Why Even Misleading Identity Claims Matter: The Evolution of the English Defence League
| Date | 01 May 2018 |
| Published date | 01 May 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321717720378 |
| Author | Joel Busher |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Political Studies
2018, Vol. 66(2) 323 –338
Why Even Misleading Identity
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Claims Matter: The Evolution
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717720378
DOI: 10.1177/0032321717720378
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
of the English Defence League
Joel Busher
Abstract
When activists in radical, far or extreme right groups claim identities that set them apart from such
analytical categories, they are usually given short shrift by commentators and academics, a function
of the presumed strategic nature of such claims and the evidential inaccuracies that scrutiny of
such claims often reveals. Such responses help ensure critical readings of these groups. However,
they also risk overlooking the fact that even where such identifications appear misleading, they
may still be causally significant, shaping the groups’ evolution in important ways. I develop this
argument using the case of the English Defence League, a group whose activists have tended to
claim they are a ‘single-issue group’ protesting only about the supposed threats of ‘Islamification’. I
demonstrate how their enactment of this identity, while uneven and erratic, shaped the emergent
movement culture, tactical repertoires, intra-movement relations and, ultimately, the ebb and flow
of movement viability.
Keywords
radical right, far right, English Defence League, social movements, identity
Accepted: 3 April 2017
When I started attending English Defence League (EDL) events, I made the same ‘mis-
take’ several times.1 Not surprisingly, the activists I met wanted to know who I was and
what my research was about – Who did I work for? Was I a journalist? Was this another
‘lefty hatchet job’? In response, I would explain that I was an academic with an interest in
political movements and that my project was about how, despite public opposition and
hostile media coverage, the EDL had sustained itself for as long as it had. This way of
presenting myself seemed to work. During a year and a half attending EDL events, there
were only two instances in which activists chose not to speak with me. Several of the peo-
ple I had this conversation with did pick me up on one point, however. They would tell me,
‘that’s ok, but we’re not a political movement, we’re a single issue street movement/protest
Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
Corresponding author:
Joel Busher, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry University, Innovation Village #5,
Cheetah Road, Coventry CV1 2TL, UK.
Email: Joel.busher@coventry.ac.uk
324
Political Studies 66(2)
group’ (my paraphrasing, based on field-notes), before going on to tell me about their
‘single issue’, usually presented in terms of the ‘Islamification’ or ‘Islamisation’2 of what
they considered their particular bit of the world3 and the threat this posed to the way of life
of ‘ordinary English people’.4
The tendency within the academic literature on radical, far or extreme right groups is
to approach such identity claims as if they were fairly straightforward truth claims, that
is, the questions put front and centre are about whether such identities are claimed in good
faith and the extent to which ‘we’ – academics, commentators, policy-makers, the public
– should accept them as descriptors of the groups in question. In most cases, the conclu-
sion is that we ought to be sceptical, even suspicious, of these self-ascribed identities (e.g.
Allen, 2011; Garland and Treadwell, 2010; Goodwin et al., 2016; Jackson, 2011;
Kassimeris and Jackson, 2015).
In the case of the type of claims made by EDL activists to be a ‘single-issue group’,
scholars usually raise two concerns. First, given that such identities are used strategically
by activists to distance themselves from more extreme right groups and reputationally
toxic labels such as ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ and ‘Nazi’, it is possible that such identity claims are
not being made in good faith (Garland and Treadwell, 2010; Jackson, 2011; Mudde,
2000). Second, the concept of single-issue groups or parties is itself problematic because
it risks gross oversimplification of the issue frames around which such groups mobilise
and the causal and motivational pathways through which they generate support (Mudde,
1999). In the case of the EDL, for example, while its activists have often claimed to be a
single-issue group protesting only about the supposed threats of Islamification, several
studies have found that participation in EDL activism (Bartlett and Littler, 2011; Busher,
2015; Garland and Treadwell, 2012; Pai, 2016; Pilkington, 2016; Treadwell and Garland,
2011; Winlow et al., 2017) and sympathy for groups such as the EDL (Goodwin et al.,
2016; Pai, 2016; Thomas et al., 2017) is usually grounded in a wider set of grievances,
frustrations and anxieties associated with perceptions that ‘ordinary English people’ are
suffering ever greater political and cultural marginalisation. Indeed, survey evidence indi-
cates EDL activists are often at least, if not more, concerned about other issues including
immigration and a lack of jobs, as they are about the ‘single issue’ around which they are
supposedly mobilising (Bartlett and Littler, 2011).
