the process of semi-structured interviews, the selection of respondents, the digital context, and ethical considerations. Subsequently, the analytical approach is presented, as well as a discussion on the trustworthiness and authenticity of the study. Concluding this chapter is a reflexive commentary as to promote transparency between the authors and the reader.

4.1 Research Design

This study is based on a qualitative approach to explore individuals’ perceptions, motivations, goals, and actions, in relation to the concept and justification of violence in the antifascist strive. The empirical data was collected through semi-structured interviews, using both video calls and emails as a means for commu-nication. Semi-structured interviews allowed the respondents to reflect on their own motivations, values,

(14)

and perceptions throughout the interview process. In turn, this helped us gain a thorough understanding of antifascists perspectives and reflections on the concepts of antifascism as well as violence (Bryman, 2018:477, 561ff). Previous research has emphasised violence as one of the most complex and elusive phe-nomena within social sciences since it is understood differently, by different people, in different contexts (della Porta, 2003:383; Imbusch, 2003:13; Lamnek, 2003:1113; Tolan, 2007:7f; Triplett et al., 2016:332). Likewise, a similar complex understanding amongst scholars surrounds the antifascist movement, relating to the antifascists motivations and actions (Bray, 2017:xiv; Copsey, 2016:708,713; Copsey, 2018:244ff; LaFree, 2018:251f; Lundberg, 2020:276f; Pyrooz & Densley, 2018:233). When aiming to comprehend and understand an individual’s perspective, taking descriptive details of the context into account favours a com-prehensive understanding (Bryman, 2018:479f). As such, the method applied has facilitated and contributed to the aim of gaining a profound understanding of how antifascists frame their involvement and under-standing of violence.

4.2 Interviews

The empirical data has been collected through semi-structured interviews with eight active antifascists. The advantages of the semi-structured interviews were the flexibility, and that they gave the respondents an opportunity to construct their answers in relation to what they found important. Thus, the chance of ob-taining deep and complex answers increased. As to find depth, qualitative interviews were deemed preferable over quantitative methods as such methods are usually used in the collection of data on quantity, intended for width and generalisation (Bryman, 2018:561f). Moreover, open and non-structured interviews could have been another applicable method for the collection of data, none the least as it would bring a deepened dimension to the study. However, we deemed semi-structured interviews to be preferable as non-structured ones could have increased the risk of the respondent not to mention violent aspects of their antifascist engagement. The discussion of violence was vital in our study, and since people might not have voluntarily brought the topic of the interview to the indecorous acts they or others have conducted, we regarded pointed questions, specifically relating to violence, as vital to our research.

Before conducting the interviews, an interview guide (see Appendix I) was designed in order to ensure that the interviews conformed to the research topic (Bryman, 2018:565). The guide was based on previous research on antifascism, fascism, and violence, consisting of five structured questions and subsequent cor-relating sub-questions. This approach is based on Harrell’s and Bradley’s (2009) funnel protocols, which meant that we first asked broad questions before pointed ones (Harrell & Bradley, 2009:50). Thus, the interview guide served as a template to ensure that the conversation revolved around the topics of antifas-cism, fasantifas-cism, and violence while allowing for adaptation in accordance with the answers and questions that emerged during the interview. Semi-structured interviews also gave the respondents an easy opportunity to interrupt the conversation if she or he wanted to ask or add something concerning the study or the interview. This possibility increased further by partially using email interviews, as the respondents could take her or his time to contemplate on questions or thoughts in their own comfortable environment, without the pres-sure of our presence.

All interviews conducted via video call were audio-recorded upon consent and approval of the re-spondent. In case of malfunction, two separate devices were used for recording as a precaution. Instead of being dependent on taking notes, we were able to have a complete focus on the interview and the respond-ent. After each interview, the audio-recording was transcribed. According to Alan Bryman (2018), sources of errors can decrease by recording and then transcribing the material. By this, we were not solely dependent on memory, which enabled control of unconscious interpretations made on intuition. We transcribed the whole interviews, word for word, and used marks of expressions to indicate in what way certain information was presented, and if there was a side-track of irrelevant information, this was not transcribed. Furthermore, the transcription process facilitated the understanding of the information provided, and thus an increased comprehension of what was actually said. The transcription allowed us to analyse the material repeatedly,

(15)

which facilitated the process of finding information gaps that could be filled through possible follow-up contact (Bryman, 2018:577f).

