- Transitions towards right-wing populist orientations – eight central topics
…
(2) “Foreigners take away employment from the Germans“
In addition to this culturally grounded rejection of foreigners we had several interviewees
arguing rather from an economic perspective. In this case foreigners are perceived as
competitors on the labour market. Contrary to a rather cultural rejection of supposed
superfluous, non-integratable “underclass” foreigners, the economic rejection refers to
immigrants who, due to their qualification, are perceived as real competitors. In such cases,
the fear of losing the job leads to the claim that we should “first take into consideration the
interests of our country”. Against the background of shrinking distributive margins the
relationship between foreigners and non-foreigners is constructed as a fight over distribution
with – necessarily – winners and losers. The consequences of such a construction are quite
obvious: The enlargement of the EU is equally rejected as the EU-membership of Turkey;
processes of economic globalisation are primarily perceived as a threat, the introduction of the
green-card at best as the attempt to compensate for “what the industry (through lacking
qualification) has messed up”.
(3)”When savings, we have to save money with regard to the parasites of the welfare state“
The motive of the decreasing wealth which has to be protected against illegitimate claims is
not only apparent in the context of labour market competition; in a different variation it is also
apparent with regard to the welfare state and welfare state reforms. There is a large consensus
among the interviewees that if savings have to be made they must not be made with regard to
the performers but with regard to those who, without valid reason, take advantage of the
welfare state. The construction of an “in-group” willing to work and an “out-group” of
parasites refers not only to foreigners. It also refers to “lazy unemployed”, homeless, beggars
or German recipients of social assistance. In most cases the rejection of “social parasites”
goes hand in hand with a damaged sense of justice. This becomes obvious if those unwilling
to perform are considered to be among the wealthier parts of the society. However, the
chances to solve the lack of justice by referring to the privileged parts of the society are
considered to be very slight. Instead the focus is put on the weaker groups of society. While
fighting against “social parasites” it is considered legitimate to refer to right-wing populist
parties.
…
(6) “Politicians are gangsters; the entire system has to be changed“
There is a large consensus among interviewees concerning the identification of the scapegoat:
the politicians. Among the well-bred employees the judgements are more or less
differentiated. Most heavily criticised are the inability to find adequate solutions and the
arrogance within politics. But the lower the position in the vertical hierarchy of the
employment society, the harsher the judgements. Particularly those threatened of social falling
and the precarious employees consider the entire “system” as corrupt. Politicians are seen as
an over-paid, corrupt caste which repeatedly ignores the legitimate claims of “the population”.
The politicians belong to those groups where money should be saved. The political class is
compared with “social parasites” and foreigners not willing to adapt to the German culture.
Some interviewees even see some politicians as “gangsters”.
(7) “A bit less democracy can do no harm“
Serious doubts concerning the integrity of the political class merge in some cases into a
critique of the political system as a whole. This critique seems at first sight rather moderate. A
production worker speaks about “politicians in Germany” as “rather lazy”. This is due “to our
political system, where we have constant elections”. Democratic procedures are seen as
inefficient and expensive. This critique can in certain contexts obtain an openly authoritarian
character. This is the case when the interviewees call for harsher prosecution of foreigners,
their consequent expulsion from Germany or the vigorous fight against criminality.
Criminality is the topic where politics should prove its credibility. An extreme position with
this regard is that those who have become criminal should be put into a labour camp:
“Working them to death so that in the evening they are unable to do anything. This is how the
Americans treat their criminals”. Such authoritarian orientations do not lead to an open claim
for a different political system beyond the party-democracy. However, for some interviewees
the possibility of such a development seems rather realistic. In clear contradiction to the desire
to get rid of the historical burden, some interviewees see the possibility that history could be
repeated. “There are hard times” and also “Hitler benefited from high unemployment” can
then be heard. But there are also other historical references. It is not by accident that
employees from eastern Germany draw parallels between their current situation and the
situation before the fall of the Berlin Wall: “If the unemployment situation doesn’t improve
we will have a situation like in the past. We know this kind of situation from our experiences
in the GDR”.