Such analyses have helped develop, articulate and sustain a critical reading of radical,
far and extreme right politics – something particularly important at a time when, by
adopting new forms and mobilising around new issue frames, some such movements
have gained significant traction within ‘mainstream’ political arenas (Bruter and Harrison,
2011; Minkenberg, 2013). They have also inhibited the adoption of overly simplistic
accounts of how such groups build support, for example, by making clear that the EDL is
not simply a product of current anti-Muslim sentiment (especially Goodwin et al., 2016;
Winlow et al., 2017).
They do, however, risk overlooking a basic but important point: The wider literature
on collective identities and social movements (e.g. Hunt and Benford, 2004; Jensen,
1995; Melucci, 1995; Polletta and Jasper, 2001) indicates that regardless of whether we
consider it objectively accurate to describe a group such as the EDL as a ‘single-issue
group’, the fact activists identify in this way may nonetheless have significant implica-
tions in terms of the group’s tactical and ideological evolution and intra-group dynamics
and in terms of individuals’ journeys through such groups. As such, while it is important
to question whether such identity claims provide us with an accurate picture of these
groups, there are also other questions that we could and should be asking. For example,
Busher
325
how are these collective identities constructed and performed within the activist com-
munity, by whom, how consistently and under what circumstances? How and to what
extent has the performance of these collective identities shaped the evolution of the
group(s) in terms of its ideology, tactical repertoire, alliances and intra-group dynamics?
What has happened when (some) activists have challenged this collective identity?
In this article, I demonstrate how paying greater attention to such questions can help
us better understand how radical, far or extreme right groups function and evolve. I do
this by tracing how EDL activists’ identification as a ‘single-issue group’ protesting
against the ‘Islamification’ of their country shaped the evolution of the EDL and the UK’s
contemporary anti-minority protest scene at micro-, meso- and macro-levels. In other
words, I trace how such identifications shaped individual journeys through activism, the
emergent movement culture and, more broadly, the ‘ebb and flow’ of the EDL’s ‘organi-
sational viability’.5 The aim of doing so is not to argue that we should simply accept
activists’ self-ascribed identities as descriptors of their group or that the EDL is ‘best’
understood as a single-issue group, but to argue that such identifications are important
‘social facts’ (Durkheim, 2013 [1895]) and that by treating them as such – that is, by
examining their possible causal significance for other phenomena – we can enhance our
ability to understand and explain the trajectory of radical, far and extreme right politics.
This article is grounded in data generated during 16 months of overt ethnographic
research undertaken with EDL activists in and around London during 2011–2012. This
comprised observation at demonstrations, meetings, memorial events, charity fundrais-
ers, court cases and social events throughout this period; detailed activist life history
interviews with 18 individuals; and observation of public and private social media con-
versations during and beyond the period of research. Frequent contact with several of the
activists continued until the autumn of 2013, and occasional email, telephone or social
media contact continues with some activists at the time of writing. Permission to under-
take observation was sought from local gatekeepers within the organisation and the pur-
pose of the research explained on first contact with all members of the group as far as was
possible within the context of often chaotic protest events. Informed written consent was
provided for all formal interviews. The nature of the research – an ethnography centred
on a small part of a national movement – meant it had a fairly narrow...
To continue reading
Request your trial