Extremism is about margins defined as extreme by the mainstream. Docent in Political History Katalin Miklóssy challenges people to consider how to view ideas considered extremist in liberal societies and academic communities.
We are living in a period of complex crises and societal polarisation, and witnessing the strengthening of extremist groups and ideas. These groups share common characteristics, uniform explanatory models and common enemies. At least that is how people generally understand extremism... While the European Union has defined what extremism means on a pan-European scale, the concepts have become hopelessly outdated.
Extremism is actually evolving through constant interaction with the political mainstream. It can be watered down, be tamed and adapted, and it can even be supplemented by its own extreme counterpart that it in turn tries to marginalise. Take, for example, what happened after the 2024 elections for the European Parliament to the European Conservatives and Reformists group, long considered extremist: it shifted towards the political centre as new political forces emerged at the extreme right.
Extremism - a challenge from the margins
As a research subject, extremism is, by definition, a moving target. In fact, extremism is about challenging mainstream political thinking and social conventions from the margins. It questions conventional and generally accepted models of explanation, which is why it is considered offensive and dangerous: something to defend against.
However, perceptions of what is extreme may vary, as no one declares themselves extremists - it is always a label assigned by the majority.
In today's authoritarian systems, it is precisely liberals who are seen as an extremist group, as they pose a much greater threat to those in power than neo-Nazis, who by echoing the rulers occupy a weak position. At the same time, revolutions have usually originated in the expression and promotion of extremist ideas. Where would we be without the French Revolution, which changed our notions of citizens' rights and equality, as well as the need for the opportunity to challenge the powers that be?
In countries weighed down by past dictatorships or authoritarianism, the definition of extremism is still viewed with a certain caution. With a fascist or communist supermajority in power, challenges emerging from the margins were a rare achievement.
Problem of extremism in free academic communities
In liberal systems, extremism is an interesting phenomenon because we, representatives of the political mainstream, actively contribute to driving it. In academia, you often hear the argument that you should not argue with extremists, as it may bring their modes of thinking into the mainstream. According to this view, they need only be excluded, isolated, as extremism must remain extreme.
However, in the European context we have to ask ourselves how much such impermeable bubbles of the self-assured opinions contribute precisely to escalating and spreading extremism. Becoming frustrated because your voice is not heard can raise the narrative stakes as well as the rate of organisation and networking. In other words, are digging trenches and stationary warfare our ways of dealing with 'intolerable' opinions? And what does this mean for the future of academic freedom?
The time of crises is also evident at the University where political polarisation and other similar societal phenomena have taken root. In times of crisis, many members of the University community have felt the need to clarify their values, which is why researchers have increasingly expressed their views on political issues. This can split academic communities, with the majority marginalising and even silencing 'dissidents'.
It is easy to forget that extremism is a discourse that can arise as a reflection of the 'mainstream' discussion becoming black and white. You can also ask whether the majority is always right.
At least in Russia, the answer is unequivocal.
