Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article seeks to conceptualize and analyze how processes of deglobalization are interdependently connected with processes of dehumanization, double bind, and racialization in the field of radicalization of ethnic and religious minorities in Denmark. We analyze two sociopolitical cases to show how deglobalization takes form in local practice, enabling or limiting specific subjects’ and groups’ possibilities of being perceived and accepted as Danish citizens. Relations between radicalization and dehumanization are explored across subjective, societal, political, and discursive practices linked to double bind processes and possible movements beyond them. Our aim is to establish a theoretical framework for exploring a psychology of deglobalization that takes into account processes of racialization, mis-interpellation, double bind, and the possibilities for rehumanization.

Keywords

deglobalization de- and rehumanization double binds racialization radicalization

In the last 20 years, Denmark has seen a rise in far-right nationalist political rhetoric and sentiment that has manifested in a large number of restrictive policies and practices aimed at controlling the influx of refugees and the housing, education, and integration of immigrants from countries identified as “non-Western.” We see these policies and practices as expressions of deglobalization and a response to fears of a globalized, multicultural, and transnational world that threatens the unity and homogeneity of the nation (Morris et al., 2011; also see Marsella, 2012; Melluish, 2014). Where Brexit and the initiatives of Donald Trump and the EU—building walls to keep out immigrants and refugees, protectionist border control practices, closing off international relations, and turning inwards to the nation (James, 2018; Morris et al., 2011)—can be seen as clear signs of an era of deglobalization, the signs are more muddled and complex in Denmark.

In this article, we explore how the era of deglobalization brings about new contradictions and double binds within the fields of radicalization and inclusion of ethnic minorities: on the one hand, Denmark has been a frontrunner in regard to a “soft” or humanist approach to radicalization (Lindekilde, 2014; Ozer & Bertelsen, 2019). On the other hand, hard line policies targeting refugees and immigrants limit refugees’ possibilities of settling and belonging in Denmark (Arce & Suárez-Krabbe, 2018). As we shall see, these policies have legitimized hate speech as “freedom of speech” and made headlines internationally, making Denmark infamous for an inhumane and discriminatory approach to refugees. We explore how push-and-pull dynamics towards globalization and deglobalization (Eftimie, 2017) and nationalist, xenophobic, far-to-extreme¹ right-wing ideologies and practices are connected with the process of othering and dehumanization in the field of radicalization. We also explore how this creates racialized mis-interpellation (Hage, 2010), societal forms of double binds (Laing, 1967), and how it affects ethnic and religious minorities in Denmark.² Analyzing these processes, we juxtapose different understandings of radicalization, from mainstream far-right politized understandings to theoretical conceptualizations of radicalization as a multilayered and relational process.

Our aim with this article is to introduce an interdisciplinary approach to theoretical psychology to explore the interdependent connections between global movements towards nationalist, xenophobic, and right-wing ideologies and practices of mis-interpellation and dehumanization in the field of radicalization in relation to ethnic and religious minorities in Denmark. We propose a theoretical framework for a psychology of deglobalization that explores both processes of racialization, mis-interpellation, and double bind and the possibilities for rehumanization. We will explore how double bind situations and processes of mis-interpellation dehumanize religious, ethnic, and political Others, who are excluded from dominant discourses of the nation. This is a form of dehumanization, which we see as one of the social psychological consequences and implications of deglobalization.

We argue that a psychology of deglobalization requires a critical stance regarding what psychology is and can be, for whom and for what purpose. We call this an emancipatory form of psychology, which requires an approach that does not limit what psychology is, but rather expands the horizons of psychological theory and methodology.

Empirical point of departure: The fields of radicalization and in/exclusion of ethnic minorities

We explore the intersections of different forms of radicalization and the in- and exclusion of ethnic and religious minorities in Denmark as the empirical basis for our analysis of how processes of deglobalization are linked to those of dehumanization and racialization.

These interrelated fields—of radicalization and in/exclusion of ethnic/religious minorities—are chosen because they combined express ongoing and shifting political and personal struggles as to whom and what are seen as included/excluded in the nation according to discourses of true and legitimate citizenship and belonging. A decade ago, when there was greater focus in general on globalization, transnational relations, and multiple identities and homes, Diaz and Zirkel (2012) made it clear that: “it is important for psychology . . . to systematically move a description of globalization to a psychologically informed analysis of how people are influenced by globalization processes and how they respond to them” (p. 440). We think, that in this era, where we increasingly see resistance to globalization (Teo, 2023) and a turn towards nationalist discourses and practices (Billig, 2023), it is equally important to analyze and examine how deglobalization has specific psychological implications for specific people and groups. Our aim is thus to highlight the potentials of developing a psychology of deglobalization.

We will begin by introducing our theoretical framework, before outlining the local political context of deglobalization and racialization in Denmark to set the frame for the empirical example where the extremist right-wing politician, Rasmus Paludan, stages a demonstration where he burns the Quran in a densely populated urban area where many Muslim citizens live. We will juxtapose this situation with another case from Denmark, involving a politician with a Muslim background, Elif Demir Gökce, from a mainstream political party. By showing how processes of dehumanization, racialization, and radicalization are intricately linked and reproduce each other, we highlight how forces of deglobalization and globalization have interdependent affective, social, and psychological implications in terms of who is seen as a proper human being, who is given a voice, and whose right to speak and demonstrate is protected.

Finally, we will return to a discussion of “double possibilities” of reproducing and transcending racialization and radicalization in the analyzed responses to the double bind, highlighting the potential for an emancipatory form of counter-hegemonic resistance through interpellation and participation in inclusive and heterogeneous communities (Mørck, 2011).

