By Elsa Hermanns
For several years, nationalism and right-wing parties have been rising all over Europe. Such a phenomenon results from different events, one being the rise of social media. This kind of media has revolutionised the ways ideas are circulated and debated. They now encourage more open exchanges while promoting speeches of any form or content, including nationalistic ones. The question then arises - How does social media influence the rise of nationalism?
An Echo Chamber for Nationalism.
Many types of social media act as powerful amplifiers in our world, thanks to their personalised algorithms. In short, these algorithms show users what they like to see. Consequently, people interested in nationalist ideas will see more content of this type promoted, thus reinforcing their ideals. More generally speaking, as a study carried out on Twitter shows, these algorithms often favour the content of right-wing politicians. This produces reactions with strong sentiments, like anger or indignation. On that account, content which evokes strong reactions is usually placed more in the spotlight. David Siegel states that the combined effect of algorithms and social structures can cause major shifts in collective behaviour. Such shifts amplify the messages of a minority until they become the dominant opinion. The minority then understands that social media should be used strategically. The bubble diagram below shows the size and power of political parties in European countries on Facebook. It can be seen that extreme right-wing parties have the most power, generated by their visibility on the platform.
As stated above, the nationalist leaders strategically use these platforms to bypass the traditional media, which tends to censor their ideas more. More polemical and provocative publications of figures like Donald Trump illustrate how different social media can be used as tools of direct communication toward a massive audience – thus redefining political dynamics. Indeed, it can change agendas, involve the citizens in state matters and much more.
From Online Counterpublics to Exclusive Communities in Real Life
Social media enables the formation of “counter-publics”. These are alternative groups that challenge dominant discourse. They are not necessarily small but can still make quite some noise. These groups, which constitute a counter dynamic as well, can favour polarisation and social divisions. In his 1983 work, Anthony Smith talked about such divisions in the community. To him, it was the “community of character” from Bauer. Smith explains that these communities are based on shared feelings of cultural belonging and identity, thus strengthening the foundations of nationalist movements. Therefore, it can be said that counter-publics increase hate from one group towards another.
As stated above, the use of polemical content designed to elicit strong emotional reactions increases user engagement - shares, comments and likes - and propels this content towards a larger audience. This phenomenon reflects the ‘mechanical solidarity’ mechanisms described by Durkheim. It explains how homogeneous groups reinforce themselves around shared values. Since nationalistic supporters have grown closer together, their content also tends to increase in visibility. That is also why it feels like nationalistic sentiments are currently more present than before. They have always been present, whether online or in real life. Now, their content is more widely shared and therefore more present on the platforms. They have also been able to develop a cult of personality towards their leader, as seen with Jordan Bardella in France.
An Algorithmic Bias or A Calculated Strategy?
The algorithms of social media platforms are quite ambiguous. Siegel states that they are presented as neutral to users. Yet, this article proves that they amplify emotional biases and can massively influence public opinion in favour of populist or nationalist ideas. Furthermore, right-wing leaders usually adapt their strategies by producing short provocative messages. These would be easily shared to maximise their impacts. It is the favourite communication technique of many.
However, this is not simply a current phenomenon but has been present throughout history. Elites have always manipulated the media to reinforce their power. It is only nowadays that these dynamics are reflected in the strategic use of social networks to reinforce nationalist narratives and further polarise societies using the tools shown above in the article.
Finally, the groups also target their audience based on social media. As we know, younger people tend to vote less. Social media is therefore a strategic tool for reaching this audience via interesting videos, edits and so on. In Europe, the political party most fond of this kind of method is the Vlaams Belang. It is a Belgian Flemish far-right party. It is also the party in Europe that invests the most in its communication, particularly on social networks. It is clear that the two - investment and engagement - go hand in hand.
Political parties then choose their sharing methods accordingly. TikTok, for example, has far fewer restrictions than Instagram, becoming the favourite form of communication. Siegel explains in his work that the impact is conditional on the structure of social networks. Hence, weaker networks are easier to manipulate - TikTok is an example of this. Television, on the other hand, is more tightly regulated. The use of platforms like TikTok by political or nationalist parties is therefore a deliberate and strategic choice, aimed at leveraging their influence within less controlled digital spaces
Conclusion
Many types of social media offer unique opportunities for public expression. Yet such freedom of expression and the ability to share can pose major problems when it comes to the rise of nationalism. Even though each individual has the right to express oneself, it should not be at the expense of respect towards other individuals. The combination of algorithm bias and strategic use of platforms by extremist views requires more regulations. Increasing the transparency of algorithms and promoting appropriate digital education are essential steps in mitigating these harmful effects.
However, as Siegel points out, any regulation must also consider the interaction between the media and social structures. Such an approach could avoid the unintended consequences of polarisation. It would also enable social media to be used more constructively in democratic debates. In short, social networks are redefining the political future, but their impact will depend on our ability to manage these new challenges.
Sources: Britannica, Politique, Stanford University, The American Political Science Review, The British Journal of Sociology, UCL Press
Written by Elsa Hermanns
Edited by Nina Gush & Sarah Valkenburg
Comments