The concern about the growing presence of the extreme right is obvious. But there are some facilitating factors for this growth, which are covered up or go unnoticed. It cannot be understood without taking into account structural and social aspects that subtly affect people and their most intimate experiences, such as economic interests, the effects of new technologies (ICTs), the transformations of living conditions and the expectations that are generated in citizens.
There are two interrelated global axes of tension, which favor this growth: 1) The process of economic globalization (and therefore of the control of society) which leads to a confrontation between types of capital. 2) The debate between empowerment and growing "induced helplessness".
Currently, there is a real confrontation between two types of capital. On one side is "global capital", speculative and neoliberal, with real leaders and barely visible think tanks, which take decisions that governments cannot contradict, so as not to be economically harmed. On the other hand, a more "personalized" capital that does not want to lose control of its niches of power, despite taking advantage of the advantages of economic globalization to increase its profits. In some cases, he dreams of regaining the "protection" of his "domestic" market. Examples are the cases of Trump, Le Pen, Fratelli d'Italia, among many others.
In the Spanish State, historically the PP has brought together both typologies. To break this mix, global capital tried to take advantage of cases such as Ciudadanos, but they did not succeed (unlike the Macron case in France, which did serve to “thin” the welfare state).
More recently, Vox appears, which aims to represent the most "personalistic" capital. This fact relieves the PP of this burden and paves the way for it to return to good relations with global neoliberalism. This opens the door to possible pacts or subtle supports between the PP and PSOE (the case of the Barcelona City Council looks like a "trial" in this sense)
The importance of this confrontation of capitals is related to the subtlety of the transformation mechanisms of society. The banner of freedom and individual initiative continues, but structural changes create conditions that favor NON-initiative. The implementation of social networks, theoretically, helps to create new habits, and can provide people with more capacity for self-management, and therefore more freedom, but in fact it is the other way around.
For example, for a significant part of the population, ICTs generate exclusion and/or the feeling of exclusion (the digital divide in an increasingly aging population). Among the youngest - increasingly younger - networks have become one of the most influential elements of socialization. They bring values and models with which they identify, and which go beyond what can be taught at school or in the family, turning a large part of values and habits upside down.
On the other hand, ICT favors relational isolation. People perceive that they receive all their emotional support through the networks they share with friends (and strangers), but personal contact is reduced. When there is a need for effective help, it is more difficult to obtain it in a direct or face-to-face manner. The case is aggravated when the members of the virtual networks are many kilometers apart.
In addition, the dominant message that is received has changed after the crisis of 2008. According to data from our studies, we have gone from trying to "mobilize citizens" (especially on environmental issues) to a "don't take initiatives on your own, you will make a mistake, do what we tell you..." This aspect has been particularly reinforced by the communication style and the official scenery during the pandemic.
The result of all this is that the person does not feel able to do, to develop, to feel supported emotionally. In addition, the subtle messages that "personal fulfillment" can be obtained by doing certain types of leisure, usually with alienating effects, end up leading to what Seligman defined as "learned helplessness" (I prefer to call it "induced helplessness", the perception that whatever you do, it is of no use..., therefore "I do nothing"). This leads to frustration, lack of expectations (“no future”), which can end in discomfort, depression or other pathologies.
This fact triggers a new alert: we can detect a growing tendency to individualize and “pathologize” social problems, instead of solving the social or structural causes of these problems.
On the contrary, there has never been so much talk about empowerment. This term refers to "returning" the ability to decide on one's own life, and this necessarily requires the cooperation between people, groups or communities. It requires self-organization by own initiative or with the help of external stimuli.
This is the heritage that we received from the most impoverished former industrial districts, but which have left us the richest structure in cooperatives, athenes, choirs, sports clubs, mutuals or savings banks, and which are still key to understanding some current country initiatives... Subtly, the global economic interest tries to prevent this spontaneous cooperation (which gives strength to civil society to face anything, and this scares the political powers and economic) trying to replace it with the offer of companies that theoretically provide the same service... But it is not the same to be a "customer" of a company as a "member" with rights of an association or a club.
Empowerment has become a flag of the left, but too many times it has not been able to execute it. The situation of helplessness, the perception that "this didn't happen before", a certain feeling of loss, is taken advantage of by the ultra-right to make simplifying promises to return to presumed possibilities of control of personal and social situations, of identity, of control (or renationalisation) of the economy (Trump's "Make America great again!", "España, lo único importante" and others in the emerging Catalan extreme right).
Faced with personal frustration, "hopeful" messages -even if they are simple and not very credible-, attract a large part of this frustrated population, who psychologically need a way out or a recovery of what they feel is lost.
The person needs some reassurance and has little tolerance for mental contradictions (the "cognitive dissonance", as Festinger called it). This leads to the acceptance of overly simple and false causal relationships... but which give peace of mind. Popular knowledge summed it up very well in a phrase made to justify solving problems without the causes being real, obvious or credible: "We need a Turk's head..."
It is key, therefore, to delve deeper into these processes, not to collapse, but, based on their knowledge, to reverse them. Active policies are needed that really promote cooperation, intercultural integration, and personal and social growth, as well as proactively stopping the conditions that lead to exclusionary, undesirable political situations.
Enrique Pol. Professor of Social and Environmental Psychology. Barcelona University
