Radicalization of Society

The radicalization of individuals and groups remains the center of focus in the debate surrounding the matters of “how” and “why”. While so­ciety is primarily treated as a social setting and environ­ment in many studies, the question as to the im­pact that radicalized individuals, groups, milieus and social layers can have on so­ciety has gained in relevance. Not only individuals and groups that ra­dicalize: an entire society is also capable of radicalization. This may occur, for example, when the legitimacy of the politi­cal system is put into question and the pre­dominant social norms in the political sphere are rejected, especially a reversal towards to accep­tance of political violence.

This study focuses on the matter of “the ex­tremism of the middle” (Seymour Martin Lipset): to what extent do radi­calized attitudes proliferate in the middle layers of so­ciety. As the majority of citizens take them­selves to be part of the middle class, changes to this middle layer prove particularly relevant. This study shows that we cannot con­sider German society to be radicalized at pre­sent: the democratic, middle-layer milieus are firmly anchored within so­ciety and they have even grown larger in recent years. Never­theless, social cohesion in Germany is currently being put to the test. In particular, right-wing populist and far-right extremist groups and milieus are placing pressure on this sense of co­hesion through their anti-semitic, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim views. The effect of this is po­litical polarization. Yet, as an in­tegral part of any de­mocratic society, such polarization is not necessarily negative. Never­theless, anti-democratic milieus and groups can use po­larization to promote the radicalization of society as a whole.

1. Strengthen social resilience, especially by way of political and cultural education initiatives. A balance must be achieved between recognition and separation in order to ensure respect towards different religions and backgrounds as well as a dissociation with all forms of inequality. This involves building a tolerance towards ambiguities: strengthening people’s ability to tolerate differences and come to terms with these without advancing stigmatizing, discriminatory and anti-pluralist positions.
2. Depolarize the public debate. This aim will be attained when the representatives of democratic parties agree to stop adopting politically polarizing slogans for strategic purposes. Additionally, this can also be achieved through a more sensitive approach to labels and characterizations that can feed feelings of polarization and exclusion. Scaremongering should be rejected by applying the modern concept of social cohesion; forms of democracy that adapt to the diversity of life are an essential medium for integration.
3. Deal with (right-wing) populist parties. In this area, the aim of policy work should be to convince representatives of a pluralist society to clearly demarcate and keep a distance from (right-wing) populist parties. This will prevent the limits of what may be said from further expanding and curb ongoing trends towards normalization.
4. Promote comparative research. This will prevent or at least hedge the emergence of attitudes and actions during the “boom cycles” of extremism (considered only in terms of current threat levels).