Theoretical point of departure—An interdisciplinary framework

Dehumanization is a complex concept with its roots in studies on Nazism and the category of Untermencsh or on the slave trade and the systematic exploitation of people of African descent, who were seen as commodities rather than as human beings (Smith, 2012; Teo, 2020). Experimental psychology, with its focus on desensitization and processes of dehumanization in, for example, Zimbardo et al.’s (1971) prison experiment or Milgram’s (1963) experiment on obedience and violence, has also sought to capture what dehumanization entails. The process of dehumanization involves the positioning of another human as less than or not quite human (de Ruiter, 2021; Smith, 2012), or, as Thomas Teo has suggested, as subhuman in a broader ontology of subhumanism. Studies have linked dehumanization with racialization (e.g., Dalal, 2006; Hund, 2020; Wynter, 2006) and with radicalization and extremism (e.g., Giner-Sorolla et al., 2012; Munn, 2019). Accordingly, we use dehumanization as a term to focus on how social processes such as racialization, mis-interpellation and double bind potentially strip the individual of their basic rights to be seen as a human.

The term double bind has its roots in ecological theory and the work of Gregory Bateson et al. (1956). Later, the critical–phenomenological antipsychiatrist, R. D. Laing (1967), described how schizophrenia and psychosis are a result of double binds. Drawing lines to broader processes of societal alienation, Laing explained double binds as a checkmate position, where the individual’s actions are entangled in “contradictory and paradoxical pressures and demands, pushes and pulls, both internally, from [themselves], and externally, from those around [them]” (Laing, 1967, p. 91). Double binds consist of combinations and paradoxes of communication, for example in regard to how messages and metamessages can collide with and produce paradoxes and confusion within the individual (Bateson et al., 1963). We employ double bind theory in relation to dehumanization to grasp what is at play psychologically when subjects are positioned as subhuman, and hereby grasp the paradoxical possibilities of action that place some people in almost impossible double binds of misrecognition and mis-interpellation. The concept of racialized mis-interpellation is highly relevant here (Hage, 2010), as it indicates how processes of dehumanization are linked to racialization.

As outlined above, we are here proposing an interdisciplinary and trans-theoretical (Khawaja & Mørck, 2021) framework, including perspectives from decolonial theory, critical psychology, and social practice theory, with the aim of highlighting the possibilities for collective movements beyond double binds and mis-interpellation.

Deglobalizing tendencies in Denmark

In 2001, two political events had a major impact on the political climate in Denmark. One was the terrorist attack of 9/11, which led to the “War on Terror” and with it the quest to identify the next terrorist. The other was national elections in Denmark, with the center-right Liberal Party (Venstre) and the Conservative People’s Party (Konservative) emerging victorious and forming a government supported by the far-right Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti). This coalition placed “the issue of immigrants” and “the safeguarding” of what were identified as “Danish values” front and center in political discourse and practice. Simultaneously, the “War on Terror” and the resulting discourse concerning the causes of terrorism, radicalization, and extremism drew an explicit link between terrorism, Islam, and Muslim minorities (Abbas, 2007). Until the beginning of the 2000s, terrorism and radicalization was seen as an outcome of individuals’ involvement in political conflicts informed by an ideological context and the subsequent political fights (della Porta, 1995). However, after 9/11, the term radicalization was mainly used when discussing Salafists, jihadists, or sympathizers with ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations claiming to be rooted in Islamic ideology (Muro, 2017).

In line with other countries, the Danish government developed its first strategy to “prevent radicalization” in 2009 based on the presumption that radicalization was an outcome of a lack of acknowledgment from the surrounding community, which resulted in various initiatives targeting low-income neighborhoods (Lindekilde, 2014). Individuals categorized as Muslims were singled out as being especially “at risk of radicalization” (Silva & Deflem, 2020)—more specifically, of developing sympathies for Islamic terror organizations due to their religious affiliation and social issues such as marginalization and failed integration (Christensen & Mørck, 2017; Veldhuis & Staun, 2009).

This focus on a specific kind of religiously motivated radicalization, which is often seen as connected to understandings of Islam as inherently violent and extremist (Abbas, 2007; Younis, 2021), has to be understood in relation to processes of racialization, as the efforts to curtail radicalization globally and locally are predominantly connected to discourses of the Muslim Other. One might ask what racialization has to do with a focus on the religious Other, but this focus is strongly linked to a gendered and racialized figure of the “Muslim man”—most often depicted and imagined as violent, aggressive, from the Middle East, and following antidemocratic and “non-Western” doctrines and values (Razack, 2004). The category, “non-Western origin”³ was introduced in 2002 by Statistics Denmark, and in public discourse has been applied to anybody coming from outside “the Western world.” In practice, it is specifically used to point out people from the so-called MENAP countries, a term coined by the Social Democratic government in 2020, which covers Middle Eastern and North African countries, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Turkey. The inequality between the majority population and a minority categorized as of “non-Western origin” has been perceived as “natural” and explained as a result of inherent cultural differences (Hervik, 2015). In everyday Danish discourse, “non-Western origin” has become synonymous with “Muslims,” regardless of the person’s religious affiliation, creating a racialized “foreigners/Muslims” versus “Danes” divide. In this context, “Danish” and “Muslim” seem to become mutually exclusive and culturally incompatible categories. The outcome of the rise in far-right rhetoric and actions in Danish politics is that discrimination of visibly different minorities has increased. This can be seen by the fact that the reported figures for racially motivated hate crimes in Denmark more than quadrupled between 2007 and 2016 (see European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, n.d.) and that Muslims constitute the most targeted religious community; Muslims experienced 45% of all religiously motivated hate crimes in 2020 (see Hassani, 2020).

