Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

In this paper, I explore how atheists make visible their atheist identities and differentiate them from other forms of critique in circulation, such as Islamophobic content by right-win Hindu nationalism. Focussing on Ex-Muslims, I argue that 'dark' humour becomes a site of atheistic subjectivities.

Paper long abstract:

In my research with atheists in northern India, references to various relations were commonplace to reflect upon the encounters with religion. On the one hand, personal relations put an ethical burden on atheists for questioning or not following the normative religious framework. On the other hand, the digital spaces exclusively for atheists facilitate new relations. I explored the reconfigurations of these two sets of relations with respect to non-religious identities through everyday media sharing. 'Dark' humour, such as blasphemous visuals or comments, constitutes a significant part of the circulating media in online atheist space. While sharing or reacting to such humour becomes a performance of atheism in online spaces, circulation is carefully restricted from personal relations(Example: through privacy settings). In contemporary India, Islamophobic 'dark' or 'dank' humourous content brings out an unexpected overlap between atheistic visuals and right-wing Hindu Nationalism. Throughout my fieldwork, I met with various Ex-Muslim content creators as well as followers, who find themselves in tricky positions while sharing their critique of Islam. Here, the non-religious or atheist identities become subject to certain expectations from both ends (atheistic and religious). In this paper, I explore how atheists navigate this contention and the approaches they take to make visible atheist identities and differentiate them from other forms of critique in circulation. Focussing on Ex-Muslims, a minority within a minority, I argue that blasphemous humour becomes a site of differentiation and reveals atheistic subjectivities.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

What role do fun and pleasure play in political activism? Drawing on work with members of a right-wing organisation, I argue that a focus on their 'serious' politics misses how much they value having fun with each other. This, as much as political belief, affects their involvement in activism.

Paper long abstract:

I draw on a group of self-identified Right-Wing actors in England, politically committed to free markets, a small state, individual liberties and Brexit. While these things matter enormously (albeit to varying degrees) to members of a pressure group emphasise the fun aspects of participation in activism. I suggest that an anthropological focus on 'serious' politics, can miss the ways in which people participate in activism and gather as publics because they enjoy the company of like-minded others. The point is not the non-seriousness of fun. Rather, it is to ask how commitments to particular politics deepen and widen because people take pleasure in each other's company and are willing to listen to each other. The desire for fun as much as for change drives certain kinds of political activism. As opportunities for fun have dwindled, due to a change in leadership and, therefore, focus of the organisation, so too has the involvement in activism of a number of members. The politics remains the same but the fun has gone, as one member told me. I draw on Pilkington's argument about the affective involvement in violent right-wing political activism to argue from my ethnographic research that the right-wing activists with whom I work take pleasure in being outrageous and oppositional, and are most able to be these things with each other. They thus see opportunities to gather as fun rather than work, even though quite a lot of work in terms of pedagogy and persuasion does take place in these gatherings.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Based on digital ethnographic fieldwork among far-right trolls and digital activists this paper examines how actors deploy or (strategically) exploit the “play frame” in order to forge communities of hate and push the metapolitical boundaries of what can be said and how.

Paper long abstract:

The question “Is this play?” is an anthropological classic. In A Theory of Play and Fantasy (1955), Gregory Bateson structures his argument around what he calls the metacommunicative frame “this is play.” Turned into a question, “is this play?”, allows to examine more complex, or ambiguous forms of play and fun such as trolling, participatory “fun fascism” and transgressive humor online. Such ambiguous forms of playing that lean over the frame, establish the frame only partially or applied outside the context of entertainment have been conceptualized as “deep play” (Geertz 1973) or “dark play” (Schechner 2003).

“It is fun to be a hater,” one of my interlocutors summarized the answer to my question why he participated in racist troll attacks online. However, how can we theorize hate and racism disguised as fun or play without either being paternalistic nor falling for the strategic self-trivialization of far-right activists? Based on digital ethnographic fieldwork among far-right trolls and far right activists this paper examines how play and fun are deployed by actors engaging in trolling, harassing and racism online. The thesis put forward in this paper is that we see the emergence of a new ludic, participatory and memetic fascism online, that accompanies and smoothens the mainstreaming of far-right political positions in Germany. Trolls, political influencers and young gamers form an extremely successful alliance online, making use platforms such as X (formally Twitter), discord or Telegram.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

How does one grapple with and theorize illicit fun? This paper explores the world of liberal gun ownership and the politics of pleasure in the United States, arguing that identifying and comprehending pleasure are products of subjectivities, social contexts, resources, and politics.

Paper long abstract:

How does one grapple with and theorize illicit fun? When a sex worker orgasms on the job, when an addict delights in an injection, when a liberal gun owner gleefully shoots a World War II era machine gun and mugs in front of a camera, draped in ammunition, while carrying on a side conversation with an anthropologist about structural inequality as a root source of gun violence, how does one recognize pleasure in a taboo zones engagement? How does one recognize the ways in identifying and comprehending pleasure are products of subjectivities, social contexts, resources, and politics? This paper explores the world of liberal gun ownership and the politics of pleasure in the United States. While liberal gun owners are a growing group, there remains a considerable stigma against gun ownership in broader progressive political circles, one that is even more pronounced when the parameters for ownership move beyond that of self-defense into the realm of fun. And despite this numerical growth, while right-leaning gun owners have powerful advocacy organizations, such as the NRA, to validate their interests, for liberal gun owners, the venues for camaraderie, validation, and mutual enjoyment of firearms remain sparse. At the same time, how does one methodologically study a taboo subject, particularly when its participants are representationally and substantively excluded from dominant spaces of engagement? How does one study the practice of pleasure when hegemonic moral discourses disallow expressions of joy that are articulated through a material object capable of abhorrent levels of violence?

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

In popular and scholarly imaginations, war and fun are usually considered antithetical. This paper reflects on my experience of studying Norwegian soldiers’ experiences of fun in Afghanistan. Moving beyond normative and functionalist analyses, it highlights the importance of context and temporality.

Paper long abstract:

Soldiers’ experiences of fun in war are often understood in functional terms as coping mechanisms or stress release, thus reinforcing western moralities of war as tragic and regrettable. Alternatively, fun in war is represented as a "sick affect" associated with immorality and wrongdoing. This paper reflects on my experience of studying Norwegian soldiers’ experiences of fun in Afghanistan as a postdoc on the ERC-funded project WARFUN. Drawing on ethnographic interviews with current and former soldiers in the Norwegian Army, it shows that ‘fun in war’ is experienced and represented as ordinary and commensensical, but also ephemeral and immature. Theoretically, the paper tries to make sense of my interlocutors’ experiences of fun in Afghanistan in conversation with Ben Fincham’s sociological model of fun. Methodologically, it demonstrates the importance of moving beyond normative and functionalist analyses and highlights the importance of context and temporality.