Multiculturalism, Progressivism vs Reactionism, and the Far Right
How Definitions and Dichotomies can cause us to speak past each other. Part 1 of 4.
(Audio version for paying subscribers here)
Today, in a piece for BBC News, Jessica Parker looked into support for Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and considers “Why more young men in Germany are turning to the far-right.” It’s a good, thoughtful piece and Parker is conscientious to begin with the strongest case, referencing violent crime committed by asylum-seekers and speaking to young men sympathetic to the party who are concerned about this and abuse of the asylum system while being positive towards migrants who enter the country to study or work and integrate well. She cites one man saying that to express such views gets him equated with Nazis, an ideology he clearly regards as unambiguously bad. This distinguishes these individuals from those referenced later who are sympathetic to Nazism, hold views in favour of a white German racial purity and are hostile to homosexuality and women who seek roles in the public sphere rather than purely the home.
Despite her careful, fair-minded approach, I was struck by one particular interview, in which Parker “presses” and “challenges” a very socially conservative young woman, Celina Brychcy, who supports the party, about whether her views reject multiculturalism and could be considered retrograde and whether she is far-right.
Ms Brychcy says she doesn't make money from promoting the AfD but does it because she believes in the cause and wants to "get a message across".
Her political ideals include wanting the return of military service, more support for mothers who want or need to stay at home and stricter border controls.
When I press her about whether her views amount to a rejection of multiculturalism she replied no, but believes people should "integrate."
"There are certain people who just don't fit in with us Germans," she added but repeatedly insisted she is not racist and doesn't have "anything against foreigners."
Ms Brychcy is also against "role reversal" when it comes to the way men and women dress.
…
When I challenge Ms Brychcy over whether that could be seen as retrograde, she replied that "biologically speaking, we are men and women" and thinks people should present accordingly.
…
She doesn't agree with those who view the AfD as a dangerous movement - rather one that would offer genuine, radical change.
When I ask Ms Brychcy if she considers herself as far-right, she says that on certain issues - such as border control and crime, "Definitely yes".
It's a striking reply, particularly as often, the label of far-right is rejected by supporters of the AfD, including by the party leader, Alice Weidel, who insists she heads a conservative, libertarian movement.
Three things stand out to me in this exchange as examples of ways in which language can be ambiguous or have double-meanings, and terms become loaded with political and moral connotations that are not inherent in their core-meaning. This can then lead to miscommunication and people talking past each other. These examples are:
“Multiculturalism: Are you for or against it?” Does this framing present a false dichotomy? Does it get in the way of people with a wide range of positive and negative views - that can all be well-reasoned and principled - discussing specific issues that need to be discussed specifically? Does it help push them into blanket polarising ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ stances where we no longer hear each other?
Accusations of being “retrograde”: Does looking back in order to argue that some things have developed in a negative direction and should be undone necessarily indicate an illiberal reactionary mindset? Or is this also central to the process of liberal self-correction and reform? Can a simplistic idea of what it is to be ‘progressive’ or “regressive” lead people who consider themselves progressive to be resistant to reevaluation and thus hinder genuine progress which requires critical reflection on past developments for the purposes of self-correction?
The connotations of the term “far-right:” Does common usage of the term “far-right” both to signify fascist extremism and to refer to the most conservative positions on the mainstream political spectrum (which does not include fascism) contribute to (or reflect) problems with conceptions of conservatism? Does it exacerbate left-wing (genuine) confusion between “traditionally philosophically conservative” and “fascistic?” More importantly, does it blur these vital distinctions on the right, particularly for young people?
I intend to think about these three issues separately over the next week or so and consider how liberals might best navigate them to enable us to have productive conversations with those with whom we disagree, whether we are on the right or the left or currently politically homeless. I should disclose (for anyone who hasn’t noticed) that I am decidedly on the left and so I probably disagree with most of Ms. Brychcy’s views. I certainly disagree with the one that holds that recognising the existence of two biological sexes justifies constraining men and women into specific roles and dress codes. I think such views are clearly regressive and can be argued against as such by liberals who also think that some alleged “progress” in the realm of gender and ‘queer’ theories do not represent progress at all and certainly need rethinking.
Nevertheless, I find her responses interesting. They indicate that she:
Does not see a high expectation of integration as necessarily at odds with multiculturalism.
Does not think the question of whether her views could be considered retrograde to be as relevant as whether or not they are true and ethical (according to her principles which others may disagree with).
Positions her views on border control and crime on the far right of the political spectrum unapologetically while distinguishing this from the racist and xenophobic definition of ‘far-right.’
This, for me, raises interesting questions about how we can avoid talking past each other on these issues and ensure that when we disagree with others, we are disagreeing with what they genuinely believe. This is the only effective way to have productive conversations, find common ground and resolve conflicts. It can be tempting to put everybody who holds a political position or supports a political party with which one strongly disagrees into a single, extreme and dogmatic category. It can often feel like a moral obligation to do so, lest by seeking to understand and address views we find objectionable as they really are, we validate and normalise those views. Ms. Parker’s piece expresses concerns about the ‘normalisation’ of the far-right. I would prefer the Overton Window not to expand too far in that direction too! If it could expand to people being able to raise well-reasoned concerns about illiberal subcultures and immigration without being accused of being Nazis and not expand to include literal Nazis, that would be ideal!
In reality, the degrees to which people hold certain views and the motivations and principles from which they hold them typically vary widely. Seeking to understand them and respond to what they actually are is an essential part of being able to counter them persuasively to the people we have some chance of persuading and most wish to persuade - those who are within the orbit of extreme and dogmatic views but are not committed to them. These people - whether on the far-left or far-right or within religious groups - are the people we most want to prevent sliding towards extreme views and the people who, if persuaded, are best placed to address the extremism in their orbit.
I thought Ms. Parker did a good job of showing the range of views, motivations and principles among supporters of the AfD. However, her summary of this particular exchange sent me into “discourse analysis” mode which sparked three separate but related essay theses about ways in which definitions and dichotomies can lead us to talk past each other. (This kind of thing happens to me a lot). I will be considering these questions generally and in relation to broader cultural discourse in three forthcoming (hopefully) short reads.
Next up: “Are we talking past each other on “Multiculturalism?”
Thank you Helen, this is a much needed discussion. The problem with language is one of (I believe) the most problematic aspects of the rise of the Progressive Left. The difficulty in trying to have a productive discussion when you must constantly define the words used to make certain the meaning has not changed is infuriating. My Gen Z son and I have always been able to discuss anything, but of late I have had to ask for definitions several times because we seemed to be talking past each other on subject I thought I understood his position.
One thing we are generally terrible at is defining our terms up front. I was in a Facebook conversation with someone, probably several months ago now. I was using the word “gender” to refer to something innate about someone (but different from sex) and “gender role” as something socially constructed. We were disagreeing about whether gender was socially constructed and it was only after several rounds of back and forth that I realized she was using “gender identity” the same way I was using “gender” and she was using “gender” the same way I was using “gender role.” In effect, we were saying the same thing, but for putting the label “gender” on two different definitions. I pointed out as much and the conversation faded off.
(To be clear, I’m not sure I hold this definition of gender anymore, but that’s a separate issue.)
The disagreement could have been avoided if we’d known up front what we each meant by these terms, even if we were using them differently.
If anyone ever asks me if I am a feminist, I will absolutely ask first what they think that is before answering.