Content area
Abstract
This dissertation provides a critical rhetorical analysis of three community-based human rights advocacy agencies as they respond to white supremacist activism in contemporary America. A critical perspective on rhetoric directs attention to the ideological commitments that undergird discourse, and to the implications of those ideological commitments on groups' response.
Three ideological positions are examined. The classic liberal view, exemplified by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, discusses responses to white supremacy in terms of individual freedoms and the marketplace of ideas. This study argues that a classic liberal ideology severely constrains a group's ability to respond effectively to white supremacy. The revisionist liberal view, exemplified by the Southern Poverty Law Center, advocates some restrictions on individual liberty as a way for different groups to live together in a diverse society. This study argues that criminal and civil actions, while effective in the short term, do not address the fundamental causes of white supremacy. The radical view of white supremacy, exemplified by the Center for Democratic Renewal, argues that white supremacy arises from structural racism in society. The radical analysis is appealing intellectually, but has limited appeal in the community.
