Civilizationism instead of nationalism?

Recently I read the article ”Between nationalism and civilizationism: the European populist moment in comparative

Perspective” written by Rogers Brubaker, one of the more known experts in nationalism. In short, Brubaker argues that nationalist actors in Northen and Western parts of Europe are going beyond nationalism in their political communication. Such actors are referring to what Brubaker defines as ”civilizationism”. In such political communication, as a religion, Islam is seen not only as a threat to a political community as a nation but also to what is understood as ”our civilisation”. Brubaker argues that this kind of communication consists”identitarian Christianism”, secularism and liberalism that are combined in the national populist narratives.

The contemporary right-wing or national populism in Europe is often based on the two sides of ”us and them” world views. In the vertical dimension, it is about the narrative of ”people vs elite” by using expressions such as political correctness or corrupted elite. While in the horizontal dimension it is about aspects that are seen as ”against our way of life” as immigrants, Muslims, globalization, EU. These narratives are also combined by for example presenting ”the elite” as ”careless cosmopolitans” or as ”traitors” who favour refugees instead of ”our own people”. Much of such combined narratives is relating to views on Islam and Muslims. Brubaker argues that the shift from nationalism to civilizationism is based on such views and perceptions, where Islam is seen as a ”civilization threat”.

One of the early developments took place in Netherlands, with Pim Fortuyn, one of the most famous populist political actors in Europe. Fortuyn combined anti-Islam, or in modern sense islamophobic rhetoric, with sociocultural liberalism. He referred to himself as ”Samuel Huntington of Dutch politics” and spoke about ”clash of civilizations. His perceptions were based on forming views about European Christian identity while at the same time embracing secularism, liberal values, gay rights, gender equality, freedom of expression. Brubaker writes that the concept of civilizationism is using and presenting Christianity, secularism, and liberalism in the following ways:

a) Christianity = not as a religion but as a civilizational identity opposed to Islam

b) Secularism = as a way of minimizing the visibility of Islam in the public sphere.

c) Liberalism = gender equality or freedom of speech as  “our” way of life in opposition to Islam. 

A similar case can be observed in France. Historically the Front Nationale party was using antisemitism in its political communication while the current leader Marine Le Pen has adopted an Islamophobic stance. For example, the NF communicates about ”Christian values” while at the same time embracing secularism, the lacité, often with references about Islam and Muslims presented as a problem for a secular society. Brubaker writes that such political communication as in France and Netherlands is taking place in parts of Europe, as the North and Western Europe, which are considered to be among the most secularized and non-religious regions in the world. One explanation is that many Europeans equate secularism with modernity while religiosity is equated to backwardness. Christianity among the European national populists is not seen as a religion but as a ”secularized Christianity culture” and as ”identitarian or civilizational Christianism”. In the sense that if ”they are Muslims, we have to be Christians”. Basically, Christianity is not presented as in opposition to secularism. It is presented in combination with secularism as opposed to Islam.

Brubaker also writes about political shifts when it comes to secularism. Historically secularism was more connected to socialist and liberal actors while the conservative ones favoured religiosity. Today in Europe, communication about secularism is more connected to right-wing actors while left-wing and or liberal ones are often in favour of social harmony and religious diversity. Or when it comes to symbols and practices in the public sphere. For example, in France, the NF is presenting itself as a secularist party, despite its own history of being a party against secularism and in favour of a Christian country, society. The party has been communicating about perceived problems with Muslims openly praying on the streets, halal meat or with women with headscarves.

Liberalism is also being used by national populists. The transformation of several national populist actors as in Austria or France has been a shift from antisemitism to philosemitism and also by presenting themselves as committed to aspects as gender equality and women’s rights. In practice it means that Jews are now presented as fellow Europeans who, as well as women, are under threat from Islam. Gender equality is often presented as a national value that has to be defended from the outsiders, Muslims. Above the nationalist views, there are also civilizaionist ones where gender equality is presented as a European, Western, or even as Christian values in opposition to Islam. 

Another case of such communication is what today is called homonationalism. It is about communicating about the need to protect the gay population from Muslims or homophobic immigrants, where ”they” are presented as backward and intolerant while the nationalist actors present themselves in favour of tolerance, openness and civic rights. This is also an electoral strategy for nationalist actors in order to attract votes from other groups and actors in society. And last but not least, such actors present themselves as defending the freedom of speech. But it does not mean defending the freedom of speech in general, instead, it is about standing up for freedom of speech when the communication is directed towards or against Muslims.

What is important to be mentioned is that Brubakers description is limited and focusing on North-West European national populists. In comparison between the NWE populists and those in Central Europe as in Hungary and Poland or as with the case of Trumpism, there are considerable differences. For example, when it comes to the views on liberalism. For more information and knowledge, click here in order to download Brubaker’s article.