These deglobalizing tendencies have increased in strength over the years and enabled the emergence of the “far-to-extreme” right-wing political party, Hard Line (Stram Kurs), led by Rasmus Paludan, a lawyer who, from 2019 onwards has toured Denmark burning the Quran or wrapping it in bacon as part of what he claims to be a political manifestation. His appearances have often been met with counter-demonstrations, civil unrest, or community-based resistance. Paludan’s party gained enough public backing to stand in parliamentary elections held in 2019, as they managed to get more than 20,000 pre-election votes. The party did not get enough votes in the election to become part of the parliament, but Paludan was able to participate in public debates and received extensive police protection. We use the term “far-to-extreme” right wing to underscore a gradual form of differentiation between the far and extreme right. The case of Paludan and his party, “Hard Line,” illustrates that a person and a political party can use the electoral system to participate in political discussions and spread far-right rhetoric while maintaining a sheen of democratic legitimacy and at the same time employ extremist tactics generally considered outside the realm of legitimate political discourse, such as threatening and harassing the Muslim “Other.”

In the following, we will present a number of empirical examples describing the aftermath of one of Paludan’s many demonstrations in Nørrebro, a densely populated and ethnically diverse inner-city area of Copenhagen.

Protection of whom and why? Processes of radicalization and racialization

If someone chooses to stand outside your front door and shout whore, black bastard and asks your son how often his father fucks him in the ass, while speaking African with monkey sounds. And if that person then asks your wife and daughter to go back to their darkie homeland where they worked at the cheap and filthy brothel for pennies. . . . Then, as an ordinary law-abiding citizen, you expect the police to remove the idiot, not to protect him so he can feel safe as he defames and mocks you, your neighbors, and the children, wife and family you hold dear. (Mørck & Aiche, in press; A father talking to Wael Aiche. The quote is translated from Arabic.)

Mørck and Aiche (in press) analyze how Paludan’s “demonstrations” produced double binds for both community social workers and local citizens. This particular father, who is a local citizen and refugee of Arab and Muslim background, describes his sense of injustice in terms of how it feels when Paludan, according to his party, is demonstrating his right to freedom of speech. By June 2019, the police had spent 100 million Danish kroner (almost 15 million US dollars) to protect Paludan when he was “demonstrating” his “freedom of speech” (see Kielgast & Tot, 2019)—sometimes several times a week in Nørrebro and other areas of Denmark, specifically selected due to its large population of ethnic minority residents. Apart from xenophobic hate speech, Paludan and his supporters also burned copies of the Quran to provoke local Muslim citizens. Despite a degree of gentrification in recent years, Nørrebro has a proud history as a working-class neighborhood. It has a left-wing stronghold in Copenhagen, internationally known for its multiethnic, vibrant, diverse, and politically engaged composition of inhabitants (Christensen, in press). Nørrebro is also known for its strong local communities, where community social workers, who grew up and live in the same neighborhood, have been able to mediate and stop the violence in times of rioting and civil unrest (Mørck, 2011). Paludan can be seen as a figure representing an extremist far-right ideology. His party is based on what he calls ethnonationalist utilitarianism, which has two main pillars: an identity pillar, which focuses on the protection of a homogeneous Danish society; and a libertarian pillar, with a radical ideology of upholding and protecting the freedom and rights of individuals. This ideology is primarily aimed at keeping Denmark for the “real Danes” and making sure Muslims and other foreigners are excluded from the nation. On the party’s website, immigrants are described as “foreign enemies” in the country, who “hate Denmark and the Danes. They are usually also criminals” (see Stram Kurs, n.d.).

Twenty years ago, this harsh rhetoric and related political ideology would have been seen as a manifestation of a marginal and extremist political segment in Danish society. However, it is noteworthy that Paludan and other radical far-right parties are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream political landscape. What would have been termed radicalized and extremist thinking and actions, such as burning books and Holy Scriptures, are now protected and safeguarded by the state, police, and local authorities. In this way, we can observe broader deglobalizing tendencies in a shift towards a normalization of both the far and the extreme right as part of broader racialized ideologies (Teo, 2020). This can also be linked to a wider discussion of the clash between the principles of freedom of speech, based on an ultra-libertarian ideology, and of protecting the rights of religious minorities and preventing discrimination.

The potentially “radicalized” politician

This clash of principles becomes evident if we examine the case of, Elif Demir Gökce, a female politician with a Turkish minority background who identifies as a practicing Muslim—as outwardly manifested by her wearing a headscarf. Gökce is an elected member of a municipal council close to Copenhagen, until recently representing a mainstream political party in Denmark, the Danish Social Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre). In January 2022, she participated in a radio program where the topic of discussion was whether the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad, that were the source of global controversy following their publication in a Danish newspaper in 2005, should be a mandatory part of the curriculum in Danish public schools. In this debate, Gökce questioned whether Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov, who in 2020 killed the teacher Samuel Paty (who used the drawings in lessons), was in fact even a Muslim. This led to a media storm and had dire consequences for Gökce, who was accused of supporting a radicalized agenda in questioning the killer’s motives and religiosity. The leader of the Danish Social Liberal Party had a talk with her and publicly declared that Gökce’s statements went against the party line. Gökce eventually left the party.

