There’s an ongoing debate on the use of the term ‘far right’, so here’s a #thread to hopefully clarify. Most of my colleagues & I use the term as an umbrella concept to refer to ‘extreme right’ & ‘(populist) radical right’ parties, movements & groups (henceforth actors). 1/7

Far-right actors are located on the ‘right’ end of the ideological L-R spectrum. (Think of ideology as a continuum ranging from extreme L to extreme R. In ideological terms, the L has an egalitarian drive while the R has an inclination to accrue the degree of inequalities.) 2/7

Referring to ‘right’ is key to categorise these actors, as it is their radical exclusionary ideology that ultimately defines them. The common ideological denominator of the far right is a combination of nativism & authoritarianism. 3/7

Within the far right set we find: extreme-right actors that oppose democratic principles & aim at subverting the democratic system; & (populist) radical-right actors that are hostile to liberal-democratic principles but subscribe to the rules of parliamentary democracy. 4/7

While some may lament that the term far right unnecessarily lumps together democratic & non-democratic actors, most simply see it as a step up in the ladder of abstraction, i.e. a more abstract use to capture both extreme- & radical-right phenomena. 5/7

The choice here is essentially pragmatic & motivated by the increasingly porous borders/growing links between e.g. radical-right parties & extreme-right movements. In such cases, the term far right clearly enhances precision, rather than the other way around. 6/7

The continued use of ‘(populist) radical’ & ‘extreme’ right is thus more than legitimate if adequately applied & empirically substantiated. Took a long way to get here—we really don’t need to start a new war of words. 7/7