4.3 Selection of Respondents

The selection of respondents was based on purposive sampling, using a criteria-based approach (Bryman, 2018:496). The criteria applied was rather inclusive, the respondents had to identify themselves as an anti-fascist, and be representative for themselves and not for the specific local group she or he might be a part of. Most of the individuals were contacted via the public emails of distinct antifascist groups, alternatively, public Twitter or Facebook accounts connected to the group. In addition to this, snowball sampling has been used (Bryman, 2018:504), but it did not prove beneficial as it did not grant further participants. We recognise that this study could have benefited from including further respondents, as it would have contrib-uted to an analysis containing multiple perspectives. Yet, the selection of respondents had its difficulties, none the least as antifascists tend to be protective of their anonymity. The reluctance to be public might stem from a perceived risk of their identities being exposed as they operate in various forms of secrecy (Bray, 2017:xxi). Therefore, the population that we reached out to consisted of approximately some hundred individuals, all over the world. Furthermore, we want to note that the level of English skills was sufficient, but varying, amongst the respondents. Additionally, one interview was conducted in the mother language of one of the respondents, and the transcription was translated to English by us as authors of this study. This can cause additional sources of errors, as the information presented in the study is not the explicit information presented by the respondent. However, as we were able to communicate in her/his mother language, we found it important to conduct the interview in accordance with the respondent’s preferences. Eight interviews were conducted with active antifascists (see table I). The respondents had various nationalities, gender, and age. We also want to note that we as authors are not aware of certain respondents’ personal details. However, no personal data of the respondents that we know of will be disclosed in the study. Thus, to secure the respondents anonymity, the pseudonyms applied are gender neutral and we use ‘s/he’ or ‘her/his’ throughout the study to obscure the gender of the respondents. Moreover, this can omit possible gender preconceptions by the reader, which we deem important in order to let the information portray itself. Further, we have concealed all information that can indicate what nationality the respondents hold. Therefore, when quotations from the interviews are presented in the results, we have used square brackets to hide information that can hamper the anonymity of the respondents.

Respondents Pseudonym Type of Interview Date of Interview

Respondent 1 Remy (R1) Email 02.04.2021, 07.04.2021, 08.04.2021

Respondent 2 Billie (R2) Video Call via Zoom 09.04.2021

Respondent 3 Wen (R3) Email 16.04.2021, 19.04.2021, 20.04.2021

Respondent 4 Francis (R4) Video Call via Zoom 22.04.2021

Respondent 5 Akachi (R5) Email 27.04.2021, 29.04.2021

Respondent 6 Lupe (R6) Email 10.05.2021, 29.05.2021

Respondent 7 Dian (R7) Video Call via Zoom 19.05.2021

Respondent 8 Uzoma (R8) Video Call via Zoom 21.05.2021

(16)

4.4 The Digital Context and Adaption to the Covid-19 Pandemic

We wished to conduct the interviews via physical meetings, however, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the international approach of the study, this possibility decreased. Consequently, the interviews were con-ducted over digital platforms, using email and video call. This was deemed preferable not only because it increased the availability for us and the respondents, but also facilitated the respondents’ anonymity. This also created a safe environment for both us and the respondents as it decreased the risk of catching the Covid-19 virus infection.