If we juxtapose this case with that of Paludan, it is possible to see that the underlying themes are linked to freedom of expression and the question of to whom this right is given and protected. In Paludan’s case, freedom of expression is upheld through police protection, while in Gökce’s case, it is curtailed and controlled. It is not legitimate or possible to question whether or not the motives of a terrorist are religious. Maybe this is even more difficult and problematic if the one questioning this is herself a Muslim? This also suggests how the different positions—what is considered legitimate and what is seen as too extreme—are linked to power relations, privilege, and racialization. Whereas Paludan represents the position of a majoritized white man, Göcke represents the position of a religiously and ethnically minoritized woman. Both are politicians, but the way they are given the necessary space and protection of their right to speak and act is quite different—moreover, there are vast differences in terms of how these words and actions are or are not linked to potential radicalization. On the one hand, the right to burn and desecrate religious symbols such as the Quran is legitimate, as it is seen as a sign of freedom of expression. On the other hand, stating your opinion as to whether the radicalized killer, Anzorov, is a Muslim places Göcke in a difficult position as her loyalty to her party (and nation) and her possible support for extremist views and actions are questioned.

Double binds, racialization, and dehumanization

This clash, which can also be understood as a double bind, is connected to what the father expresses in the quote after Paludan’s demonstration. In the case of the father, we can identify a metamessage based on the combination of messages he receives from Paludan and the police. This metamessage is that he, his family, and other Muslim minorities are seen as less than human, as subhuman—below the law—and not worthy of protection. However, Paludan, even though he is the one verbally assaulting the father and his family just outside their home, is the one being protected by the police. On another level, it is also an expression of a double bind in regard to the father’s possibilities of reacting to the situation, as per Laing’s (1967) checkmate position. If he had reacted with anger or had protested, he would have risked reproducing and affirming the attacks hurled at him—being seen as aggressive, a nuisance to society, and a dangerous foreign element that needs to be extracted from Denmark. His possibilities for resisting the dehumanizing attack were thus quite limited. The same can in some ways be said in regard to Gökce, who, after being heavily criticized and reprimanded for her statement, decided to leave the Danish Social Liberal Party. In her statement upon leaving the party, she made it clear that she was exercising her freedom of speech:

You do not need to agree with me. But I, like anyone else, have the right to express myself freely. I do not want to feel whipped into submission by either politicians, the media or other ideological figures who do not wish to listen, but who instead want to smother me with their prejudices. (Demir Gökce, 2022)

The double bind that both the father and Gökce experienced is connected to broader deglobalizing processes of racialized nationalist and Islamophobic tendencies, influencing questions such as whose rights are being protected, who is being silenced, and who is given the space for freedom of speech and expression.

Paludan is practicing the most common form of racism—a form of racialization that Hage (2010) describes as negative interpellation. Here, the racialized person is hailed (interpellated), made visible, and is associated with negative attributes such as “lazy, dirty, thief, social problem, etc.” (Hage, 2010, p. 122). The racialized subject then has to fight for valorization and “recognition”—as seen in the father’s response to Paludan, and in Gökce’s reponse to the media. Like Laing’s and Bateson’s conceptualizations of double bind, Hage’s (2010) concept of racialized mis-interpellation underscores the affective dimension at stake when the persons who racialize you or block your right to speak up or protest are part of your own community:

mis-interpellation, is a racism of a different order, for it is a drama in two acts: in the first instance the racialized person is interpellated as belonging to a collectivity “like everybody else.” [They are] hailed by the cultural group or the nation, or even by modernity which claims to be addressing “everyone.” And the yet-to-be-racialized person believes that the hailing is for “everyone” and answers the call thinking that there is a place for [them] awaiting to be occupied. Yet, no sooner do they answer the call and claim their spot than the symbolic order brutally reminds them that they are not part of everyone: “No, I wasn’t talking to you. Piss off. You are not part of us.” (Hage, 2010, p. 122)

With the concept of mis-interpellation, Hage conceptualizes the affective differences between racialization as negative interpellation and the double bind of feeling recognized as part of a community and then, shortly after, getting the message that you are “not one of us” after all. The mis-interpellation affects Gökce, who had to leave the party she belonged to—a party which at the same time profiles itself as fighting for inclusive policies for refugees and immigrants and for freedom of speech. As an elected politician, Gökce had been an active part of the party community for several years; nevertheless, a single statement on the radio resulted in the metamessages that “you are not part of us” and that “you as a Muslim do not have the same rights as others” to critically discuss issues concerning terrorism. Whereas the father and his family could not simply leave their home, she could leave the party, but doing so had consequences for her career.

Mis-interpellation also hails the minoritized Nørrebro fathers and children in continuing processes of double binds where they, on one hand, experience being part of the local community, but on the other hand feel deeply alienated and dehumanized in the very same community because Paludan is allowed to demonstrate, escorted by local social workers and protected by the police.⁴

This concept of (mis-)interpellation can help us understand the psychology of deglobalization, and how it is affecting, dehumanizing, and producing psychological double binds amongst specific marginalized people—subjects who are interpellated as not belonging to their own communities, as not being legitimate and accepted members of the Danish society and nation, based on presumptions of their potentially dangerous “non-Western” foreignness and Muslimness. We argue that one of the psychological outcomes of this continual double bind is dehumanization, which is connected to a form of subhumanization. Teo (2020) has illustrated how racialized migrants’ “subhuman status allows them to be understood as criminals, degenerates, and even parasites, which are infesting the orderly body of the nation” (p. 132).

