A Guide to Opposition

This development is more than worrying. It is testimony to the lack of a critical debate on racism in society as a whole. In many places, colleagues, neighbours, family, friends and even people themselves claim to be against discrimination and racism. But being anti-racist requires “the active admission of being part of the problem – even if unconsciously and reflectively. Realising this personal responsibility is a big step in the right direction.” (Guy; Kiromeroglu, Lutz, Yumurtaci: Anti-Rassismus für Lehrkräfte, 2023. p. 12.) 

This leads us to the second problem of inflammatory reporting. Instead of pointing out possible strategies for action by highlighting possibilities for intervention against the far-right and referring to civil society stakeholders, such reporting conjures up a threat scenario that we are all at the mercy of.

What luck that we are not! This article aims to show ways in which we can remain capable of acting and learn to use the power of language to exercise the muscle of civil courage on a daily basis. To this end, it is worth first taking a look at discourses and terminology in order to have a common basis for further discussion. The article also provides a brief insight into various patterns of argumentation by right-wing populists and right-wing radicals. The final section covers the numerous opportunities we have to stand up for inclusive and anti-racist spaces in our society.

Patterns of argumentation used by the right

In order to confront right-wing populist and other anti-democratic statements, it is necessary to engage with the typical patterns of argumentation used by the right and their forms. A whole range of rhetorical manoeuvres can be used to steer conversations. If we are able to recognise these in a conversation with a right-wing populist, then we are prepared for the traps. In this way, we can confront them in an argumentative and objective manner. Some of these typologies are listed below:

• “Topic hopping”
  In order to create confusion and avoid having to give reasons, the content hops from one topic to another.
• “Ironisation”
  Here, people and issues are ridiculed with aggressively mocking terms.
• “Stooge”
  Here, a supposed opposing position is misrepresented or distorted and presented as unrealistic, thereby strengthening one's own position and demands.

Interventions – The power of contradiction

We’ve all experienced them – the sudden turns in conversations when everything had seemed relaxed a short time before: at work, at a party, at a family gathering or in the digital space. It is the moment when the person we are talking to suddenly starts repeating slogans that reflect hatred and misanthropy instead of their own opinion. In our immediate surroundings and beyond, be it at the bus stop, in a public building or in a café, we are naturally confronted with perspectives that do not always correspond to our opinion. But the question we should ask ourselves is: Is what we have heard an opinion that stems from a political conviction? 

Opinion is a protected right in a democracy as long as it remains within the law and does not injure others. In Germany, for example, Article 5 of the Constitution protects freedom of speech. However, hatred is not covered by freedom of speech if it violates the rights of others or jeopardises public order. Hate speech or hate crime (such as racist or anti-Semitic hate speech) is prohibited by law. Opinions, even if they are critical or controversial, can be expressed and discussed in a respectful environment without causing harm. Hate and hate speech, however, have concrete harmful effects on the social climate. They lead to division, polarisation and violence.

Listed below are some key questions that can help you recognise the type of speech situation and strengthen your own options for action.

How safe do I feel?

The basis of any intervention should be to assess the risk situation for yourself in advance. For example, if I am a person who is affected by racism and/or queer hostility, then the danger to my physical and mental integrity is far greater than for a white heterosexual person. So what would make me feel safe and remain capable of acting? Who can support me? And in general: How am I feeling today? How much strength and energy do I have for a conflict? 

Argumentation techniques and strategies

Sometimes we would like to intervene and remain capable of acting, to rebel against right-wing agitation and to stand up to our right-wing populist counterparts. But then we lose our courage because we are convinced that we lack the relevant information and specific knowledge to refute right-wing arguments. That doesn't matter. We shouldn’t be afraid of not knowing enough about topics. We don't want to argue anyone up against the wall. We just don’t want to simply leave inflammatory, racist, sexist and derogatory statements unchecked, as this could be interpreted as approval. So even with little knowledge we can still do the following:

• Point out generalisations (Islam, the image of women, etc.)
  E.g. “What exactly do you mean by “Islam”?” There are almost two billion Muslims worldwide – how realistic is it that there is only one form?”
• Point out group assignments (“we” vs. “they”)
  E.g. “Who do you mean by “we” and “they”?” or “Could it be that in the idea of an “us/we” there are also people who are more diverse?” Such as family, friends, acquaintances.
• Point out inconsistencies in the argumentation and ask questions
  E.g. “What do you mean exactly?” or “On the one hand you explain...., but on the other hand you say.... – I don't understand that, can you explain it without contradictions?”
• Demand solutions and point out consequences
  E.g. “What would be your specific solutions to the problems mentioned?” or “If that were the solution, what do you think would happen to the weaker members of society, who already have fewer resources at their disposal?”
• Express discomfort
  E.g. “I find your statement questionable/not okay/hostile/etc.”
• Enquire about the background to the statement
  E.g. “Can you tell me where your assumption comes from?” or “How did you come up with this idea?”
• Ask questions of comprehension
  E.g. “What exactly do you mean?” or “What do you mean by that?”
• Ask for clarification
  E.g. “Can you please explain XY again? That will help me understand it better.”
• Ask for specifics
  E.g. “If you mean that EVERYONE does something or that something ALWAYS happens, can you please give me some specific examples?”
• Request sources 
  E.g. “On what sources is your theory based?”
• Ask for the speaker’s perspective 
  E.g. “From which perspective are you speaking?” or “Would you say you are affected by XY yourself?”