The Political-Emotional Economy of Interwar Fascism and Authoritarianism, With a Focus on the KKK and the Bund
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the KKK and its fascist friends from 1915-1945 as a means of analyzing the changing role of the Klan in an also changing American and international order.The KKK often claimed to be, and is represented as, the defender of nativism, guardian of the white Protestantism, keeper of racial purity, and the vanguard of the white American way of life, but as an organization it was less unified than is often understood.Part of this can be attributed to domestic decentralization across various U.S. states.What this thesis contends, however, is that there was a growing "affect economy", to use Sara Ahmed's term, within the transatlantic Euromerican community.Even as it declined in organizational coherence in the 1930s, the Klan was involved in a larger conversation than simply American nativism.It came to identify with local and international these fascist organizations and embrace terminology, and some of the same conspiracies, while always rejecting close comparisons to retain its exceptionalist credentials.Its return to nativism during the Second World War allowed its survival in the aftermath, even while continuing to participate in the affective language it once shared with fascism. DisclaimerFirst and foremost, I am a White person studying white supremacy.There is always more work to do in unpacking one's privilege and life experiences that could result in this dissertation falling short to some.It is constant work and not one that I have always succeed at.Second, this dissertation's aim is not meant to needlessly slander American troops or soldiers and those who died to stop Nazi fascism, and those committed to the double victory campaign.This paper is written in the vein of James Whitman's "Hitler's American Model" and will undoubtedly raise some uncomfortable questions, comments, and comparisons.The goal is to better understand iii how hate movements and fascism came to be well-established and continue to exist in the United States.headaches for the more established Americans."Retrieved from https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kla1934/0368/image,inPg.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".