Collective action and rehumanization

It was complete chaos down there, so I thought, I will just go down and take a look, but the police were driving around, it was just like “a game of cat and mouse”—the boys, the young people and the radical left-wing activists [Autonome in Danish] were throwing things, and the police drove around the street in their big vans and tried to chase the boys inside the courtyard. It was completely absurd . . . they beat them with truncheons. (Interview with a local social worker)

The social worker is describing the “chaos” that erupted just after Paludan had left the main square in Nørrebro after “demonstrating” on April 14, 2019. The police were trying to control the riotous aftermath by chasing various groups of people, who reacted with anger and frustration to Paludan’s “demonstration.” Applying a relational perspective on processes of radicalization inspired by the work of Gramsci and Marx, the potential radicalization at play in this chaotic situation can be understood as an outcome of predominantly nonviolent protest campaigns, with violence emerging during interactions between a social movement and its opponents (della Porta, 2018, p. 463). These processes, which on a superficial level might seem to be an expression of radicalized marginalized youth, must be understood as interlinked with complex processes of racialization and dehumanization, creating situations of chaos and double bind that make it difficult for the implicated people to resist in meaningful and accepted ways.

So how did the individual and collective subjectivities in Nørrebro respond when Paludan repeatedly returned to “demonstrate” in their neighborhood? Mørck and Aiche (in press) analyzed how both radical leftist groups and boys and young men with ethnic minority backgrounds drew upon their sense of belonging and of being interpellated as part of the local Nørrebro community to develop more creative and nonviolent forms of resistance. Here, we draw on an expansive learning approach to understand how it is possible to move beyond double binds (Bateson, 1972/2000) via meaningful interpellations through participation and recognition (Nissen, 2012), as part of heterogeneous and counter-hegemonic boundary communities (Filc, 2021; Mørck, 2011). A local social worker observed as a group of young men lined up their cars and took turns honking their horns so that no one could hear what Paludan was shouting. He also photographed some young boys who continued playing soccer on the main square despite Paludan’s efforts to get their attention from his position in the middle of the same square (Mørck & Aiche, in press). We also know of a local group of fathers who, when they learned of Paludan’s intentions to visit the neighborhood again, sought out the local youth in advance in order to prevent an angry or violent response. In the aftermath of the riots, the local community seemed to develop a common stance that if Paludan’s activities could not be curtailed, the local citizens would have to mobilize a collective sense of identity and a common goal of not taking Paludan seriously, protesting in ways that did not give him importance, such as by making visible efforts to drown out his hate speech.

della Porta (2018) writes that the local space and social resources available to particular groups influence their repertoires of action. This is relevant in regard to understanding the possibilities for resisting mis-interpellation and double binds. As della Porta (2018) argues:

Forms of action are culturally constrained in both time and space. Not only are they limited by the traditions handed down from one generation of activists to the next, and crystallized in institutions (Tilly 1986), but they are also normatively constrained by what is considered to be right. Moreover, different collective actors give different meanings to the same conditions. (pp. 465–466)

It is interesting to note that existing normative discourses regarding what is right or wrong influence what can be said, done, and acted on—and thus they can also be said to influence the construction of personal and collective double binds. In all three cases—of Gökce, of the father who was verbally abused, and of the boys and young men protesting after Paludan’s demonstration—there is only limited space for resistance available as they might very quickly be seen to conform with existing normative and prejudiced understandings of minoritized Muslim citizens as inherently violent and with potentially radicalized inclinations . However, they have a possibility of strengthening their position as part of local communities, as we saw with the local citizens in Nørrebro who staged collective protests and thereby strengthened their sense of belonging to a heterogeneous local community—a community that includes both ethnically minoritized and majoritized citizens—by joining hands to resist Paludan’s demonstrations in nonviolent ways. Racialized mis-interpellation can thus be resisted through positive and collective processes of community-building practices that offer new possibilities for positive interpellation and recognition. According to Nissen (2012), interpellation involves the (repeated) processes of subjects being recognized in the collectivity and meaningfulness of the spirit of a community. In times of deglobalization, it is thus even more important to work with and develop practices that recognize and create inclusive spaces for silenced and Othered voices and bodies, such as nonviolent forms of protest that can interpellate the marginalized into boundary communities. A boundary community is a particular form of community-building practice involving people from the margins coproducing activities in and across different positions and communities (Mørck, 2011).

Collective action and interpellation in a heterogeneous community can be seen as a way of rehumanizing and reinstating the right to belong, countering the sense of powerlessness and dehumanization among ethnically minoritized citizens by nurturing their membership of a local community.

Mørck and Khawaja (2022) illustrated how access to and feelings of belonging to a community can be an important gateway to new meanings, practices, and positions, which can help move a person at risk of radicalization beyond polarization and marginalization by fostering feelings and relations of trust, hope, and belonging. This must be embraced as a way of moving from dehumanization, racialization, and double bind to rehumanization, recognition, and social justice. In our research on gang exit processes (Khawaja & Mørck, 2023; Mørck & Khawaja, 2022), we followed a former gang leader as he moved beyond severe double bind situations through religious dedication and access to participation, recognition, and belonging as part of a Muslim boundary community. As such, we have also explored boundary communities in other parts of contemporary Denmark where being Muslim is considered legitimate and ascribed positive value and where—even as a former gang member—one can transform oneself and move partially beyond the subhuman category that the intersection of (former) gang member and (now) devout Muslim often represents in the Danish context. However, it is crucial to underline that it is not possible to move beyond double binds through individual struggle, but only through collective counter-hegemonic community-building practices (Mørck, 2011; Mørck & Khawaja, 2022).