By using virtual video calls as a means for communication, the visual and instinctive elements from a physical conversation could still be accounted for, while upholding a safe distance (Bryman, 2018:593). Concerning the email interviews, the possibility to see how something was said ceased, which is a source of error we cannot fully make up for. Additionally, it is not uncommon that people tend to be more outspoken when they express themselves via text, over the internet, and anonymously. With this in mind, the infor-mation provided to us via email communication might be more outspoken than what the individual would have proved via oral communication (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012:434). Moreover, according to Bryman (2018:590f), email communication can increase the probability of respondents withdrawing their participa-tion, which is something we experienced as certain individuals that we were in contact with, cancelled their participation by not answering our emails. Still, as of the ethical and moral obligations, as well as the adaption to conduct the interviews in accordance with the respondents own preferences, we found that conducting interviews via email was a sufficient way of obtaining the information we required. In turn, this approach allowed the respondent to come up with clearly constructed and well-thought-out answers, while the spon-taneity was lost to some extent. Yet, this type of communication created a greater opportunity for a long-term commitment for those respondents who did not withdraw their participation, and it also made it easier for the respondent to return to us with supplementary questions and reflections. In regard to the infor-mation provided from the different types of interviews, we did not experience an inforinfor-mation gap between email and video call interviews. Thus, both interview approaches were sufficient and useful for the purpose of this study.

4.5 Ethical Considerations

Qualitative research creates conflicting methodological and ethical dilemmas concerning consent, privacy, and confidentiality, along with issues regarding reciprocity, power, and contextual relevance. Knowledge is valuable, but it should not exceed individual privacy (Swedish research council, 2017:7). To ensure that the ethical principles were followed in accordance with the Swedish research council recommendations, an in-formation and consent document (see Appendix II) was shared with all participants. No interview was initiated before a written consent had been given by the respondent. This document contained information on the study, the topic of the interview, as well as information about their rights while participating in the study. The document noted that the respondent had the right to determine the time and conditions of their participation, that the participation was voluntary and could be cancelled at any time, and that all material and personal data were handled confidentially and deleted upon the completion of the study. The principle of confidentiality was taken into significant consideration due to the general desire of antifascists to be anonymous and that the study involved a relatively sensitive subject, namely violence. Research with sensi-tive topics may put the researcher as well as the respondents in disturbing situations and ethical dilemmas (Shaw, 2008:400). Therefore, the document stated that no details which could lead to the respondents’ identity being exposed would be revealed nor included in the study. Names were therefore changed to gender neutral pseudonyms to complicate the possibility to identify the respondents.

(17)

4.6 Analytical Approach

The analytical approach applied in this study is a thematic analysis, intended to organise data and produce it synthetically. After the initial collection of data, it was processed by using the qualitative data analysis software NVivo. By using this software, the analysis processes of a rather large amount of data could be somewhat systematic, rather than to process each transcript in independent documents. This contributed to the coding of each transcript into loosely defined categories and subcategories, which were redefined and specified throughout the process (see Appendix III). Accordingly, the themes were defined by the reading of the collected material using an inductive approach as a way to allow the data to reveal itself; to produce relevant and applicable codes relating to the research questions of the study. The final themes and sub-themes identified consisted of recurring depictions and correlations identified in the data, as a product of in-depth and repetitive reading of the transcripts. A potential problem with the process of coding is that by picking out pieces of a text, the context in which something was said ceases, but by the repetitive reading of the transcripts we aimed to compensate for this source of error. We also want to note the importance of recognising that the framework of a thematic analysis does not state a definite method on how to construct themes. Hence, as we as authors are socially embedded, our preconceptions inevitably came to influence the construction of themes and codes (Bryman, 2018:701–705).

This study has as well sustained a phenomenological approach, as we applied an actor centred approach and aimed to examine structures of consciousness, meaning, and recognition experienced from the individ-ual’s perspective. Accordingly, we have put our reality and preconceived notions in parentheses when it comes to understanding the antifascists perspectives (Bryman, 2018:54; Giddens & Sutton, 2014:63); yet recognising that we are a part of the social objective being studied.

