Radical Right Dystopias in the Global Culture Wars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the pervasive description of our times as dystopian, the disciplines of political theory and international relations seldom consider the political power of dystopian imaginaries. This article seeks to remedy this neglect by focusing on the radical Right's invocation of dystopias. These dystopian narratives go beyond mere scaremongering and constitute instead “critical dystopias” that follow a distinct grammar rooted in the radical Right's ideological critique of managerialism and liberal globalization. They express the radical Right's fear of liberalism, exploiting the latent dystopian possibilities in the liberal present. Promoted by right-wing influencers and media pundits, critical dystopias translate theoretical and ideological interpretations of social and political life into globally mobile, everyday infotainment readily accessible to broader, global audiences. As such, radical Right dystopias are affective strategies in a global culture war that may help (re)produce and reinforce political subjectivities, identities, and geopolitical imaginaries. They provide a window on the global appeal and interconnectedness of the radical Right and serve as a reminder of the importance of emotions and affect in international politics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".