In other words, the possibilities for subjects to move beyond double binds and dehumanization depend on how they are interpellated and perhaps recognized within heterogeneous communities and whether some of the involved communities care about the feelings of injustice and understand and recognize the common cause of social justice in a nonviolent way. Do some of the people in positions of power, such as the municipality, the police, and social workers, recognize or even join and cocreate the young people’s nonviolent protests? Do they recognize such actions as a collective struggle for recognition and respect, or do they mainly regard the participants as potentially radicalized criminals—and thereby also potential terrorists—who must be arrested and/or confronted with riot shields and raised truncheons?

Conclusion

According to Bateson (2000), contexts are weaved together by many layers of messages and meanings. In this article, we have looked into such multiple layers of messages, mattering, and meaning in order to explore the psychological implications of deglobalization for specific people and groups. We have analyzed how broader deglobalization processes are manifested in the political landscape in Denmark and in local communities in urban areas such as Nørrebro, creating double binds and making certain positions and practices in relation to radicalization and ethnic/religious minorities (im)possible for specific groups and subjects. Often, the double bind is connected to or produced through a dehumanization and racialization of the Other, represented in the cases we have analyzed in this article by the Muslim minority in Denmark. They are more at risk of being seen and positioned as subhumans as they are often associated with a potential for violence, extremism, and antidemocratic values. We have juxtaposed different understandings of radicalization, describing the emergence of Jihadism intertwined with radicalization and the rise of the far-to-extreme right in Denmark, along with a theoretical understanding of radicalization as a complex and relational process that has to be understood in and across historical, social, and political contexts (della Porta, 2018).

We have also touched upon the possibilities for transformative and emancipatory interpellations through participation in nonviolent forms of protest as part of a local community in Nørrebro, constituting constructive ways of dealing with dehumanization and racialized mis-interpellation. A psychology of deglobalization must therefore examine the psychological effects of deglobalization on a local and individual level, taking into account the transformative and interpellative force of inclusive boundary communities while at the same time not losing sight of the broader, discursive structures and power relations that constrain and enable certain practices and positionalities.

As Marsella (2012) writes in regard to globalization:

If psychology is to increase its role and function in understanding globalization, then it must encourage greater multidisciplinary, multicultural, multisectoral, and multinational orientations in its training, conceptual frameworks, and practices. It is essential that psychology increase its awareness and appreciation of the complex socio-political determinants of individual and collective behavior related to the various “isms” (e.g. racism, sexism, classism). (p. 468)

The same is very much true in regard to a psychology of deglobalization. Instead of following calls to close borders by looking only inwards and focusing on the marginalization of racialized groups, discussing whether they are at risk of radicalization, we need to analyze double binds and dehumanization through a contextual and historical approach that considers broader nationally and internationally interdependent processes of deglobalization and globalization. This also requires taking a critical stance as to what psychology is and can be, for whom and for what purposes, and requires an approach that does not limit psychology but rather expands the horizons of psychological theory and methodology—as seen in this article—through a multidisciplinary approach that integrates concepts across different critical theories, such as social practice theory and decolonial theories (see Khawaja & Mørck, 2021).

In these troubled times with war in Ukraine, the combined focus on immigration, racialization, and radicalization is more relevant than ever in a Danish context. Recently, the Danish government, with the support of a large majority of the political parties in the Danish Parliament (including the center left and left-wing parties), passed a new law specific to Ukrainian refugees. This law allows for a more humanized form of integration of Ukrainian refugees in local communities in Denmark based on principles of agency and dignity, allowing refugees to live in private homes and be part of local schools, kindergartens, and workplaces from the day they arrive. At the same time, however, this law racializes Muslim and “non-Western” refugees, who are not given the same rights. The new “inclusive” Danish refugee policies create new double binds and double standards, for example producing a racialized discourse of foreign or freedom fighters (and radicalization) in regard to Danish citizens joining the war.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The authors received financial support for the research and publication of this article from VELUX FONDEN (project: 30494).

ORCID iD

Line Lerche Mørck

Notes

Author biographies

Iram Khawaja is associate professor in educational psychology at the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University. Her research focuses on religiosity, community, and belonging amongst Muslim children and youth; inclusion, marginalization, and diversity in processes of radicalization; and processes of othering and racialization in education. She is currently leading the project Educational Experiences of Racialized Differentiation in Danish High Schools and is part of the project Affective Investments in Diversity Work in STEM at Danish Universities. Recent publications include: (with L. L. Mørck), “Transmethodological Mo(ve)ments—Creating a Third Space for Emancipatory Research” in Outlines—Critical Practice Studies (2022).

Tina Wilchen Christensen is postdoctoral researcher at the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University. Her research focuses on radicalisation and disengagement with a particular focus on exit processes, reintegration, and individuals’ development of an alternative identity than that of a violent extremist. Christensen’s Ph.D. thesis, “A Question of Participation—Disengagement From the Extremist Right. A Case Study From Sweden,” investigates the significance of mentoring for former right-wing extremists in a process of leaving the extreme right with the support of an exit program. Recent publications include: “Civil Actors Role in Deradicalization and Disengagement Initiatives: When Trust is Essential” in S. Jarle Hansen & S. Lid (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Deradicalisation and Disengagement (Routledge, 2020).

