Us vs them' rhetoric in incels' misogynist discourse: bending van Dijk's ideological square

The incel community (portmanteau of involuntary celibate, indicating young men who are unable to have a romantic relationship despite their efforts) has become infamous in recent years for their highly discriminative discourses and the occasional mass attacks carried out by its members. A close-knitted community, in their online forums incels have developed a distinctive language characterized by neologisms, abbreviations, and a strategic use of denominations. In the discursive construction of their identity, incels position their social group in opposition to most of society and, above all, in opposition to women. Discourse is polarized using a ‘us vs them’ rhetoric which allows the in-group to positively express their ideology and discredit that of the out-group. This rhetoric would appear at first sight to fit in with van Dijk’s “ideological square” (van Djik 1998), which has long provided a solid framework for investigating in-group/out-group discourse dynamics. However, while the ‘us vs them’ rhetoric conventionally pitches a positive ‘us’ versus a negative ‘them’, incels appear to breach this pattern by presenting themselves as ugly, unsuccessful, and socially inadequate, and, conversely, by recognizing the out-group’s superiority, success, and power (Scotto di Carlo, 2023). In fact, incels frame their condition in terms of a discrimination operated by society, and specifically by women, towards them based on a supposed genetic inferiority which makes them unworthy of accessing sex and reproduction. Here, I argue that rather than breaching it incels make a peculiar use of the ideological square by bending it through narratives of victimization and weaponized subordinate masculinity that allow them to reclaim their inferiority and portray their ideology as a resistance – at times also co-opting language and concepts from actual discriminated minorities – while also justifying their hatred for women. In doing so, incels critique traditional models of hegemonic masculinity that exclude them from the ‘sexual market’ and simultaneously reiterate long-standing patriarchal relations of power between genders, ethnicities and sexual orientations.