The paper, published in the British Journal of Social Psychology, examined interviews, TV discussions and public recordings from the UK and US to understand how white nationalism is defended and normalised in everyday interaction.
It claims that racism is often found in everyday conversations, political debates, jokes and media commentary, gradually making extremist ideas seem more normal.
Rather than focusing only on openly hateful language, the researchers looked at the more subtle ways extremist ideas spread.
They found that speakers often:
- Deny being racist before defending harmful ideas
- Use coded phrases such as “heritage” or “real Americans”
- Present criticism of racism as “political attacks”
- Frame extremist beliefs as ordinary opinions
- Use humour and sarcasm to make racist ideas seem less serious
The researchers, from Loughborough University; Wheaton College, in Massachusetts, USA; the University of Oxford and the University of California, in Los Angeles, USA, argue that these subtle forms of communication are dangerous precisely because they can appear normal, moderate or harmless.
One of the authors of the paper, Dr Jessica Robles, of Loughborough University, said: “Even when making racist or hateful comments, people work to present themselves as moral, reasonable or justified.
“In this project, we examined media interview comments by self-described white nationalists, as well as comments by figures accused of supporting – or at least tolerating – white nationalism while claiming not to be white nationalists.”
“In both cases, our research showed how the specific responses used similar language tactics to excuse white nationalist violence as well as to avoid condemning white nationalism generally.”
One example analysed in the paper comes from interviews following the 2017 Charlottesville rally in the United States, where a white nationalist killed a counterprotester by driving a car into a crowd.
Instead of condemning the violence outright, some interviewees described the driver’s actions as understandable or defensive, while portraying anti-racist protesters as the “real” aggressors.
The study also examined comments by US Senator Tommy Tuberville, who repeatedly avoided clearly condemning white nationalists serving in the military, instead describing them as “Americans” while insisting he was “totally against racism.”
Researchers argue that this kind of language creates ambiguity that can help extremist ideas appear more socially acceptable.
Another example came from a British TV talk show, where presenters joked about white supremacy and Nazis in a comedic way. The paper argues that treating extremist ideologies as entertainment risks reducing the seriousness of racist violence and discrimination.
The researchers say racism is harmful not only because of direct abuse or violence, but because of the quieter ways it shapes society over time.
By repeatedly softening, excusing or joking about extremist ideas, they argue, public discussions can slowly shift what people see as acceptable.
Dr Robles said: “Nationalism is on the rise all over the world, and ethno-nationalism (proposing that a state have a population defined by a particular ethnicity) is a troubling version that often overlaps with anti-immigration and racist perspectives.
“Our research illustrates how white nationalist perspectives can be bolstered not just through overt justifications, but also more indirectly by excusing or making a joke out of White nationalism rather than criticising or holding its supporters accountable.”
ENDS