Line Lerche Mørck is a professor with special responsibilities in major identity formation, expansive learning, and belonging—movement beyond gang involvement and radicalization at The Danish School of Education, Aarhus University. Since 2006, she has developed a boundary community theory analyzing how heterogenic and inclusive communities can be coproduced with people and communities from the margins, such as former gang members. She is leader of the research project “Practices of bridging and building communities.” In co-operation with Iram Khawaja, Tina Wilchen Christensen, and others she has researched mo(ve)ments in and across the (biker) gang community and extreme groups. Recent publications include: “New Standards for Social Practice Ethics? Researching Processes of Gang Exit With Former Gang Members,” in D. C. Brotherton & R. J. Gude (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Critical Gang Studies (Routledge, 2021) and (with K. A. Hartvig & C. G. Bildstedfelt), “New Meanings, New Communities, and New Identities? Former Biker Gang Members Involved in Public Sharing of Life Experiences” in C. Melde & F. Weerman (Eds.), Gangs in the Era of Internet and Social Media (Springer, 2020).

References

Abbas

(2007). Muslim minorities in Britain: Integration, multiculturalism and radicalism in the post-7/7 period. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 28(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256860701429717

Arce

Suárez-Krabbe

(2018). Racism, global apartheid and disobedient mobilities: The politics of detention and deportation in Europe and Denmark. KULT. Postkolonial Temaserie, 15, 107–127. http://postkolonial.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/11_Julia-og-Jose_We-are-here-because-you-were-there_final.pdf

Bateson

(2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1972)

Bateson

Jackson

D. D.

Haley

Weakland

(1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1(4), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830010402

Bateson

Jackson

D. D.

Haley

Weakland

J. H.

(1963). A note on the double bind — 1962. Family Process, 2(1), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1963.00154.x

Billig

(2023). The national nature of globalization and the global nature of nationalism: Historically and methodologically entangled. Theory & Psychology, 33(X), XXX–XXX. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221122474

Christensen

T. W.

(in press). “When it is said that the police beat people with batons you think; it can’t be true, and all of a sudden you see it”: The becoming of a violent left-wing extremist. In Edling

Rostami

(Eds.), Violent extremism: A Nordic outlook. Lexington Books.

Christensen

T. W.

Mørck

L. L.

(2017). Bevægelser i og på tværs af ekstreme grupper og bande- og rockermiljøet: En kritisk undersøgelse og diskussion af “Cross-over” [Movements in and across extreme groups, gangs and outlaw motorcycle gangs: A critical examination and discussion of “cross-over”]. Aarhus University. https://dpu.au.dk/fileadmin/edu/Udgivelser/E-boeger/Ebog_-_Bevaegelser_i_og_paa_tvaers_af_ekstreme_grupper.pdf

Dalal

(2006). Racism: Processes of detachment, dehumanization, and hatred. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 75(1), 131–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2167-4086.2006.tb00035.x

10.

de Ruiter

. (2021). To be or not to be human: Resolving the paradox of dehumanisation. European Journal of Political Theory. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885120984605

11.

della Porta

. (1995). Social movements, political violence, and the state: A comparative analysis of Italy and Germany. Cambridge University Press.

12.

della Porta

. (2018). Radicalization: A relational perspective. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042716-102314

13.

Demir Gökce

. (2022, January 31). Den seneste uge har der vaeret en voldsom debat vedrørende mine udtalelser i radio 24syv. Emnet som startede med min helt [In the past week, there has been a fierce debate regarding my statements on radio 24syv. The topic that started with my own] [Status update]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10160112923592509&id=545052508

14.

Det Nationale Integrationsbarometer. (n.d.). Statistiske definitioner [Statistical definitions]. Udlaendinge-og Integrationsministeriet. Retrieved October, 2022, from https://integrationsbarometer.dk/om-integrationsbarometeret/statistiske-definitioner

15.

Diaz

Zirkel

(2012). Globalization, psychology, and social issues research: An introduction and conceptual framework. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01757.x

16.

Eftimie

(2017). Challenges for education-from globalization to deglobalization. Jus et Civitas-A Journal of Social and Legal Studies (former Buletinul Universităț ii Petrol Gaze din Ploiești, Seria Științe Socio-Umane și Juridice), 68(2), 21–28. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/juseciv2017&id=126&men_tab=srchresults

17.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (n.d.). Hate crime recording and data collection practice across the EU. Justice. Retrieved October, 2022, from https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-hate-crime-recording_en.pdf

18.

Filc

(2021). Is resistance always counter-hegemonic? Journal of Political Ideologies, 26(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2020.1825281

19.

Giner-Sorolla

Leidner

Castano

(2012). Dehumanization, demonization, and morality shifting: Paths to moral certainty in extremist violence. In Hogg

M. A.

Blaylock

D. L.

(Eds.), Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty (pp. 165–182). Wiley-Blackwell.

20.

Hage

(2010). The affective politics of racial mis-interpellation. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(7–8), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276410383713

21.

Hassani

(2020). Islamophobia in Denmark: National report 2020. Leopold Weiss Institute. https://www.ceda.nu/_files/ugd/198d48_df6913d6f2f34e429b3b9bdd668846a7.pdf

22.

Heitmeyer

(1992). Rechtsextremistische Orientierungen bei Jugendlichen: Empirische Ergebnisse und Erklärungsmuster einer Untersuchung zur politischen Sozialisation [Right-wing extremist orientations among young people: Empirical results and explanatory patters of a study on political socialization]. Juventa.

23.

Hervik

(2015). “Race”, racialisering, racisme og nyracisme [“Race,” racialization, racism and new-racism]. Dansk Sociologi, 26(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.22439/dansoc.v26i1.4991

24.

Hund

W. D.

(2020). Dehumanization and social death as fundamentals of racism. In Kronfeldner

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of dehumanization (pp. 229–244). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429492464

25.

James

(2018). Deglobalization: The rise of disembedded unilateralism. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 10, 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-110217-022625

26.