4.7 Trustworthiness and Authenticity

Bryman (2018:465) states that validity and reliability constitute important criteria when estimating the quality of research. However, because the criteria being rooted in a positivist perspective, they have to be redefined for qualitative research to reflect the various ways of establishing ‘truth’ (Golafshani, 2015:597). Thus, the criteria of trustworthiness and authenticity have been considered throughout this study by accounting for that the data has been collected and processed systematically and authentically. By doing this, it facilitates future comparative studies whilst promoting transparency. However, when conducting the interviews dis-tinct follow-up questions emerged, as such, every interview was unique to every individual. We naturally aimed to ask follow-up questions that related to the research topic, but as we are socially and culturally embedded beings, personal interests and previous knowledge naturally came to influence the questions. Consequently, certain questions could have been considered ‘leading’, but as they ensured that we under-stood the respondents correctly they were deemed necessary. When conducting an interview, one also has to be aware of the risk of possible misinterpretations of what is actually said, and what meaning it holds. To further strengthen the trustworthiness, authenticity, and transparency of the study, the transcript of the interview was shared with the respondent who wanted to read it. This gave the respondent a possibility to give account for possible misunderstandings and by that clarify the meanings (Bryman, 2018:577ff). As some of the interviews were conducted via email, the respondent in question had a consistent possibility to take part in the provided information.

By contacting actors via the internet there is a possible risk of the validity of that actor. For instance, certain groups that we contacted might not have been actual antifascist, but rather individuals with other beliefs or agendas. Yet, this risk was not something we deemed to affect the study, nonetheless as it was rather pronounced in the interviews that we were talking to individuals involved in antifascism. When in-terviewing antifascist representatives, there is also a potential risk of the answers being biased or described in a better light as to present a more positive image. However, as our aim has been to portray the individuals’ perceptions, the results of this research are not intended to be generalisable to other contexts, but only to portray the individuals’ understandings. Personal impressions and experiences are constructions susceptible

(18)

to change, however, this should not be considered a flaw but rather as a contribution. By contributing with an insight to the understandings of antifascists and their symbolic dimensions of social actions, we can give way for others to make judgements on transposability to new contexts.

4.8 A Reflexive Commentary

Reflexivity can be understood as an approach applied to recognise the social construction of reality. How-ever, much like with any other notions within the field of social science, there is a complexity that surrounds the concept of reflexivity amongst scholars (Lumsden, et al., 2019:1–25, Passim). Paul Rabinow (1977) high-lights that all ‘facts’ are cultural interpretations and thus, ‘doubly mediated’. He argues that the questions a researcher asks and the understanding they seek are culturally and historically situated. Likewise, the answers the researcher receives are equally mediated by the culture and history of the respondent (Rabinow, 1977:119, 150). It is from this notion which the reflexive approach of this study has taken its stance from, recognising the subjective realities of both the researchers and the respondents.

To be objective is impossible within social science research, but by applying a reflexive approach a researcher can help account for the role of values in their work (Lumsden, et al., 2019:156). For us, this meant recognising the construction of the quite artificial interview situation. To conduct an interview was undoubtedly a new contextual situation for us. We had to weigh the aspect of being compliant or disagreeing with the respondents, whilst trying to uphold a front of an unobtainable detachment. Moreover, we noticed that our morals came to affect the interviews, for instance, when respondents accounted for how they or people in their surrounding had been violently abused or exposed to inequality, it was difficult to not infuse feelings of sympathy or support to the interview. Furthermore, the aspect of equality between us and the respondent was vital to consider as we reflected on the possibility of respondents feeling obligated to answer questions, merely because of our presence. Because naturally, our reactions and commentaries affect the directions of the answers given by the respondent, as we are all influenced by our social surroundings. We also want to note that what is declared from the respondent in this study is not universally shared percep-tions amongst antifascists. Other antifascist individuals might frame their antifascist involvement and un-derstanding of the concept of violence differently than what is disclosed in this study.

By applying a reflexive approach, we recognised that we as authors and our respondents cannot be separated from our biographies, nor each other, as cultural and social experiences affect our understandings and interpretations. Yet, as of the participants’ anonymity, we are not aware of certain aspects such as na-tionality, ethnicity, age, or gender of the respondents. Hence, we cannot fully recognise their social context, but merely examine their antifascist perceptions, thoughts, and values. Moreover, we recognise that what the respondents have declared in the interviews are not fixed perceptions, opinions, or values, but construc-tions that are susceptible to change.

