Charles R. Sullivan
Bio: Charles R. Sullivan is an academic researcher from University of Dallas. The author has contributed to research in topics: Disengagement theory & Psychology. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 3 publications receiving 5 citations.
TL;DR: In this article, a study of how individuals psychologically experience Holocaust-related exhibits or installations is presented. But such studies are relatively rare, in part because such investigations lie at the crossroads of Holocaust education and visitor or museum studies.
Abstract: Studies of how individuals psychologically experience Holocaust-related exhibits or installations are relatively rare, in part because such investigations lie at the crossroads of Holocaust education and visitor or museum studies. The current study arose out of a unique opportunity during which the authors’ university hosted a traveling exhibit of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race. One hundred and ninety-four participants responded to a qualitative question regarding the impact of the exhibit. A descriptive form of thematic analysis was used to identify patterns in the data, resulting in three superordinate themes (closed, open, and ambivalent engagement). These themes describe how participants oriented themselves toward the exhibit, negotiating a complex interplay that included a passive to active continuum. Our critical analysis suggests that it may be helpful to view participants as ambivalent or even contradictory human agents, struggling wi...
18 Mar 2020
TL;DR: Dugin navigated this context by combining and recombining shifting and heterogeneous sources, often from sub-submerged intellectual traditions, and by a passage through a contradictory array of affiliations from the Yuzhinsky circle to the anti-Semitic Pamyat movement to National Bolshevism and Old Belief as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: This essay examines the historical thought of the contemporary Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin (1962-). Dugin’s writings are the product of a complex intellectual development in the particularly fraught context of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economic and political instability of the Yeltsin presidency and the ultimate emergence and consolidation of Putinism. Dugin navigated this context by combining and recombining shifting and heterogeneous sources, often from ‘submerged’ intellectual traditions, and by a passage through a contradictory array of affiliations from the Yuzhinsky circle to the anti-Semitic Pamyat movement to National Bolshevism and Old Belief. The very heterogeneity of Dugin’s sources has, in turn, served to make him a particularly polyvalent link among Alt-Right groups, especially given Dugin’s charismatic personality, his extensive web presence and the official connections he has cultivated from his positions with Moscow State University and the Russian Interior Ministry.
TL;DR: This paper examined the meaning of exit from white supremacist organizations from the extremist's perspective, and found that exit is linked to entry by a developmental drive that the participant's core need was the background motivator of entry, disengagement, exit and ultimately deradicalization.
Abstract: This empirical study examines intensive interview data collected from eight (N=8) former members of white supremacist organizations in order to understand the meanings of exit – that is, disengagement and deradicalization – from the extremist’s perspective. Using a thematic analysis approach, our findings build on the distinction in the existing exit literature between push and pull factors and the process of role exit identified by Ebaugh (1988). These push and pull factors as well as social identity, we argue, are subsumed within a complex exit process, which includes disengagement, identity deconstruction, and transgressive and transitional relationships. For some, this process culminated in an accomplished identity reconstruction and deradicalization. Most importantly, our findings suggest that exit is linked to entry by a developmental drive that we call the participant’s core need. The core need was the background motivator of entry, disengagement, exit, and ultimately deradicalization. We think that this identity reconfiguration and core needs framework may help make heterogenous exit trajectories that have remained puzzling for researchers more understandable.
TL;DR: In this paper , a case study of a far-right extremist who left a group in the United States, focusing on the role of psychological development in his narrative of disengagement is presented.
Abstract: This article presents a case study of voluntary exit from a far-right group in the United States. Our analysis of ‘Tom’ (a pseudonym) foregrounds the role of psychological development in ‘Tom’s' narrative of disengagement. While developmental factors are sometimes referenced in the radicalization/deradicalization literature, they are often reduced to risk factors or early environmental adversities that are viewed as predictors for subsequent involvement in extremism. By contrast, we offer a deeper understanding of psychological developmental factors as a ‘core need.’ While the core need originates in normative development and attachment history, it also arises out of an individual’s idiographic context and unique path through development, helping to establish identity security and acting as the tacit background driver across entry and exit. In this case study, and in our qualitatively informed model, the developmental core need is crucial to understanding the often idiosyncratic processes of radicalization, disengagement, and deradicalization.
TL;DR: Novick as discussed by the authors argues that the Holocaust became more ubiquitous in American cultural and political life after 1968 than it had been in the postwar years, rejecting psychoanalytically informed accounts that explain this lag in terms of "trauma" or "repression."
Abstract: The Holocaust in American Life. By Peter Novick. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999. Pp. 1, 373. Cloth, $27.00) In this engaging and important study, Peter Novick undertakes two primary tasks: to offer an historical account of how the Holocaust became such a prominent feature of American cultural and political life, and to question the widely held assumption that this prominence is an inherently good thing. In addition to these goals, Novick seeks to debunk the claim that the Holocaust stands apart from other atrocities as a unique purveyor of moral lessons. Indeed, he takes his case one step further by contending that, in the end, the Holocaust may actually offer no moral lessons at all. In tracing the history of the Holocaust in American life, Novick is largely successful. Like other recent scholarship on this themes, Novick argues that, while Americans were not silent about Nazi atrocities during and immediately after the war, the "Holocaust" was not recognized as a discrete historical event until decades later. In contending that the Holocaust became more ubiquitous in American cultural and political life after 1968 than it had been in the postwar years, Novick rejects psychoanalytically informed accounts that explain this lag in terms of "trauma" or "repression." Drawing on a wide range of published and unpublished sources, Novick argues that in the years following World War II, public discussion of the Holocaust was muted because it ran counter not only to the aims of organized American Jewry, but to the broader cultural and political climate of postwar America. The demands of the Cold War and the new alliance between Germany and the United States required that Stalinism, rather than the Holocaust, be cast as the most damning crime of the modern age. Leaders of the American Jewish community promulgated this view and were largely silent about the Holocaust in an attempt to dispel stereotypes that identified Jews with both Bolshevism and eternal victimhood. An excessive public preoccupation with the Holocaust was seen as incompatible with a rapidly assimilating American Jewish community, determined to participate fully in euphoric postwar prosperity. While the destruction of European Jewry was surely a "widely shared Jewish sorrow" during these years, it was, according to Novick, a sorrow shared largely in private. By the mid-1960s, this had begun to change. Novick cites the 1961 trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann and the subsequent publication of Hannah Arendt's controversial Eichmann in Jerusalem as two of the major catalysts for a growing public discussion of the Holocaust. A less obvious claim is that the heightened public preoccupation with the Holocaust in the late 1960s and 1970s coincided with the birth of identity politics, reflecting both a broader shift away from an integrationist ethos to a particularist one, and the growth of a "victim culture" that increasingly valorized oppression and suffering over heroism. While not everyone may agree with Novick's implicitly critical definition of identity politics, this is an important dimension of his argument, for it offers a compelling, if only partial explanation for the ubiquity of the Holocaust in contemporary American life. It was only within a political culture that valorized victimization that the Holocaust could become the locus of so many strong and contradictory feelings, including possessiveness, proprietariness, envy, and resentment. Novick is also interested in how, by the late 1960s, a growing public Holocaust discourse reflected the shifting priorities of organized American Jewry, and here, too, he offers an illuminating account of how Jewish leaders once reticent about the Holocaust were now placing it at the top of their political agendas. In their concern over escalating rates of intermarriage and waning interest in organized Judaism, leaders now seized on the Holocaust in order to shore up a sense of American Jewish identity and to caution American Jews against the dangers of complacency. …