Extremism, conformity, and the problem of law

How the law can (attempt to) regulate extremism, but it can really do nothing about conformism.

*

Let us start with this thought-provoking passage:

When I visited Auschwitz many years ago, someone in our group said that this is what happens when extremism flourishes.

Our tour guide replied:

“This place is not explained by extremism. It is explained by conformity.”

*

That exchange was in a recent post by Ian Dunt, which you can read here.

*

The state can have a good go at regulating extremism.

The state can seek to define it, for definitions are often the starting point for law and policy.

In the United Kingdom we have the following official definition of extremism:

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

(1) negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or

(2) undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracyand democratic rights; or

(3) intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

The types of behaviour below are indicative of the kind of promotion or advancement which may be relevant to the definition, and are an important guide to its application. The further context below is also an essential part of the definition.

If you look at the government’s webpage, you will see that this definition even has footnotes:

A definition with its own footnotes that define terms within the definition: this is serious stuff.

*

The term “extremism” is even used in statutes and statutory instruments:

And once you have a term defined officially, and used widely in legal instruments, you can do legal and policy things in respect of that term:

And so we have things like the Prevent Strategy which seeks to stop extremism becoming terrorism:

And we have Crown Prosecution Service guidance which refers to extremism:

And so on.

Extremism is a bureaucratic category and, as such, a government can have laws and policies that deal seek to deal with it.

Those laws and policies may have limited or no effect, or indeed counter-productive effects, but at least the state can have a good go at addressing extremism.

*

Now let us turn from extremism to conformity - the thing which the passage quoted at the head of this post warned us against:

When I visited Auschwitz many years ago, someone in our group said that this is what happens when extremism flourishes.

Our tour guide replied:

“This place is not explained by extremism. It is explained by conformity.”

What can law and policy do about conformity?

*

There is perhaps nothing the law can do to counter conformity.

This is because - maybe literally, maybe logically - the law actually requires conformity.

Maybe a law against conformity is even a contradiction-in-terms, if you think about it.

One premise of law is that, well, people comply with it.

A law which sought to counter conformity would no doubt be rather self-defeating.

*

The same can be said about policy: again one point about policy is that officials and the public are supposed to abide by it.

Policy, in general terms, provides what officials and the public should and should not do in certain situations. There may be exceptions in specific circumstances, but policy provides the general thrust of public action.

And on this basis, a policy against conformity is perhaps also a contradiction-in-terms, if you think about it.

*

There is probably nothing law and policy can do to counter the threat of conformity.

Indeed, once illiberals and authoritarians have public power, and so can determine law and policy, conformity will reinforce illiberalism and authoritarianism.

And, as and when illiberalism and authoritarianism slide into extremism, then conformity will reinforce that extremism.

*

The problem of conformity cannot thereby be solved by law and policy.

The danger needs to be addressed by other means.

And that other means is, of course, politics.

One may not be able to have a law or a policy against conformity, but one can certainly be politically opposed to it - to campaign and vote or otherwise mobilise against extremists who want to take control of the state.

And this includes resisting the temptation to conform - that is to nod-along with what is happening.

There are always extremists.

But what gives them power is not the appeal of their extremism, but the comfort others have in conformity.

*

When I visited Auschwitz many years ago, someone in our group said that this is what happens when extremism flourishes.

Our tour guide replied:

“This place is not explained by extremism. It is explained by conformity.”

*