Why Extremism Catches On

DW-WORLD.DE: How would you explain the increase in the number of right-wing extremists and xenophobic crimes in Germany?

Wilhelm Heitmeyer: These activities have increased in some places but, on the other hand, people's awareness has also changed. Another important factor is that particular attitude patterns in the population legitimate violence when they are seen as normal. That's why it's important to separate acts of violence from the social climate. Another point is that resistance is becoming quieter and quieter, especially in eastern Germany.

Why is it important to observe these attitude patterns in Germany?

We determined in the course of our long-term research that migration, particularly in small towns, has an affect because it's the younger, well educated people who are leaving. The result is greater homogeneity in people's attitude patterns. Counter movements don't disappear completely but they may become quieter. That's something we can document. In regions where the economic trend is negative, we find more pejorative attitudes toward weaker groups than in prosperous regions. It's not a coincidence that groups like the NPD (far-right National Democratic Party) are calling for greater action in the economically weak areas.

Is eastern Germany's history relevant to explanations for right-wing extremism that have to do with East-West discrepancies?

There is certainly a connection between authoritarian attitudes and the devaluation of foreigners. On the other hand, the younger generation has grown up in a united Germany. We should examine more closely if it doesn't have to do with the fears of this new society. Accepting democracy is debatable for some, which has to do with the economic recession a few years ago. In contrast, the West got to know democracy during a time of economic recovery.

Will the current economic boom contribute to improvements in the social climate, as far as xenophobic tendencies are concerned?

That's a big question mark. The economic success isn't evenly distributed. It can have the opposite effect when people in the weaker areas realize that the boom has passed them by. But so far these are just hypotheses.

In addition to economic downturn in certain regions, does lack of education also play a role?

Of course. When the well educated people leave the regions where they no longer see possibilities for themselves, the political culture changes there as well. This is a problem for structurally weak areas.

Do some of the people who have stayed behind in these structurally weak areas project their own discontentment on foreigners? Or how do xenophobic attitudes develop?

On one hand, many people fear social disintegration. If you add disorientation to the mix -- "what kind of society are we living in actually and which rules apply here?" -- then discrimination against certain groups can arise. Devaluation of others serves to boost one's own self-worth. Here it's important to differentiate between people's personal opinions and active groups. Acts of violence are mostly committed by young people, but the hostile attitude patterns are really behind the scenes -- with the older generation. They provide the justification. This influence is often underestimated, which is why the society doesn't respond to it.

Before the 2006 soccer World Cup, there was controversy over so-called "no-go" areas in Germany -- that is, places where foreign-looking people shouldn't go. Has this discussion had any lasting effects?

It's hard to say, but the term "no-go" areas should be reconsidered. It's more about "fear zones," some of which are stabile, others of which quickly disappear.

Could the discussion have had a negative effect, in that it carved out territories for right-wing extremists?

This can happen, which makes the discussion ambivalent, but it's also an appeal to say we're not just going to let things stay as they are, we're not going to keep quiet about the fact that certain groups of people are publicly being robbed of their freedom. At the same time, it's a call to action, especially for government intervention programs. We don't just need new projects where plenty of activities are already going on, but also there where right-wing groups are dominant.

What can the government do in response to the increase in right-wing extremist and xenophobic crimes?

First of all, the government has to work together with the police and the justice system. But repression always breeds innovation. Right-wing extremist groups create their own private structures, which makes it more difficult for the state to intervene. However, not just the government but many parties are responsible for society's condition -- from the economic sphere, the press and ordinary people standing up for their beliefs, to social movements that take to the streets. The state acting alone can make politicians even more confrontational than they already are -- which I see as quite alarming, considering the current "drain of democracy" that's taking place.

Is there still a danger of a "democracy drain" even while the Grand Coalition is in power?

It has been discussed so much that it's no longer clear in which direction society should develop. The Grand Coalition is getting bogged down in details that hardly anyone understands, like with the health care reforms. A discussion should be started about what kind of society we want to live in anyways. We observe so much disorientation among the people because many rules for how this society should function seem to have been overridden. Just think about the horrendous profits of large companies and at the same time there are mass lay-offs. No one understands it -- and that makes people turn away.

Wilhelm Heitmeyer, 62, is professor of pedagogy (with an emphasis on socialization) at the University of Bielefeld. Since 1982, his primary research interests have included right-wing extremism, violence, xenophobia, ethnic-cultural conflict, social disintegration and, more recently, hostility against particular social groups. Heitmeyer directs the Institute for Interdisciplinary Conflict and Violence Research, which he founded in 1996.