Has Extremism gone Mainstream?
Have extremist groups, who previously operated on the fringes of society, now taken centre stage? Are extremist perspectives becoming increasingly popular and integrated into mainstream political discourse? Are the extremists winning the battle of ideas and if so what can be done about this? These are some of the vexatious questions addressed in a well-researched and highly readable new book called ‘Going Mainstream’ by Austrian researcher Julia Ebner. Her conclusions are both stark and alarming.
In her view, extremists are increasingly galvanising online, recruiting disillusioned people to their causes and pushing their narratives into the political mainstream. This is a trend that is being actively nurtured by Putin’s Russia in a sort of proxy culture war designed to weaken social bonds in Western democratic nations. It is also been encouraged by populist leaders who are seeking to take advantage of wider political disillusionment to gain political support and power.
The book contains interesting examples of how online extremist forums take advantage of vulnerable people, offering them a sense of community and a meta-narrative that be used to interpret their grievances and direct their wrath towards a perceived enemy. Incel forums, for example, encourage a sense of helplessness, victimhood and blame. Members are encouraged to wallow in self-pity, blame feminism for their predicament and use their sense of failure in life to bond and build connections with like-minded people online. Their numbers are growing and their ideas and terminology are beginning to enter everyday cultural discourse.
Similarly, adherents of QAnon encourage wild conspiracy theories in which a satanic cabal of paedophiles secretly run the world and hold meetings underneath a pizza restaurant in Washington DC. They view Trump as the only man who can save the world from this evil cabal and, therefore, supporting him is not just an electorate choice but a moral necessity. Again the common theme is a disparate group of disillusioned and impressionable people finding a sense of community through online forums and a meta-narrative to explain their grievances.
In my view, vulnerability has been consistent over recent years but the ability to meet like-minded people online and form communities that bond over specific causes has transformed the political landscape. Whether it be flat-earthers, incels, QAnon or jihadists – all are taking advantage of social isolation, maladaptation and societal vulnerable through effective online outreach. This trend is also being encouraged by algorithmic amplification on Big Tech platforms, meaning social media platforms push extremist content to those who they think will be attracted to it because it retains attention and that is monetisable.
However, with a discussion such as this framing is very important. The mainstream and establishment narrative on a range of issues is getting steadily weaker due to the democratisation of information which is disrupting public messaging and consensus building efforts. In the process, extremist actors are being given more opportunities to enter the public debate and influence issues in their favour. Furthermore, debates that were regarded as settled are increasingly being opened up for wider scrutiny due to the galvanising effect of online forums. Thus, extremist communities online are taking advantage of decreased trust in government and mainstream media which is now viewed as out of touch, agenda-driven and hopelessly biased.
Legacy media outlets are currently haemorrhaging viewers who now prefer to tailor their own information diet from a wide variety of news and media outlets online. Established political parties and leaders are increasingly viewed as stooges for global corporate interest groups, making decisions that benefit those at the top whilst the rest of us suffer in a suffocating climate of high house prices, inflation, a lack of job security and endless corporate exploitation. These concerns, which are not without merit, are easy to exploit by extremist factions seeking support and cultural influence. When framed in this way, the phenomenon in question is more of a crisis in the mainstream, as much as an extremist takeover since a collapse in credibility in the former gives oxygen to the latter.
This credibility deficit has also led to a more acrimonious and tense atmosphere within the political arena. Alternative voices of all types are now routinely shut down and labelled when they present a point of view that goes against that which is regarded as the mainstream. Thus, labels are weaponised to close down debate and stifle discussion on both sides in an increasingly polarised political culture in which communication across the aisle is practically taboo.
For example, many of those deemed ‘climate change deniers’ are sometimes just individuals who do not necessary deny the existence of fossil fuel induced anthropogenic climate change nor the need for counter-measures. Rather they seek to question the efficacy of the solutions that are being proposed and how realistic they are in a world in which a huge drop in economic standards would also be catastrophic and asymmetric in impact given that major polluters vary in how much care about the issue. They are critical of the tactics used by groups such as ‘Stop Oil’ and ‘Extinction Rebellion’ and view their solutions as too simplistic and narrowly focused, which is a perspective that is quite widely shared. They also point to the fact that a scientific consensus on the cause does not automatically mean there is a consensus on a solution which cannot be questioned or debated.
The book does lack examples of left leaning extremist groups, such as Antifa, and how they are also taking advantage of vulnerable people for nefarious ends. A nuanced and balanced discussion about extremism cannot risk being politically biased and stuck on one side of the political spectrum. It could also do with more focus on why and how the centre lost ground to the fringes and the lessons contained therein. Misleading statements from elected politicians, disinformation peddled by the mainstream media and censorship campaigns by Big Tech platforms are a leading cause of the rise in fringe and conspiratorial groups today.
The solutions proposed, however, are nuanced and worthy of serious consideration. We need to put more pressure on Big Tech platforms to crack down on algorithmic amplification of extremist content, a tall order in my view. We need to recognise that solutions often lie at the hyper local level and, thus, engage communities to better understand extremism and human vulnerability. We need to increase digital literacy and critical consumption skills so that young people have more resilience to extremist messaging online. These are all essential pieces in the jigsaw puzzle of creating a cohesive society.
I would add that contemporary radicalisation is a symptom of modern capitalist societies since they are engineered to maximise material gain and consumption, not to meet our inherent social needs such as purpose, identity, belonging and self-esteem. Without nurturing communities that are in tune with the human condition, and instead solely focusing on material and economic gain, the battle against extremism becomes an uphill struggle. We also need to ask how the mainstream can regain credibility in an age in which the news and communication space has been democratised. Answers are not easy to find but this book can certainly help get that conversation started.