Extremism is what we make of it! The normalized and banal extremism of Spanish Far Right

Abstract

Extremism has been widely examined as an empty signifier and a politically loaded category, usually associated to CT and CVE policies targeting specific groups and communities (Breen Smyth, 2013; Kundnani and Hayes, 2018). Nevertheless, the literature has not extensively addressed how these categories and policy programmes deal with far-right extremism. Consequently, this paper examines the construction of “extremism” in Spain, where, in 2019, the right-wing political party VOX entered the political institutions. Despite its Islamophobic, xenophobic and Francoist glorification's discourse, the concept of 'extremist' has not been applied to this party, and this has not been framed within P/CVE programmes. There are, therefore, red lines for what can and cannot be said on ethnonationalism and religious terrorism, but these lines become blurred for the far-right discourses. Analyzing public controversies around “extremism”, this paper wants to explore the limits of the (un)acceptable, specifically in the routinized and normalized nature of far-right’s discourses. It will then build on Billig's notion of 'banal nationalism' (1995) to examine the lack of response and policy concern towards these discourses to show that “extremism” is what we make of it.

Extremism has been widely examined as an empty signifier and a politically loaded category, usually associated to CT and CVE policies targeting specific groups and communities (Breen Smyth, 2013; Kundnani and Hayes, 2018). Nevertheless, the literature has not extensively addressed how these categories and policy programmes deal with far-right extremism. Consequently, this paper examines the construction of “extremism” in Spain, where, in 2019, the right-wing political party VOX entered the political institutions. Despite its Islamophobic, xenophobic and Francoist glorification's discourse, the concept of 'extremist' has not been applied to this party, and this has not been framed within P/CVE programmes. There are, therefore, red lines for what can and cannot be said on ethnonationalism and religious terrorism, but these lines become blurred for the far-right discourses. Analyzing public controversies around “extremism”, this paper wants to explore the limits of the (un)acceptable, specifically in the routinized and normalized nature of far-right’s discourses. It will then build on Billig's notion of 'banal nationalism' (1995) to examine the lack of response and policy concern towards these discourses to show that “extremism” is what we make of it.