…
(8) “Right-wing extremist parties are too extreme, but are talking about the right issues”
It is exactly in this context that the opinions about right-wing populist (or right-wing
extremist) parties have to be seen. Obviously no one within our sample openly admits being a
partisan of a right-wing populist or extremist formation. The employees in question are
politically “average people”. The majority vote for the CDU and SPD, some of them abstain
from voting. It has, however, to be noted that the interviewed employees associate a positive
function with right-wing populist or extremist formations. The smallest common denominator
between the interviewees in that respect is that although such parties are too extreme and in
fact without influence, they occasionally raise awareness for the right topics. More or less all
the employees in question acknowledge that the rightist formations identify relevant questions
and problems. The rejection of such formations results less from a substantial perspective but
from their outsider status they represent extremist groups. There is not much confidence that
these formations are capable of initiating real changes. At the same time there is no doubt
among the employees that unemployment, immigration and the destruction of the “German
identity” can only be stopped by fundamental changes. Thus their rejection of right-wing
populist or extremist formations is based upon very weak foundations, and it seems quite
obvious that some of the employees vote for the NPD (party of the extreme right in Germany)
or other extremist right-wing parties.
…
3.1. Employment and unemployment within the right-wing populist axiomatic
All the topics sketched above cannot be explained by exclusively referring to the work
experiences of the interviewees. The latter express views, attitudes and judgements which are
on the contrary highly persistent with regard to situation-specific influences and experiences.
One might support the prevention of immigration because s/he is living in a region with only
very few foreigners. The perception that foreigners take jobs away from Germans is, for
instance, expressed by interviewees who consider their own job to be safe. And the exclusion
of “social parasites” is formulated, surprisingly, by those who live in good economic
circumstances and who do not compete for welfare state resources. It has to be noted that
neither the social position in the labour market nor work experiences are direct driving forces
behind the right-wing populist axiomatic. These “bridges” towards right-wing populism have
their origin much more in the mode of constituting political opinions which Bourdieu
identified as “systematic political conception”. These conceptions are relatively consistent
schemes of interpretation with which the individuals perceive and decode their daily
experiences at work and elsewhere.
Within the right-wing populist axiomatic, opinions and attitudes concerning work and
unemployment play an important role. The fact that dealing with competition in the labour
market leads to particular nationalistic, ethnical, racist and sexist classifications must neither
be scandalised nor be treated as something pathological. The opposition of a liberal
universalism and national, ethnical or gender specific particularism is in a certain sense
inherent in the world wide capitalist economy. Processes of economic globalisation
corresponding with market-liberal universalistic ideas go at the same time hand in hand with
particular frames, whose function consists in legitimating the placement of labour forces on
certain positions in the hierarchy of the employment society. From the perspective of the
working population this ideological ambiguity is the indication of a structural contradiction
within the production regime of a capitalist market economy: “on the one hand working and
living conditions are held in constant mobility and destabilised in order to guarantee
competition in the labour market and to constantly gather new labour forces from the
‘industrial reserve army’…; on the other hand labour forces are stabilised during long periods
in order to ‘educate’ them for work and to ‘render them loyal’ to the enterprise” (Balibar
1990: 256).
It seems quite likely that this structural contradiction obtains a new dynamic under the
conditions of a flexible and market-centred production regime (Dörre 2002). Put differently:
the strengthening of market-oriented modes of governance and control of employment has the
effect that originally legitimate forms of labour division become more and more obsolete and
finally replaced. Castel’s zone model marks the broad character of this new labour division.
The fight for inclusion in this new regime is only at first sight an “individualistic” matter.
Individuals compete with each other in the labour market. However, they undertake their
competition through – real or imaginary – group building. Individuals and groups react to
disintegrative effects resulting from the erosion of formerly legitimate modes of labour
division through interest-motivated and symbolically conveyed strategies of integration –
even if it is only a type of imaginary integration. Nationalistic, xenophobic and racist
classifications are attempts to get in touch with “in-groups” in order to strengthen the own
position in the competition for material resources and social recognition.