CHAPTER 5: Results

__________________________________________________________________________________ This chapter presents the collected material from the interviews and is based upon six headlines, correlating to the research questions, the material presented in previous research, and the themes of the coding process. To Engage in an Opposition: Motivations for Involvement presents the antifascists different reasons for engaging in antifascism. What is Antifascism? – An Individual Understanding develops the comprehension of what each respondent defines as antifascism. To Identify and Opposition, One Has to Understand the Enemy illustrates the individual perceptions on the concept of fascism and how each respondent identifies their opponent. Sub-sequently, Antifascist Actions and What They Intend to Achieve accounts for the respondents’ goals and how these intend to be accomplished. What is Violence? – An Individual Understanding includes a presentation of personal definitions of the concept of violence, followed by Is Violence Justified? Accounts From Antifascists that develop the accounts of violence on a personal stance of justification.

(19)

5.1 To Engage in an Opposition: Motivations for Involvement

Antifascism has both in previous research as well as throughout this study been proved to consist of a heterogeneous set of people, driven by multiple, yet similar motivations. While interviewing eight individuals who themselves identify as antifascists, the aspect of personal values and political beliefs proved to be the common ground for turning to antifascism. Even though certain differences do appear amongst the re-spondents, similarities also came to unfold, and what they all agreed on was that oppressive structures, inequality, and fascism had to be countered. For instance, Lupe (R6) considers that a society that tends to categorise people by means of exploitability, that pressure people into competition and discriminate people due to certain social constructs, such as gender, race, or class, is a society that s/he argues “can’t be the end of history” (R6). Other respondents trace their motivations back to their upbringing, while also highlighting socio-political aspects as a driving force to engage in antifascism (R1, R2, R3, R8). Remy (R1) recognises her/his upgrowing and the influences from the existing social environment based on ‘bigoted attitudes’ as motivations for her/his antifascist engagement. Even though s/he was not personally exposed to racism, s/he witnessed friends being violently threatened over their identity as indigenous and non-white. Further-more, s/he identified the structures in society as based upon white supremacy; demonstrated in her/his school by “reading almost exclusively white authors and learning white history, whereas black, indigenous, and people of colour were rarely (if ever) mentioned” (R1). In a similar manner as Remy (R1) defines her/his motives, Billie (R2), Wen (R3), and Uzoma (R8) relate their upbringing as a personal motive for their in-volvement. Billie (R2), much like Remy (R1), notices that ever since s/he was a young s/he witnessed a distinctive inequality and injustice towards people around her/him, which became the foundation for her/his involvement.

A lot of my friends have not looked like me, they have not necessarily been white cis het [people], so being friends with people that did not look like me meant that I had to see how they were treated by other people that looked like... me. And I felt a very strong sense of injustice, and outrage when I saw people being treated by ah with homophobia or racism and I can’t just stand with my friends and not do something about it. Uhm, and I think that developed more and more when I saw what was happening globally to people, I started to get involved in fighting against things like that politically [...] I always felt strongly opposed to discrimination and bigotry. And I guess that stems out of having a personal friendship with racialized people or LGBT people. (R2)

While Wen (R3) also relates her/his motivation to her/his upbringing, s/he emphasises distinctive personal experiences of inequality and dismissive power structures to have created an antiauthoritarian feeling and will to change the rules of society to be founded upon anarchist and communist ideas.