Khawaja

Mørck

L. L.

(2021). Transmethodological mo(ve)ments: Creating a third space for emancipatory research. Outlines. Critical Practice Studies, 22, 265–303. https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/issue/view/9155

27.

Kielgast

Tot

(2019). Naser Khader: Paludan skal komme videre—vi har forstået pointen [Naser Khader: Paludan should get on with it—we have understood his point]. DR News. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/naser-khader-paludan-skal-komme-videre-vi-har-forstaaet-pointen

28.

Laing

R. D.

(1967). The politics of experience, and the bird of paradise. Penguin.

29.

Lindekilde

(2014). Refocusing Danish counter-radicalisation efforts: An analysis of the (problematic) logic and practice of individual de-radicalisation interventions. In Baker-Beall

Heath-Kelly

Jarvis

(Eds.), Counter-radicalisation: Critical perspectives (pp. 223–241). Routledge.

30.

Marsella

(2012). Psychology and globalization: Understanding a complex relationship. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 454–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01758.x

31.

Melluish

(2014). Globalization, culture and psychology. International Review of Psychiatry, 26(5), 538–543. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2014.918873

32.

Milgram

(1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525

33.

Mørck

L. L.

(2011). Studying empowerment in a socially and ethnically diverse social work community in Copenhagen, Denmark. Ethos, 39(1), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1352.2010.01174.x

34.

Mørck

L. L.

Aiche

A. W.

(in press). Preventive social work and collective transformative agency: Preventing riots in the wake of Rasmus Paludan’s burning of the Quran. In Edling

Rostami

(Eds.), Violent extremism: A Nordic outlook. Lexington Books.

35.

Mørck

L. L.

Khawaja

(2022). Learning to be a good Muslim: Movements beyond gang engagement and radicalization. In França

Gomes

Kousholt

Lave

Mørck

L. L.

(Eds.), Generating differentiated equality—A situated learning for our times [Manuscript in preparation]. School of Education, Aarhus University, Denmark.

36.

Morris

M. W.

Mok

Mor

(2011). Cultural identity threat: The role of cultural identifications in moderating closure responses to foreign cultural inflow. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 760–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01726.x

37.

Munn

(2019). Alt-right pipeline: Individual journeys to extremism online. First Monday, 24(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i6.10108

38.

Muro

(2017). What does radicalisation look like? Four visualisations of socialisation into violent extremism. CIDOB. https://www.cidob.org/publicaciones/serie_de_publicacion/notes_internacionals_cidob/n1_163/what_does_radicalisation_look_like_four_visualisations_of_socialisation_into_violent_extremism

39.

Nissen

(2012). The subjectivity of participation: Articulating social work practice with youth in Copenhagen. Palgrave Macmillan.

40.

Ozer

Bertelsen

(2019). Countering radicalization: An empirical examination from a life psychological perspective. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25(3), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000394

41.

Razack

S. H.

(2004). Imperilled Muslim women, dangerous Muslim men and civilised Europeans: Legal and social responses to forced marriages. Feminist Legal Studies, 12, 129–174. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FEST.0000043305.66172.92

42.

Schmid

A. P.

(2013). Radicalisation, de-radicalisation, counter-radicalisation: A conceptual discussion and literature review. http://www.icct.nl/app/uploads/download/file/ICCT-Schmid-Radicalisation-De-Radicalisation-Counter-Radicalisation-March-2013.pdf

43.

Silva

D. M. D.

Deflem

(2020). Introduction: Deciphering (counter-)radicalization. In Silva

D. M. D.

Deflem

(Eds.), Radicalization and counter-radicalization (pp. 1–8). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-613620200000025021

44.

Smith

D. L.

(2012). Less than human: Why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others. St. Martin’s Press.

45.

Stram Kurs. (n.d.). Retsvaesen [The legal system]. Retrieved October, 2022, from https://stramkurs.dk/vores-politik/retsvaesen/

46.

Teo

(2020). Subhumanism: The re-emergence of an affective-symbolic ontology in the migration debate and beyond. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 50(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12237

47.

Teo

(2023). In the aftermath of globalization: Antiglobalizing and deglobalizing forms of subjectivity. Theory & Psychology, 33(2), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543221131507

48.

Veldhuis

Staun

(2009). Islamist radicalisation: A root cause model. Netherlands Institute of International Relations. https://www.diis.dk/files/media/publications/import/islamist_radicalisation.veldhuis_and_staun.pdf

49.

Wynter

(2006). On how we mistook the map for the territory and re-imprisoned ourselves in our unbearable wrongness of being, of désêtre: Black studies toward the human project. In Gordon

L. R.

Gordon

J. A.

(Eds.), Not only the master’s tools: African American studies in theory and practice (pp. 107–169). Paradigm.

50.

Younis

(2021). The psychologisation of counter-extremism: Unpacking PREVENT. Race & Class, 62(3), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396820951055

51.

Zimbardo

P. G.

Haney

Banks

W. C.

Jaffe

(1971). The Stanford prison experiment. https://web.stanford.edu/dept/spec_coll/uarch/exhibits/spe/Narration.pdf

Dehumanization and a psychology of deglobalization: Double binds and movements beyond radicalization and racialized mis-interpellation

Abstract

Keywords

Empirical point of departure: The fields of radicalization and in/exclusion of ethnic minorities

Theoretical point of departure—An interdisciplinary framework

Deglobalizing tendencies in Denmark

Protection of whom and why? Processes of radicalization and racialization

The potentially “radicalized” politician

Double binds, racialization, and dehumanization

Collective action and rehumanization

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author biographies

References