Are we all Russophobes now?

The Russian and Chinese governments are weaponising the all-pervasive ‘phobic’ suffix.

Robert Jackman

Share
Topics Politics UK World

What on earth does it mean to ‘Russophobic’? If you were paying attention to the Russia report last week – and the deluge of predictable responses to it – you might have found yourself asking that very question when the word was used, by the Kremlin itself, to describe Britain’s hidden bigotry against the Big Bear.

First, a note of clarification on Russia: ever since the Brexit vote, some tribal Remainers have tried to blame the result on malevolent Kremlin activity. And they were wrong. Not in saying Russia intervened per se (its army of Twitter trolls usually ‘intervene’ in anything) but in claiming that its activities had somehow brainwashed Leave voters or corrupted the process itself. It’s a slightly subtle point, but it’s important here.

Crucially, it means that when Maria Zakharova, Moscow’s combative foreign-affairs spokesperson, accuses Britain of widespread ‘Russophobia’ (as she does on a semi-regular basis), she isn’t taking issue with Carole Cadwalladr’s wilder theories, or anything of that ilk. Instead, she’s suggesting that our entire society is teeming with anti-Russian bigotry. Racism on the scale that Guardian types like to call ‘systemic’.

The idea of systemic Russophobia is an excellent example of one of those clever-stupid things. It’s stupid because the premise itself is so easily debunked. But it’s also very clever as it taps into the rotten nature of the way we are increasingly being encouraged – at least by the identitarian left – to think about politics more broadly.

For years now, the proponents of identity politics have understood that the way to raise the importance of a pet issue is to turn it into a ‘phobia’, thereby putting it on a par with actual social evils (racism and homophobia, for example – at least in the way we have traditionally understood them). Calling something a phobia also suggests it can be cured, be that via supposed ‘education’ or by demonising views that promote it. In short, if you want something taken seriously, pathologising it is the way to do it.

No wonder, then, that with the rise of social media, the phobia suffix has been stretched beyond parody. Debates around the misuse of the term Islamophobia are well rehearsed (with some devout Muslim writers – like Qanta Ahmed – rejecting the label entirely). But have you heard of ‘queerphobia’, ‘polyphobia’ (discrimination against people in polyamorous relationships), or even ‘whorephobia’? According to the loopier corners of Twitter (the sort of places that Russian trolls go for inspiration), they are all very real phenomena.

I should say that I don’t doubt that people with multiple partners find themselves on the end of the occasional impolite remark (on the contrary, I imagine it goes with the territory), or that prostitutes are often victims of violence. But are these honestly the result of societal ‘phobias’? Should we be discouraged from making jokes about swingers? Are we duty bound to remove the ‘stigma’ from sex work? Or are these largely invented evils?

Then there are those broadly valid terms, like transphobia, which have historically been used as a shorthand term for verbal and physical abuse against transgender people, but have lately been stretched to render the very idea of single-sex spaces as a manifestation of bigotry. The idea of anti-trans bigotry itself isn’t bunkum, but the phobia label is notoriously open to abuse from bad-faith actors. Not least as anyone who disagrees with even the most extreme propositions of trans activists risks being labelled a bigot.

When you look at how some of these bad ideas have slipped into offline political discussions (ie, the real world) you can see why the Kremlin has jumped on the bandwagon. All it takes is to convince one privilege-obsessed gender-studies professor that Russophobia exists – or one nervous HR department to settle a discrimination claim – and you might be in business. And as silly as that sounds, would it really be that much of a leap?

After all, it has long been a sacred tenet of identity politics that it’s up to marginalised groups to describe what counts as bigotry. No one else. And if only trans people can say what’s transphobic, why shouldn’t it be the same for Russians? If Zakharova – a Russian – feels slighted by the Russia report, then who am I – a presumably privileged Brit – to disagree?

Perhaps we should be grateful for the Kremlin. Their usage of the term Russophobia (a trick since copied by the Chinese Communist Party, incidentally) does at least allow us to highlight the rather pitiful intellectual foundations of the broader identity-politics model. And it also gives us an incentive to wise up as to how these corrosive debates are weakening us in the long run.

The exact scale and strategy of Russia’s information warfare is hotly disputed, but the verdict of saner analysts seems to be that Putin and his allies seek to discredit Western democracy (with the ultimate aim of protecting their own regime) by attempting to sow division and using our own weaknesses against us. I would venture that this is a perfect example of that: our obsession with identity politics is sending us potty and the Kremlin will happily use that to its own ends. Or maybe that’s just a Russophobic smear. Who knows.

Robert Jackman is a critic and writer with the Spectator.

Picture by: Getty.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Al Wilson

29th July 2020 at 3:34 pm

When Russia was defeated in 1989, its transition to capitalism was brutal – chaos, rabies, bubonic plague, rampant alcoholism and was left out to dry by the West. Now run by Putin friendly ex KGB billionaires it is wreaking revenge. Disinformation using left and right extremes, identarian politics, BLM, millions of brexit adverts, the sole aim of sowing division and chaos

Dominic Straiton

29th July 2020 at 10:48 am

We have Anglophobia going on in our own country. Most Russians are Anglophiles. Im an Islamophobe. Youd have to be pretty stupid not to be. Can you be a tanspheliac? Sounds pretty grose.

Gerry Mander

29th July 2020 at 9:35 am

ALL countries interfere in the affairs of others. Did not Barry O’Barmy come to Britain not once, but twice, to persuade us to vote to remain in the EU? Does not the US send armies into sovereign countries to overthrow their elected governments? We should not be too critical of Russia, which is taking a little time to overcome the legacy of the USSR—after all, the US has never overcome its love of slavery….

Christopher Tyson

29th July 2020 at 9:19 am

The London Evening Standard is owned by Russian billionaire and son of a former KGB agent Evgeny Lebedev. The London Evening Standard then under the editorship of former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, was a stalwart Remainer bastion, with frequent lead articles by the likes of Mandelson, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Blair, various Lib Dems whose name are now forgotten.
So what do we make of this? Remember when Woody Allen used to make comedies, there’s a scene in his film Bananas about US double dealing in central America, the marine commander says to his troops ‘the CIA’s taking no chances, half of us are fighting for the dictator, and half of us are fighting for the rebels’. Is it a case of good and bad Russians ‘our Russians and theirs’? Would anyone argue that the success of Remainers in London was due to the effect of the Russian owned Evening Standard?
If for the sake of argument Russian propaganda is so effective, why are we amenable to their propaganda and not vice versa? Is it that the Russians are smarter than we are, or maybe we are too gentlemanly to get involved in that kind of thing, that’ll be it.

alan smithee

29th July 2020 at 9:09 am

Calling Russia a ‘regime’ isn’t helpful and is part of the us Vs them mentality.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film