Normalizing cyberracism: a neutralization theory analysis
Stanislav Vysotsky, Adrienne L. McCarthy · Journal of Crime and Justice · 2016
White Supremacists use the Internet to discuss ideological arguments, which rationalize their beliefs and/or behavior by denying its implications, responsibility, or to contextualize it in higher order responsibilities to conform to normal expectations. The rationalization exemplified by their arguments can be simultaneously normalizing and neutralizing via framing processes that serve to legitimize deviant and criminal behaviors. These processes act as tools to not only maintain participation of current ideological followers, but also to persuade potential members who are pursuing their curiosity about White Supremacist ideology. Discourse on the web forum Stormfront was found to contain six types of argument frameworks: racial difference, cultural superiority, empiricism, verifiability, word choice, and racial superiority. Each of these categories was analyzed for neutralization framing techniques under pre-established metaframes and collective action frames, which collectively fall under the archetype hostile frame. It was found that neutralization of White Nationalism occurred via the hostile ‘speciesism’ frame, which effectively facilitates the persuasion of accepting pro-White ideologies. The prominent neutralization theory criticism that it cannot be determined whether neutralization occurred prior or after deviant behavior is refuted by this analysis that indicates neutralization may occur prior to deviant behavior.