The Myth of Neutrality: the rise of extreme language and ideology in crisis
History is often viewed through the lens of crisis, and the present circumstances are no exception. From the climate crisis and military conflicts to recession and technological warfare, there are a plethora of factors that have made this the new ‘normal.’ One of the side effects of this normalisation is the rise of extremism, primarily in terms of increasing polarisation ideas. Now more than ever, the Foucauldian perception that language, discourse, and perception shape our reality is ubiquitously apparent as extremism has risen in popularity . he rise of extremist ideology in times of crisis, and in government and media’s use of extreme language, creates a conquerable enemy for contemporary issues. Neutrality is an increasingly unavailable option, as inaction is viewed as a statement in itself.
On the European stage, there has been an apparent rise of far right popularity. For example, Austria’s far-right Freedom party (FPÖ) has gained immense influence since 2000, in spite of their leader making Nazi sympathetic statements, causing mass protests and the implementation of EU sanctions. The FPÖ is now one of Austria’s leading authorities. A major contributor to far-right politics gaining prominence is crisis, a word that in much of recent memory evokes the market crash of 2008. Many Western European states, after the crash, saw a rise in extremist movements mirroring the Great Depression’s role in moving people to support fascist parties in the interwar years. Foreign Policy Magazine goes so far to assert that Germany may be at risk of far right legislative victories in upcoming elections. Even the US, the paragon of the neoliberal hegemony, has been at risk of the right wing gaining more power.
As for the reasons behind this trend, I would argue it is because the right wing and conservative parties are able to harness some working class concerns that are not as commonly addressed by neoliberal democratic parties. Issues like immigration rise to prominence and align with the conservative exclusion principle, where many conservative politicians assert that limited job availability is due to immigrant populations “taking” the jobs that citizens are implicitly “entitled” to. This strengthens national identity and creates an enemy that can be eliminated. This is hardly a western issue, as it is also demonstrated in Turkey with the rise in violence and aggression towards refugees living in the country. The same is done in the US with claims that Republican politicians (with the most recent and well-known example being Donald Trump) can provide tax cuts that sound more appealing to individuals as they keep more of their disposable income, but eventually pay more money due to the lack of tax-funded social welfare.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, greater media availability has also exposed more of the younger generations to far right and far left ideology, which has the potential to promote political literacy in the general populace, or to perpetuate the spread of misinformation. This is dependent upon the variety and diversity of sources consumed. While far left politics are not as commonly seen on a state-wide level (and their definition as such is subjective; American conceptions of ‘far left’ may be seen as ‘moderate’ by many Western and Northern Europeans) their rising popularity on social media is very apparent.The media we consume has a profound impact on the formation of our political identity. Algorithms often show an echo chamber of our beliefs based on our engagement, which can paradoxically limit the amount of information we are exposed to. Regardless of what ideology is consumed through the media, it is becoming more apparent that there is a core agenda behind it. Centrism has become synonymous with inaction, and shows a level of disengagement that doesn’t sufficiently describe the polarised global stage.
But how does this translate to extreme politics, even if the right wing is not in power? While extreme politics are more popular, extreme language is too. Especially in this age of heightened media coverage, perception of the public can be changed by something as simple as the tone in which news is conveyed. Most major news outlets have an associated ideology; the BBC, Fox News, and Al Jazeera as examples would all report on the same event in different ways to convey a particular message. It needs to be acknowledged that any form of media, regardless of how altruistic its motives are, can be seen as propaganda. This is not an inherently negative concept, but every piece of media and news produced has an agenda behind its creation. In a world where news travels exceptionally quickly, whatever can grab and hold attention are the issues that are most popular. In electoral politics, there is a growing trend of making controversial statements with the intention of accruing media coverage, and ultimately boosting chances of votes because of raised public awareness. Provocation and fueling public anxieties has proven to be an effective tool in gaining political support, as public figures can employ this strategy to paint themselves as heroes. Assigning a person or group as the main perpetrator in abstract conflicts is another strategy for leaders to paint themselves as the hero, as they have created a villain to be challenged. Whether it is Qaddaffi or Sadam Hussein, even conflicts like the war on terror (which, ultimately, is an abstract opponent) states are able to claim the ‘end’ of an almost unwinnable war by overcoming one person or one group. The “war on poverty” is considered an issue of the global south, but what of the UK’s cost of living crisis, or the changes to the poverty line due to the severity of cost inflation?
The idea that we have infinite information and infinite knowledge through the media is an ultimately false statement – it is up to the individual to pursue diverse sources of information to find consistencies between them. The availability of this information has proven repeatedly that truth is subjective, but the need to be critical, especially in a field as dynamic and volatile as politics, remains. We need to be conscious of the fact that there is no such thing as an objective source; ideology is omnipresent and neutrality is non-existent.
Image courtesy of the Evad37 via Wikimedia, ©2014. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
