Threat analyses

The sociologist Peter Imbusch on the increasing threat and violence against public figures.

Mr Imbusch, together with your colleague Joris Steg, you have published a book entitled 'Threat Analyses', in which you address the current hot topic of attacks on politicians, journalists, emergency services and teachers. How did you come to do this?

Peter Imbusch: In recent years, threats and violence against politicians and other public figures have attracted increasing media and academic attention. This led us to carry out a small study ourselves on the situation of local politicians in the Bergisch city-triangle, which confirmed the major trend of an increase in threats and violence, with a few exceptions. However, when we looked more closely at the issue, we quickly realised that it is not only politicians who are affected by threats and violence, but also other public figures, such as journalists, the police, fire and rescue services, teachers and scientists, doctors and medical professionals. With this book, we wanted to bring together the previous, often disparate results and find out more precisely what the threat situation is really like. It was actually classic scientific curiosity that drove us to write the book.

You also talk about the threat to democracy in the subtitle. Can you explain that?

Peter Imbusch: No matter how you feel about the above-mentioned groups of people, you can't deny that they fulfil eminently important functions for our community, which are essential for prosperous coexistence and a vibrant democracy. If, for example, politicians are threatened, they may become less involved in political committees, engage in political disputes less openly or withdraw from politics altogether. The negative effect on political newcomers is also devastating if, for example, new MPs have to expect to be attacked or threatened (along with their staff and families). Our liberal democracy thrives on the political engagement of as many citizens as possible and on discursive debate about the best argument. Threats and violence not only destroy the foundations of democracy as a form of order, but also as a way of life that we all value. Something similar could be shown for the other groups under threat. Liberal and pluralist democracies certainly thrive on political conflict and political parties also thrive on opposition, but violence cannot be a means of political debate and discursive negotiation of interests, nor should opposition and competition be misunderstood as enmity and violent conflict.

The attacks are also directed at teachers in schools and universities. Just in the last few days there was another sad example from Essen. Which institutions are offering help?

Peter Imbusch: This is indeed a major problem. Broadly speaking, there are two perspectives: For some of the professional groups, the relevant professional associations have now drawn up special and specific handouts for the self-protection of individuals with corresponding precautionary measures in view of the ongoing threat situation. These would then have to be implemented in the respective institutions. For a few of the groups of people, however, there are also superordinate reporting centres and portals that offer help. In our book, we therefore also deal in detail with the question of what can be done to counter threats and violence. Sometimes going to the police is mandatory, but in many cases of threats and violence, this is not often done. There is still a great deal of darkness.

What are the social causes and backgrounds of the increasing threats to public figures?

Peter Imbusch: Violence and threats against members of the public are clearly a social phenomenon that can only be inadequately analysed by looking at individual cases and attributing them to specific perpetrators. Despite the sometimes seemingly disparate events, there appear to be common causes and backgrounds for the increasing threat to public figures. Roughly speaking, the hostility, aggression and attacks result from various socio-economic (e.g. crises, conflicts, social inequality), political and cultural (e.g. the rise of right-wing populism, authoritarianism and nationalism, angry protests, political alienation and declining trust in institutions) and media aspects (e.g. the way in which the media works and functions).These should not be viewed in isolation from each other, as they connect, overlap, influence and reinforce each other. For individual professional groups, there are also individual, accidental, situational and profession-specific reasons and motives for threats and violence. Increasing violence against public figures is therefore a complex social phenomenon that defies simple linear cause-and-effect relationships. Violence against public figures does not occur in a vacuum. Only when we look at these aspects together do we see the de-regulation, de-structuring and disinhibition in society that make the phenomenon of the social causes and backgrounds of the increasing violence against public groups of people understandable.

How strong is the threat and violence from the right in this context?

Peter Imbusch: If we look at the groups of perpetrators, then of course we have to say that they are heterogeneous and not uniform - that would be strange for such different social groups. Nevertheless, there are patterns for the individual groups of people under threat: Politicians, for example, are quite predominantly attacked by far-right or right-wing populist forces - although the AfD and similar parties always insinuate the opposite and like to portray themselves as the biggest victim. The same applies to journalists, who in recent years have mainly been the victims of right-wing groups, angry citizens and lateral thinkers. The police, fire brigade and emergency services have to deal with a more diffuse group of perpetrators. And in the case of doctors and hospital staff, it is usually the patients themselves or their relatives who cause trouble. The question will probably have to be answered according to the specific professional group and situation. However, if you look at the police crime statistics, the majority of politically motivated crime clearly comes from the right; these forms of violence have also increased the most in recent years. The danger here is clearly coming from the right-wing fringe of society!