Equality is the most important notion for me, because as I said there’s no freedom without equality. I come from a quite poor background and the lack of commodities has never been in itself a problem because my relationship with family and parents was nice. I remember feeling ‘crushed’ because of this relative poverty during my first relationships with kids from the local bourgeoisie. As a teenager, books like 1984 and music like punk turned these feelings into anger. Then as a young adult, reading politics turned this anger into something more constructive: I know what revolts me, I understand why it revolts me and I work on abolishing what revolts me. (R3)

Uzoma (R8) also elucidates personal traits, remarking the leftist political beliefs permeated in her/his family as a natural course into antifascism. Since, according to Uzoma (R8), the values of the political left and antifascism are essentially the same. However, s/he also notes the distinct event of a murder of an antifascist, together with the rise of a neo-Nazi group to have been the trigger point for her/his more active engage-ment. The act to actively engage in antifascism by the occurrence of a specific event is a unified notion amongst all the respondents. For instance, Akachi (R5) noticed how fascists started to openly organise in her/his community, using actions such as demonstrating against gay marriage as well as murdering an

(20)

antifascist activist, thus, s/he realised that s/he had to engage. Moreover, both Wen (R3) and Dian (R7) define distinct events of murders of antifascists and the rise of Nazism and fascist political organisations in their societies as vital motives for turning to antifascism. With the exceeding presence of a fascist threat, a motivation to actively resist fascism developed. In a similar manner, Francis (R4) antifascist involvement particularly developed in relation to an event where antifascist demonstrators were attacked by Nazis, and after this occurrence s/he obtained a feeling of importance to actively do something. The feeling to not only stand on the side is expressed amongst all respondents, whereas the distinct events spurring the active engagement differ, but always include their defined fascists.

5.2 What is Antifascism? – An Individual Understanding

As previous research has demonstrated there is no universal understanding and perception of the concept of antifascism, accordingly, we aimed to examine how the respondents of this study understood and framed their personal notion of antifascism. What everyone came to agree on is that antifascism is an inclusive, open movement constructed out of different people all in opposition to fascism; independent from what each respondent distinctly defined as fascism. Dian (R7) and Uzoma (R8) identify antifascism as a peaceful ideology trying to stop and oppose fascism by effectively bringing fascist actions to the attention of people. Uzoma (R8) continues and notes that antifascism also is the endeavour to stand in solidarity and fight by the side of all people that are oppressed, to secure respect for differences, such as sexual and religious differences, in the whole of society.

Both Remy (R1) and Billie (R2) further emphasise the embracement of differences, while they more concretely note that antifascists need to work together with similar, but different groups and people, with the common interest of eradicating fascism. In an attempt to identify antifascism distinctively, Billie (R2) argues that the antifascist movement is a political countermovement, without hierarchical structures, elected positions, or official memberships. Accordingly, the only requirement to be an antifascist is that one needs to be opposed to fascism and willing to do something about it. Further, s/he understands antifascism in the terms of ‘respect existence or expect resistance’; “if you are saying that people should not exist, or not have rights because of who they are fundamentally, then we are against you” (R2). As such, antifascists are not only working against fascism independently but also against the bigger structures of discrimination. While Billie (R2) discusses this definition of antifascism, s/he notices that a common prejudice of antifascism is that it exists in relation to communism. Even though many antifascists lean towards the left on the political scale, one should not compile communism and antifascism. Instead, s/he argues that antifascism does not have a fixed ideological belief beyond the common goal of opposing fascism.

There is noo consensus on ah political ideology or economic ideology, beyond the opposition against fascism. So I always say that, if the house is on fire, that’s not the right time to argue about where the furniture should be placed. You put out the fire first and then we can argue about, you know what the ideological, eh political ideology economic system is. But let’s deal with fascism first. (R2)

Yet, the notion of political alignment with the left and opposition to capitalism came to prevail amongst four of the respondents (R3, R4, R6, R8). For Wen (R3), antifascism is part of a wider anticapitalistic- and revolutionary struggle, including forces such as feminism, environmentalism, trade-unionism, and squat-ting1_{. S/he believes that racial-, class-, and gender oppression are the root problems of society, and the strive}

against this oppression is the core of being an antifascist. Further s/he acknowledges that members of the antifascist movement sometimes think that they can manage the problem on their own, however, Wen (R3) argues that antifascism must be a popular struggle. Because “antifascism is everyone’s business [and] we shall not substitute the people as we want to change society with them” (R3). Moreover, the connection

1_{To live in or occupy an empty building or an unoccupied area of land without paying or the lawful permission of}

