Study at a Glance
- Status
- Data analysis
- Target
- American Journal of Sociology
- Coauthors
- None
- Methods
- Qualitative content analysis, comparative case-study analysis
A Framework for Understanding
Right-Wing Mobilization
This paper develops a framework for understanding how right-wing movements justify opposition to policies designed to expand the rights and protections of marginalized groups. Drawing on original qualitative analysis, I identify a recurring rhetorical strategy that I refer to as speculative victimhood, a discursive practice in which imagined or highly improbable future harm to an in-group is elevated above the actual and documented victimization of an out-group. Using comparative case study methodology, I examine how political actors deploy this strategy to resist rights-expanding reforms through opposition to marriage equality and the Violence Against Women Act, alongside efforts to advance the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Across these cases, claims of potential harm recast comparatively advantaged groups as victims and make opposition to rights-expanding reforms appear protective rather than restrictive. By examining right-wing movements led by political elites and the discursive strategies through which rights retrenchment is made persuasive, this research contributes to a social movement literature that frequently focuses on grassroots organizing for liberal causes.
These presentations represent earlier stages of the work that led to the development of Speculative Victimhood. Through analyses of opposition to the Violence Against Women Act, they examine how political actors mobilize claims of threatened or displaced victimhood to resist rights-expanding reforms. The papers helped establish the project’s broader focus on how assertions of potential harm to dominant or comparatively advantaged groups are used to justify policy retrenchment across multiple domains.