What we miss when we overlook the gendered aspects of nationalist mobilisation

Abstract

AbstractSchertzer and Woods have written a timely, rigorous, and thoughtful examination of the rise of ethnic nationalism in the West. The book adeptly anchors the political mobilization of white majorities in the defensive postures that define them while simultaneously explaining the broader historical and cultural contexts that are so often missing from contemporary analyses. This critical analysis fell short, however, in its relative lack of engagement on issues related to gender and the gendered mobilization of nationalist and extremist backlash, including violence. But aside from brief mentions of the case of the 2016 U.S. election and the femonationalism of Marine Le Pen and others like her, the arguments put forth in the book suffer from an inattention to gendered dimensions in ways that hollow out the explanatory power of their claims by leaving out some of the most persuasive evidence about the role that gender, hostile sexism, and misogyny play in mobilizing support for violent extremism, political violence, nationalist movements, and other forms of xenophobic and exclusionary ideas. In this book debate essay, I briefly lay out what I think was missed and why it matters.