Details are still emerging about last week’s tragic attacks in Norway, and about Anders Behring Breivik, the 32-year old who has confessed to the killings. In a press conference today Breivik was described by his attorney as a “very cold” person who sees himself as a warrior, fighting for a cause others can’t yet understand. As is clear from Breivik’s 1,500 page manifesto, his war is against Europe’s increasing multiculturalism, and what Breivik sees as Islamic domination of the West.
Breivik’s turn to violence is shocking and deeply disturbing, but many have noted that the ideas animating his rampage aren’t original to him. Instead, his beliefs reflect what’s been an increasingly mainstream backlash against multiculturalism in Europe. Just two weeks ago we heard from Peter Morey and Amina Yaqin, authors of Framing Muslims: Stereotyping and Representation after 9/11, on the anti-multicultural rhetoric of recent months. From our conversation:
The strength of recent political pronouncements can in part be understood as a phase in a cycle that involves scapegoating so-called “outsiders” at times of economic and social crisis. It’s no coincidence that the leaders have picked up on this now when there’s a global recession and their policies appear to be ineffectual in the face of larger forces.
…
However, there’s also been a sense in these countries that large-scale migrations are the cause of social tensions and crisis. Again, dominant political discourses can use this sense to their own ends. For example, in the 2010 British General Election all parties were suddenly keen to appear tough on the issue of immigration, based largely on the unproven claim that extremism of both right wing and Islamist kinds was being allowed to fester because politicians had fought shy of the issue in the past. Inasmuch as there is any evidence of widespread popular concern about multiculturalism, you often tend to find the sentiment strongest in areas with comparatively little experience of direct immigration into local neighborhoods. This suggests that this kind of anxiety is second-hand, as it were, and generated by press and media coverage which often takes its cue from political agendas and is sometimes quite hysterical in tone.
In the case of Norway, an oil-rich country with virtually no unemployment, it’s worth noting that economic factors likely haven’t played the same role as in Germany, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. Instead, Breivik saw himself as fighting a social and cultural war against immigration, Marxism, and Muslims. And though Breivik is being depicted mostly as a lone-wolf and as possibly mentally ill, pundits such as the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat are rushing to point out that while Breivik’s “crimes should be denounced and disowned, their ideological pedigree has to be admitted.” Indeed, rather than seek to distance themselves from Breivik’s ideology, Douthat suggests that mainstream anti-multiculturalists should stand firm, not allowing their views to be overshadowed by this violence.
There’s still too much unknown to speculate about connections between mainstream rhetoric and Breivik’s actions, but neither should we dismiss the notion that a climate of political finger pointing can inspire violent acts. As Morey and Yaqin note in Framing Muslims:
It would be naïve in the extreme not to recognize that the incessant demonization of Muslims and their cultural practices by those with access to the major vehicles of public discourse in the West has indirectly given a green light to prejudice and vigilantism.
It’s important to hold that demonization to account, and so we shouldn’t forget the immediate and shameful inclination to assume Muslim responsibility for the attacks in Norway that surfaced before any actual details were known. By Friday evening, a Washington Post column was announcing that the attacks were “a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.” The column, by Jennifer Rubin, took the attacks as an opportunity to chide “irresponsible lawmakers” who “would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan.” Not until the following day did the Post address the column’s framing of Muslims, well after it was clear that the attacks were not, in fact, the work of jihadists. But their update can’t rightly be called a retraction or apology:
That the suspect here is a blond Norwegian does not support the proposition that we can rest easy with regard to the panoply of threats we face or that homeland security, intelligence and traditional military can be pruned back. To the contrary, the world remains very dangerous because very bad people will do horrendous things. There are many more jihadists than blond Norwegians out to kill Americans, and we should keep our eye on the systemic and far more potent threats that stem from an ideological war with the West.
From any angle, these attacks were tragic and horrifying. The tragedy should not be compounded by mobilizing Breivik’s actions in a call for greater scrutiny of the group that was his target.
