| dc.description.abstract | An increasing number of people in the Netherlands view the state and established institutions, such as the news media, academia, and economic structures, as illegitimate. Within a broader anti-institutionalist sentiment, groups of "sovereign citizens," assert that the government has created a legal construct that oppresses them. They claim exemption from laws by declaring individual sovereignty. The sovereign citizen milieu is characterised by ongoing efforts to withdraw from perceived oppression by "the elite" through the creation of alternative structures, often referred to as “parallel hierarchies.”This research examines how the milieu expresses resistance to perceived oppression by constructing alternatives, viewing construction as a form of resistance. It also explores how these constructive initiatives reflect an envisioned future. This analysis is conducted through a qualitative content analysis using the theoretical framework of constructive resistance, which involves initiatives where people begin to build the society they desire independently of existing dominant structures. This can be both in concrete and symbolic forms.
The thesis identifies two main areas of constructive resistance: economic and discursive alternatives. In the economic realm, perceived financial surveillance and control are bypassed by promoting non-dominant practices like using cash and issuing alternative currencies. In the discursive domain, constructive initiatives include alternative notation of names and an alternative dialect, aiming to assert individual sovereignty and counteract perceived oppression, as language is seen as a tool for manipulation by authorities. These initiatives aim to partly replace or circumvent dominant ways of behaving and thinking that are deemed undesirable and therefore serve as a form of constructive resistance. Lastly, the envisioned future reflected in these initiatives emphasises the individual as the highest authority, asserting that by genuioy listening to oneself, external rules are unnecessary. However, the intense focus on individuality may ultimately hinder the development of a structured alternative. | |
