This book by Maria Sobolewska and Robert Ford was very academic in its style, but I felt like I should read it because it focuses on identity politics and Brexit, and also touches upon migration, nationalism and propaganda so it was highly relevant to my creative research.
‘With no universally agreed rules available, the politics of identity is in part a tug-of-war over social norms, with identity liberals seeking stronger and more expansive definitions of racism sanctioning a wider range of attitudes and behaviour, while identity conservatives push back against this process, attacking it as the unjust imposition of excessively stringent rules, which stigmatise the legitimate expression of group attachments and anxieties about change.’ (page 8)
Given that I often reference Nigel Farage’s infamous “Breaking Point” poster in political speeches, I was particularly interested to read their analysis of this particular piece of propaganda in relation to the campaigns to leave the EU;
‘The Leave campaign also claimed that continued EU membership would embroil Britain in the European refugee crisis, which it claimed the EU had made worse, and that the arrival of criminal or extremist elements among the refugee population would threaten British security. Although, the official campaign distanced themselves from it, an infamous poster unveiled by the unofficial Leave.EU campaign headed by UKIP leader Nigel Farage depicted Syrian refugees massing on the Slovenian border with the headline ‘Breaking Point: the EU has failed us all’, tapping into the same sentiment. The message from both the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns was that continued EU membership would leave Britain open to a tidal wave of refugee migration, overwhelming public services and threatening order. Such adverts were another transparent effort to activate ethnocentric sentiments in the public by associating the EU with uncontrolled arrival of racially and religiously distinct migrants, reminiscent of the anti-immigration rhetoric of Enoch Powell and his supporters in the 1960s and the 1970s’ (pages 227-228)
I also found their analysis of the Remain to be tragically hilarious, because it is absolutely true that the campaign was desperately pathetic and failed to engage voters on an emotional level;
‘The most rousing call to Remain that the official website managed to include – on the website’s front page, no less – was a half-hearted quote from Martin Lewis: ‘I’m generally risk-averse, and that pushes me just towards an IN vote for safety.’ Similarly equivocal and half-hearted support for Remain was offered by the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who declared himself ‘seven, or seven and a half’, out of ten, for Remain in a live TV interview, refused to do any joint campaigns with David Cameron or other Conservative Remainers, and took a holiday in the middle of the referendum campaign.’ (page 228)
There comparison of the Scottish Independence campaigns to the EU referendum was also an interesting insight given my recent campaigning interactions with SNP supporters in Scotland;
‘The 2014 Independence ‘Yes’ campaign had some similarities with the 2016 Leave campaign – both sought exit from a larger political unit and, in both cases, the strongest initial support for exit came from ethnocentric voters. But while the Leave campaign sought to maximise identity conservative mobilisation by fusing ethnocentric hostilities to the EU and to migrants and minorities, the Scottish independence ‘Yes’ campaign ran in the opposite direction, downplaying ethnocentric themes and seeking to attract identity liberals by portraying independence as a cause that would advance liberal and multicultural values in Scotland.’ (page 265)
‘Migrant voters, whose movement across borders generates complex, multiple identities, favoured the union side in both exit referendums.’ (page 270)
The targeting of vulnerable minorities in order to mobilise political support from nationalists has long been a concern to me;
‘Right wing governments have long employed negative stereotypes of welfare recipients to argue for spending reductions. Racially coding such stereotypes to make them more powerful with ethnocentric white voters in diverse societies is a logical step, and one radical right parties, at least, are likely to attempt in future.’ (page 334)
Overall, the insight into identity politics has been useful and informative for my project researching the intersectionality of identity of migrants;
‘As we have seen in earlier chapters, immigration is a debate inherently prone to activating identity politics divides. It is about defining the borders, and on what terms. The influence of identity attachments and identity conflicts has long been evident on immigration policy, both in terms of public demands and the policies elected politicians have enacted in response to them.’ (page 335)
Comentarios