“Nullification through armed civil disobedience”: a case study of strategic framing in the patriot/militia movement

Q1 Social Sciences
Sam Jackson
{"title":"“Nullification through armed civil disobedience”: a case study of strategic framing in the patriot/militia movement","authors":"Sam Jackson","doi":"10.1080/17467586.2018.1563904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The patriot/militia movement in the US has grown in prominence over the past several years, with the movement engaging in high-profile conflicts with law enforcement (e.g., at the Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada in 2014) and political opponents (e.g., clashing with antifascist activists in Boston and Berkeley in 2017). One of the strategies movement leaders use to solicit support is to ground their goals and behaviour in American history. This article presents a case study of one striking example of this, where a leading figure in the movement (Mike Vanderboegh, who popularized the idea of the Three Percenters) attempted to justify his advocacy of violating the law by simultaneously claiming the legal legitimacy of nullification and the moral legitimacy of civil disobedience. I argue that this rhetoric is an example of strategic frame appropriation. This type of frame appropriation serves the purpose of legitimating violent resistance to government by drawing parallels to other forms of political activism that are widely respected.","PeriodicalId":38896,"journal":{"name":"Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17467586.2018.1563904","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2018.1563904","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

ABSTRACT The patriot/militia movement in the US has grown in prominence over the past several years, with the movement engaging in high-profile conflicts with law enforcement (e.g., at the Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada in 2014) and political opponents (e.g., clashing with antifascist activists in Boston and Berkeley in 2017). One of the strategies movement leaders use to solicit support is to ground their goals and behaviour in American history. This article presents a case study of one striking example of this, where a leading figure in the movement (Mike Vanderboegh, who popularized the idea of the Three Percenters) attempted to justify his advocacy of violating the law by simultaneously claiming the legal legitimacy of nullification and the moral legitimacy of civil disobedience. I argue that this rhetoric is an example of strategic frame appropriation. This type of frame appropriation serves the purpose of legitimating violent resistance to government by drawing parallels to other forms of political activism that are widely respected.
“通过武装公民不服从的无效”:爱国者/民兵运动中战略框架的案例研究
摘要在过去的几年里,美国的爱国者/民兵运动日益突出,该运动与执法部门(如2014年内华达州邦迪牧场对峙事件)和政治对手(如2017年波士顿和伯克利与反法西斯活动人士发生冲突)发生了引人注目的冲突。运动领导人用来寻求支持的策略之一是将他们的目标和行为植根于美国历史。这篇文章提供了一个引人注目的例子的案例研究,在这个例子中,运动中的一位领军人物(Mike Vanderbegh,他推广了三个百分点的思想)试图通过同时声称无效的法律合法性和公民抗命的道德合法性来证明他违反法律的主张是正当的。我认为,这种修辞是战略框架挪用的一个例子。这种框架挪用的目的是通过与其他形式的政治激进主义进行比较,使对政府的暴力抵抗合法化,这些政治激进学受到广泛尊重。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信