The topic of ‘New White Nationalism’ has emerged as a focal point of intense debate in recent years, especially within the frameworks of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). While the intent behind DEI initiatives is to foster an inclusive environment, there are instances where discussions around certain topics can become muddled, leading to misconceptions. My exploration of the ‘New White Nationalism’ has found itself unintentionally entangled in these discussions, revealing both the complexities and the misunderstandings surrounding this ideology.
The notion of ‘New White Nationalism’ has sparked numerous conversations across the country, and in academia, it has been incorporated into broader discussions about race, identity, and belonging. However, the interpretation of this term often tends to drift, and the ensuing backlash can steer the conversation away from historical context and analysis. My book aims to unpack the layers of this term; however, being part of the DEI discourse has led to significant misinterpretations.
The DEI framework is grounded in the belief that every individual, regardless of background, should have equal access and opportunities. While the principles of DEI are noble, they can sometimes inadvertently suppress the exploration of certain ideologies, including those as divisive as ‘New White Nationalism.’ The challenge arises primarily from the use of blanket categorizations that inadvertently equate legitimate historical and sociopolitical discussions with hate speech or extremist movements.
White nationalism, in whatever form it presents itself, is often associated with extremist views that reject diversity in favor of a homogenous culture, often prioritizing white identity above all else. However, the newer iterations of this ideology are more nuanced and require scholarly examination. The term ‘New White Nationalism’ does not only encompass the overtly hateful rhetoric of past movements but also extends to cultural assertions, backlash against multiculturalism, and perceived threats to national identity—a conversation I seek to engage in through my work.
Since the publication of my book, the reception has been overwhelmingly polarized. While many readers appreciated the nuanced approach I attempted to bring to the theme, there were others who immediately categorized it as a non-starter within DEI frameworks. This brings into sharp focus the conflict between the need for open discourse surrounding challenging topics and the protective nature of DEI. One cannot arrive at a solution without grappling with the uncomfortable realities of history and the evolution of such ideologies.
Critics of my work claim that diving into the discussion of nationalism, particularly white nationalism, is harmful and regressive. However, I argue that the backlash against the exploration of these ideas often perpetuates a cycle of misunderstanding. By painting all discussions surrounding national identity as xenophobic or racist, we risk stifling legitimate academic inquiry that could foster better understanding and, ultimately, promote healing.
Furthermore, the blending of academic inquiry with current sociopolitical trends can lead to other academic works being misjudged through a DEI lens. Many authors and scholars may find themselves facing similar scrutiny. Writing about sensitive topics, including forms of nationalism, gender discourse, or historic race studies, requires an acute awareness of the social climate. It is clear that while DEI initiatives aim to advance rights, the implementation can sometimes close doors rather than open them.
This does not suggest that nationalistic movements or ideologies are without merit for critique. In fact, analyzing them critically reveals why they can manifest in harmful ways within communities. The task becomes identifying how to engage with these narratives honestly without being seen as promoting them. It requires a delicate balance—one that is threatened when DEI discussions are overly reductive, collapsing complex ideologies into binary opposition of good and evil.
In my book, I delve into the historical foundations of the New White Nationalism, tracing its resurgence in the United States and its interrelation with broader cultural shifts. Understanding the evolution of ideologies and movements requires acknowledging their social contexts, which is even more relevant today as we witness a radical shift in cultural narratives. My intention has always been to shed light on these aspects, showing the progression of thought rather than focusing solely on the negative aspects of blatant extremism.
The challenge presented by being caught in the DEI dragnet is multifaceted. On one hand, DEI advocates strive for a society that promotes equity, yet the suppression of critical dialogue around complex ideologies leads to a lack of thorough understanding of these very concepts. The simplistic binary of acceptable discussions and taboo subjects can lead to a stagnation in the evolution of important debates that need to take place for us to move forward as a society.
Furthermore, many scholars and writers have put their work under the microscope for DEI compatibility, often self-censoring to avoid controversy. This threatens academic freedom and pushes discussions into the realm of self-policing. When authors and researchers start to restrict their inquiries for fear of social backlash—whether that’s being canceled, labeled harmful, or pushing their works into obscurity—knowledge stagnation occurs.
The efforts behind DEI are, at their core, an attempt to create a more informed and respectful society. However, if the conversation does not include a wide spectrum of ideas, including the contentious or uncomfortable ones, it risks creating an echo chamber that ultimately discourages authentic engagement and understanding. It is essential that we challenge ourselves to confront difficult subjects even when they make us uncomfortable, allowing for nuanced dialogues that encompass various viewpoints.
Moving forward, there needs to be a call for a more sophisticated approach to DEI within educational institutions and public discourse. This might involve frameworks that allow for more nuanced discussions about contentious topics. Academic freedom cannot be sacrificed for fear of offending, nor can rental reforms be imposed without acknowledging the rich history and complexity of different ideologies.
In countries that emphasize democratic freedoms, such as the United States, engaging critically with all strands of thought is essential. It is through this critical engagement that societies evolve, misunderstandings are cleared, and movements are addressed more effectively. If we want not just to coexist but to truly understand each other, we need to accept the complexity of various ideologies, even those we may vehemently disagree with.
The conversation over the ‘New White Nationalism’ may seem burdened by the weight of history and emotion, but it also opens doors to a richer understanding of societal dynamics. My book dives into these complexities, providing insight into how such ideologies can be debated in an informed manner, promoting understanding over hostility.
In conclusion, while my exploration of the ‘New White Nationalism’ has inadvertently found itself tangled within the broader DEI discourse, it serves to illuminate the critical necessity of holding space for complex conversations. It acts as a reminder that true progress must factor in various perspectives and refuses to shy away from uncomfortable truths. To create a more inclusive society, we must engage in robust dialogues that allow for disagreement and debate while striving towards mutual understanding and respect.