…
All the employees where we find transitions towards right-wing populist orientations perceive
the market-oriented flexibilisation of employment relations and work modes primarily as an
external constraint which affects the living and working conditions in a negative way. In all
different employment situations the employees perceive themselves as being confronted with
increasing cost and productivity pressure. It is interesting to note that mainly those in lower
and middle management positions perceive this pressure as a particular burden. Many of the
interviewed employees convey the impression of an increasing pressure of flexibility and
performance which contradicts the public discourse on savings and flexibility fundamentally.
The statement of a foreman in the construction industry in eastern Germany illustrates this:
Q: “What is your opinion about the political suggestion of fighting unemployment by more
flexible work?”
A: “I have to say that we are completely flexible at work. We don’t speak about flexibility at
work. If the company says ‘you have to go there for work’ then we go there. We never discuss
that. (…) Our guys even go to Antwerp, to Italy or to western German regions. I have to say
that we are highly flexible.”
…
Real requirements at work and the public discourse on flexibility have nothing in common in
the eyes of most interviewed employees. The hardship of the “real working life” has no voice
in the sphere of political representation. On the contrary: The reforms of the labour market
represent an additional pressure not only on the weakest parts but also on the traditional
performers in society. The same foreman: “I don’t know why these measures always refer to
little people. (…) Those who take these decisions have to be shot down. They push people into
poverty. These can only be ideas by people living high.”
In the eyes of many interviewed employees there is substantial injustice concerning the
existence and distribution of work-related risks and inconveniences. This feeling of injustice
can even be found among employees who are not suspicious of any right-wing populist
tendencies. However, in the group of right-wing populists we can observe a particular aspect.
The injustice in the relationship between “above” and “below” is considered to be
unchangeable because “politics” not only ignores but produces this injustice. In the eyes of
the interviewees, the political system and its representatives prove incapable of solving this
fundamental problem of justice. The stronger the feeling of powerlessness, the stronger the
inclination to ask for authoritarian solutions which shall be executed even at the expense of
scapegoats.
…
In a dynamic and highly regulated labour market many
women being “additional earners” had no problems about accepting insecure jobs with low
salaries. This is the reason why in the course of a decreasing employment dynamic,
contemporary modes of precarious jobs could easily spread. The traditional gender specific
division of labour suggested the “voluntary” decision for such jobs, and thus atypical
employment has become primarily a female domain. Our type 7 “the content ones” can be
seen as resulting from this development. It is the identification with the role as a housewife
and mother which makes the arrangement with precarious jobs necessary but also convenient.
We call this “secondary integration potential”.
A characteristic of non-voluntary flexibilisation is that it influences the secondary integration
potential of the “additional earner”. This shall be illustrated by referring to a saleswoman of a
small retail shop. This woman locates her job at the lower end of the social status scale. She
goes to work for financial reasons but she obtains most of her satisfaction from her roles as
housewife and mother. Her “dream” is to choose her working time in order to be able to fulfil
these roles in the best possible way. But in fact this dream does not come true: “The best
situation for me would have been to work three days one quarter and the other three days
three quarters. This was my big wish because in this case I would have been at home for my
children three days a week.”
…
Our study indicates that
right-wing populism relates to very different, partly contradictory motives and interests. When
referring to theoretical explanations this means that the supposedly irreconcilable polarisation
between deprivation approaches favoured by Castel and culture of dominance approaches
(Rommelspacher 1995, Held et al. 1991) which take a clear distance to so-called “deficit
theories” might only refer to different empirical phenomena. The culture of dominanceapproach
assumes that individuals who “identify with the dominating values of money,
professional career and success” and who “glorify the principle of performance and reduce
human relationships to their functionality for their own interests” are particularly susceptible
to racist and authoritarian-nationalist attitudes (Rommelspacher 1995: 86). Therefore neoracism
is in its “systematic appearance mainly a problem concerning the established and those
expected or expecting to belong to the establishment in the future – with all the necessary
efforts” (ibid.).