(21)

between communism and antifascism permeates Francis (R4) involvement and understanding of antifas-cism. For Francis (R4), antifascism is a working group and space of operation for people who are com-munists, where they can counter the ‘reactionary degeneration’ of fascism in the way one deems effective. Consequently, Francis (R4) states that s/he does not regard antifascism as an ideology embracing a particular worldview, but rather as a mere notion of opposition. In a similar manner as Wen (R3) and Francis (R4) frames antifascism, Lupe (R6) argues that besides the ‘classical approach’ of the strive against fascists, Nazis, and misanthropes, her/his engagement also includes the one against the capitalist structures. Accordingly, s/he describes antifascism as the “overall fight against the capitalist and status quo [that are] responsible for the subjection, exploitation and destruction of people and nature” (R6). Even though the respondents of this study in one way or another have chosen to be involved and engage in antifascism, it is also noted amongst Billie (R1), Wen (R3), and Francis (R4) that antifascism is something they would rather not have to do. Instead, antifascism is a necessity that needs to be done. Particularly illustrated by Wen (R3) who argues that as long as someone is in danger because of fascism, one cannot act as there is nothing to fight for – “you can’t be free as long as one human isn’t free” (R3).

5.3 To Identify an Opposition, One Has to Understand the Enemy

What appears amongst the respondents’ understanding of fascism, is that it prevails in two positions. On the one hand, fascism is discussed connected to individuals who conduct certain types of actions, often using violence to achieve a district (often oppressing) goal. On the other hand, fascism is discussed on a wider scale, often including political regimes or structures. This is particularly highlighted by Billie (R2), who argues that fascism is a violent ideology, but not per se a political ideology. S/he argues that fascists ‘fetishise and valorise’ violence as a preferable political action to oppress marginalised individuals and communities. “If people are not respecting the existence of migrants, or to Jews or Muslims or LGBTQ people or racial people or, eh you know disabled people. If one is advocating for those people to have fewer rights, or to be deported, or to be killed. Then we will consider them to be fascists” (R2). On the broader scale of fascism, Billie (R2) recognises certain political systems as fascist due to the involvement of aspects such as military territorial expansions, imperialism, and colonialism. Regimes such as Turkey with Recep Erdoğan, The Phil-ippines with Rodrigo Duterte, India with Narendra Modi, the United Kingdom with Boris Johnson, Brazil with Jair Bolsonaro, and to some extent The United States with Donald Trump, are according to Billie (R2) ‘arguably fascist’. The fascist aspects of these regimes are in her/his understanding, the permeation of big-otry and discrimination, recognising elements such as identifying social outgroups and ingroups, adjuring to a mythical idolised ideal past, and sustaining oppression with violence and the military. Despite the rather concrete definition that comes to prevail Billie’s (R2) understanding, s/he also identifies a common problem that arises when attempting to define fascism, which is the tendency to use fascism “to mean almost anything that they do not like” (R2). However, amongst the respondents of this study, all of them accounted for rather clear and vivid understandings of what fascism is to them.

All of the respondents came to regard fascists as those who promote far-right ideas such as Nazism, nationalism, islamophobia, homophobia, and other ideas that are a part of the strive of an oppressive, une-qual, and ‘non-inclusive society’. Akachi (R5) argues that these ideas have exceedingly come to influence the political sphere and notes that certain small political groups are “beating people because of their religion, origins, or sexual orientation” (R5). Additionally, s/he maintains that fascism is permeated with violence as a part of their political project of promoting a society where “some people have rights and some do not” (R5). The aspect of violence amongst fascists is yet another commonality that appears in the interviews when discussing fascism. Remy (R1) starts her/his account of fascism by identifying it as an ‘inherently violent ideology’ permeated by oppressive behaviour towards marginalised individuals and communities. S/he argues that fascists tend to portray an image of superiority and strength contrary to, for example, queer-, trans-, racialised- and non-white people. Remy’s (R1) discussion of fascism develops into a broader societal perspective, focusing on the history of genocide and land-grabbing, and the legacy that this has