You write about empirical studies that have analysed areas of threat and reconstructed perpetrator structures. Where do potential perpetrators come from?

Peter Imbusch: That's not so easy to say in general terms. We have identified different groups of perpetrators in the book. The empirical studies to date have mainly focussed on the incidents of violence themselves and their frequency, and possibly also on possible countermeasures. Firstly, they show who is affected by threats and violence, how and to what extent. The focus is rightly on the victims. Only a few studies leave out the possible perpetrators. And when they do - for example by interviewing and interviewing the victims - then the incomplete picture of the threat situation described above emerges. Sometimes the perpetrators also act out of anonymity; sometimes they cannot be caught. There are many problems. In addition, only a fraction of threats and incidents of violence against public figures are ever reported to the police and thus brought to justice. The reasons for this are again complex - and a problem in themselves.

What options for action or counter-strategies are there and who formulates them?

Peter Imbusch: Unfortunately, options for action against violence and threats only ever have a limited effect. This is one of the reasons why it is so important for our liberal society that we treat each other as non-violently as possible. The groups of people affected often protect themselves by taking precautionary measures for themselves and their surroundings. This ranges from establishing security architectures to learning self-defence measures and internalising de-escalating language rules. In public authorities and offices, violent citizens are kept at a distance through structural measures or security precautions. However, there are also threatened groups for whom personal proximity is unavoidable, such as the police and emergency services, journalists, doctors and hospital staff, who simply have to carry out their work with caution and circumspection. The handouts against threats and violence come, as I said, from our own organisations, from state governments or from institutional support facilities that have specialised in such defensive measures.

You organised a conference on this topic on 6 October at the University of Wuppertal, which was dedicated to the topic of threats, attacks and violence in relation to academic freedom and freedom of the press. How dramatic do you think the situation is?

Peter Imbusch: At a superficial glance, one could react with composure. Academic freedom and freedom of the press are guaranteed by the constitution and are considered essential for a functioning democracy. But if you take a closer look, you can't help but worry: Journalists are often intimidated, obstructed in their work, threatened or violently maltreated, especially when they are investigating or taking up supposedly sensitive topics. This is not only done by right-wing groups within society, but sometimes also by the state and its organs. Germany has slipped down the rankings of press freedom in recent years. This should worry us, especially with regard to the press as the so-called 'fourth estate'. And although scientists are generally less likely to be physically attacked, we have also seen an increase in slander, threats, defamation, relativisation of unwelcome research results or even downright hostility towards science in recent years - in other words, what is commonly referred to as epistemic violence. And then there are the various cancel culture phenomena from the right and the left. If you look at the rapid recent developments in the USA or some of our neighbouring European countries, you can get scared.

We hear daily about the repression that the current American government is exerting on universities. A presentation at your conference also deals with this topic and asks: What is the situation regarding academic freedom in Germany? What do you think?

Peter Imbusch: The US government's repression of universities and other academic institutions is completely out of the question and extremely dangerous. They serve to create narrow corridors of thought and prevent any free exercise of science in favour of a certain ideology. It is also frightening to see how quickly political pressure can cause serious damage. Fortunately, we are (still) a long way from such conditions in Germany. But as far as Germany is concerned, I'd say: Stop it before it starts! Particularly in today's crisis and conflict situations with their emotionalised and heated public, one or two scientific findings are already in the doldrums or cannot be pursued further in terms of research. In Germany, too, enemies of scientific freedom have gained considerable support in recent years (in elections and in public discourse).

On the same evening, there will also be a panel discussion at 6.00 pm in the CityKirche. Let me conclude with the title of this event: Is there a brutalisation of society?

Peter Imbusch: If we look at the facts and figures, then I would speak of a brutalisation of society. On the one hand, threats and violence are generally on the rise, crises and conflicts are contributing to insecurity among citizens, social inequality is growing and trust in the state and its institutions is declining. On the other hand, there is also a brutalisation of political culture, language and communication styles that makes us insensitive to the suffering of others. As a society, we hold lofty values and high standards, but are not afraid to violate them when necessary. The level of humanity is falling - and some people then use this to become directly or indirectly violent themselves. If you take a look at the uncivilised nature of social interaction, the insults and abuse on the internet, you can quickly see escalating social protests and raw physical violence directed at fellow human beings or public figures.

Uwe Blass

Prof Dr Peter Imbusch studied sociology, political science, social and economic history and economics and completed his doctorate on the social structure analysis of Latin America. He habilitated in 2001 with a thesis on "Modernity and Violence". He has been a professor of political sociology at the University of Wuppertal since 2011.