King's College London

What was your doctoral research about and why did you choose that subject?

My PhD analysed how three populist radical right parties, the Alternative for Germany, the Freedom Party of Austria, and the National Rally in France, discussed Jews and antisemitism on their Facebook and X profiles, as well as how users who engaged with these posts responded to the parties’ narratives. I have always been interested in these countries and their history and politics because I am half French and I studied German as part of my BA. I was also interested in a growing trend in literature that these parties claim to no longer be antisemitic, and yet continue to be subject to antisemitic controversies. I wanted to find a way to explain that, as well as to understand whether online users were convinced or not by the parties’ ostensible anti-antisemitism.

Can you tell me also what, broadly speaking, the conclusions of your research were and what they might mean for the future?

Broadly, the three parties take a strategic approach to Jewish inclusion. The parties construct their ingroups as a community of victims. Jews are then included in this community when it is ideologically conducive to party goals and narratives, for example, when they can blame antisemitism on the left, the government, or an amalgamation of Muslim, Arab, and immigrant communities. Holocaust remembrance is more of a grey zone, whereby all three parties noted it on their profiles (in France and Austria, this increased when the party made significant electoral gains and when it was in coalition government, respectively) but often minimised elements of Jewish-specific victimhood or national responsibility. However, when Jews were seen to be against the parties, in the case of Jewish representatives who criticised them, US-Hungarian financier George Soros, or so-called “globalists”, they were not included and portrayed in negative terms. What this means is that there is an increasing divide between a “good” antisemitism, of a white far-right European, and a “bad” antisemitism, of a racialised, left-leaning Other. Antisemitism for these parties is no longer a matter of content but of origin, and that can be dangerous in terms of exaggerating and downplaying antisemitism, and therefore being less able to combat it, depending on where it comes from. This can be particularly harmful considering the parties’ refusal to criticise Israel (with only a few exceptions up to early 2023) and automatic consideration of any support for Palestine as antisemitic, which discredits the Palestinian struggle for sovereignty.

Regarding user comments, while the expression of overt antisemitic stereotypes was rare, users responded to the parties’ communication around contemporary antisemitism in a similar way to that around Holocaust remembrance. Users expressed defensive narratives (blame-shifting responsibility onto other groups such as Muslims, rejecting guilt, and claiming that accusations of antisemitism towards them were unfair) and competitive narratives (emphasising their own victimhood over that of Jews and treating victimhood as a zero-sum issue). This tells us that the parties’ narratives about antisemitism predominantly coming from another group are convenient and popular, but if users can shift responsibility elsewhere, it means they are less likely to consider whether they play a role in antisemitism.

Can you tell me anything about what research methods you used and what sort of data you were using?

I exclusively used Facebook and X data. I analysed the party posts qualitatively, using Ruth Wodak's discourse-historical analysis and tenets of populism as form. For the user comments, I used more of a mixed-methods approach. I initially divided the comments into thematic streams and ran separate topic models on each stream, to get an overview of how users responded. Then, I took a qualitative approach, whereby I inductively coded the comments to understand the different manifestations of defensive, competitive, rejective victimhood.

How does it feel to have passed?

It feels quite surreal, and I’m not sure it will sink in until I have completed my corrections. The viva was certainly challenging but I felt very lucky and spoilt afterwards by my supervisors and my friends.

What are your plans for the future?

I am starting a new job in September with the charity ICPG, where I’ll be helping to develop a certification scheme for antisemitism at UK universities, modelled on schemes such as Athena Swan for gender equality. I’d also like to publish some more of my PhD research.

Is there anybody you’d like to thank or acknowledge?

Of course! I’d like to thank my supervisors, Dr Isabelle Hertner and Dr Katrin Schreiter, as well as other EIS staff, notably Professor Sofia Vasilopoulou, for their incredible support. My PhD friends have been absolutely fundamental to getting me through, we’ve laughed and cried together, helped each other, and celebrated each other’s achievements. I am also grateful for my friends outside the PhD and family, who were always generous, interested, and understanding, even if they probably thought I was a bit crazy to be going on this journey.