The rise in popularity of majoritarian nationalism, populism, authoritarianism, and nativist jingoism in national politics has occurred recently not only in South America (with Argentina) but also in Europe (with recent examples in Italy and the Netherlands). These concerns add to the ongoing debate over how to address issues of pluralism, diversity, and inclusion, despite the fact that immigration is required for Western economies to thrive and that, in effect, diversity is a given given the vastly diverse genetic pools that comprise societies and nations all over the world. Meanwhile, in an era of short attention spans and ongoing atomization and individualization, political elites vie for power.
In this piece, I investigate the implications of these concerns for contemporary European societies. Particularly given the fact that many millions of Muslim minorities have made Europe their home as part of the post-war migration story, they are increasingly fearful of political actors who do not have complete answers to all of society’s questions and, as a result, use immigrants and minorities as scapegoats. While European voters are increasingly turning to the far right, making definitive claims about the motivations of all European voters turning to far-right parties is difficult. However, there are some potential factors that may contribute, based on research and commentary.
Some demographics are experiencing economic insecurity and dissatisfaction with the status quo, prompting them to support parties promising radical change. Frequent mentions include unemployment, stagnant wages, income inequality, and dissatisfaction with the EU. Second, there is a growing fear of immigration and cultural change. Because of the influx of refugees and migrants from the Middle East and Africa, immigration has become a contentious issue. Some far-right parties exploit fears of cultural displacement and Islamist extremism.
High-profile terror attacks claimed by Islamist extremist groups have raised public concerns about public safety and national security. Far-right parties portray themselves as tougher on law and order and more restrictive on immigration. Finally, the normalisation and acceptance of nativist, anti-immigrant rhetoric in public discourse has aided the rise of the far right by adopting parts of their agenda, such as criticising multiculturalism and calling for tighter immigration controls.
There are probably several factors, and their importance varies between countries and communities. Scholars continue to debate the roles of economic anxiety, cultural change concerns, security fears, and Islamophobia in particular. Complex psychological, economic, and social dynamics drive the political shifts. Reasonable people can differ on the exact combination of causal factors. But, given these overarching considerations, how can we understand the deeper concerns about national identity and questions of identity and belonging in sociological terms? Are political elites narrowing nationalism to divert attention from failed liberal policies in the past by using discourses about immigration and minorities?
There are a few key sociological perspectives on the rise of far-right nationalism and narrower conceptions of national identity in Europe. First, according to social identity theory, people derive a portion of their identity and self-esteem from the social groups to which they belong. Perceived threats to one’s group’s dominant status (such as national, ethnic, or religious identity) increase in-group solidarity and out-group hostility. This could explain some European majorities’ hostility towards immigration and cultural change.
Some sociologists contend that political and media elites fan the flames of xenophobia, nationalism, and perceived threats from outsiders in order to divert attention away from their own economic policy failures. This refocuses rage on more vulnerable minority scapegoats. Self-interested divide-and-rule tactics may have some truth to them. Furthermore, exclusionary populist ideologies define national identity in narrow, essentialist terms. Exclusionary populist ideologies define national identity in narrow, essentialist terms. These narratives clash with more pluralistic, multicultural perspectives. Powerful actors shape structures that gain dominance.
A combination of cultural anxieties, economic stressors, elite instrumentalization of nationalism, and battles over constructing collective identities likely fuel the rise of exclusionary far-right movements. Sociological analysis examines how all of these social processes interact with one another. There are no simple, single-cause explanations for these complex political phenomena, but it is critical to investigate how these specific social and political relations affect the approximately 35 million Muslim minorities in Western Europe. Islamophobia and the situation of Muslim minority communities in various European countries and regions are subject to complex dynamics.
For starters, countries such as France and Germany have large Muslim immigrant populations, many of whom are from North and Sub-Saharan Africa or Turkey. Tensions exist regarding integration, multiculturalism, secularism, post-9/11 terrorism fears, and the recent refugee influx. This manifests as discrimination in employment, housing, and policing. Far-right parties take advantage of fears about immigration and Islam. Muslims face difficulties balancing religious identity and national belonging.
While Italy and Spain have lower overall immigration rates, there are still tensions surrounding illegal migration routes from North Africa and groups such as refugees and migrant workers. The economic crisis heightened minority groups’ resentment of outsiders. Citizenship rights and casual racism are prevalent issues. Third, pluralistic democracies are still in their infancy in this country. Some countries fiercely defend traditional European Christian identity in the face of perceived Muslim influences. In some areas, minorities, such as Bosnian Muslims and new asylum seekers, face intense public hostility, restrictive policies, and hate crimes.
Socioeconomic marginalisation, cultural vilification by politicians and the media, targeted violence, and security profiling of Muslims all contribute to alienation throughout Europe. Religious freedom, non-discrimination, participation in public life, and freedom of movement are all essential human rights. There is room for coexistence with constructive dialogue and economic growth. In essence, Europe’s approach to managing diversity and upholding rights in the face of populism and conflict will shape both the future of its minorities and the foundational values of the continent. The current trajectory indicates multiple risks. Sustained pluralism necessitates immediate cultivation.
However, as nations increasingly align themselves with exclusive and traditionalist tribal identities, ethnic relations become even more sensitive, leading ordinary people to view those outside their tribe as untrustworthy, if not dangerous. In terms of human rights and freedoms, the intersection of security fears, state power, online ecosystems, and narrow ethno-nationalist populism is deeply concerning. There are a few important points to consider. First, states are beefing up security, surveillance, and speech controls in response to extremism and radicalization threats. However, ambiguous, ideologically driven definitions of extremism frequently unfairly target minorities and activists rather than genuine violent threats. Heavy policing of online spaces also has the potential to chill legitimate dissent.
One-sided securitization policies, intergroup tensions, and hateful ideologies reinforce one another in toxic feedback loops. Targeting minorities by the state increases their isolation and radicalization risks, giving security hawks more ammunition and fueling even harsher crackdowns. These cycles jeopardise vulnerable communities as well as civic trust. Third, narrow, exclusive nationalist identities limit human diversity and freedoms by definition. They put pressure on minority groups to assimilate, limiting individual liberties. True free democracies celebrate pluralism while uniting around core constitutional values, aiming to include rather than erase differences.
Mass manipulation mechanisms centred on narratives of threats, safety, and tribal divisions arguably pose grave existential threats to open, rights-based democracies in the twenty-first century. To reverse their spirals, investments in social cohesion, equitable growth, digital literacy, inclusive institutions, and other visionary public policies are required. On multiple fronts, the stakes are extremely high. In essence, in today’s turbulent conditions, the risks of fragmented societies divided into mutually distrustful camps responsive to authoritarian security promises are extremely high.
To avoid such negative outcomes, policy imagination and courage around social integration and healing are required, rather than doubling down on harsh ‘othering’. However, the historical perils of dehumanisation clearly lay out the goalposts, indicating that there are no easy solutions. Our decisions now have a significant impact.