Dissecting the politics of hate 

Words: Sarah-Isabella Gunst (She/Her) 

With the rampant rise of media polarisation, outrageous figures who reinforce political binaries, and the insurgence of fabricated realities – hate has infiltrated political discourse. We need unity now more than ever. How can we resist the allure of hateful identity politics that seek to blame others for our perceived insecurities? By exploring between the lines of strategic polarisation, we can combat the ironic unity of hate. We must acknowledge how hate is profitable, and thrives in socially insecure environments. 

Fascism: Bold. Massive. Socially dividing. The Austrian far-right populist FPÖ (Freedom for Austria Party) notoriously has an ongoing history of outspoken Islamophobia, perpetrating hateful stances against migrants and fascist ideologies. A 2024 electoral campaign poster depicts an enlarged photo of the party leader, Herbert Kickl. The penetrating text on the poster: ‘The only one on your side’. Two strategies are at play: 

1. Direct appeal towards the (insecure) individual 
2. Assumption that there is an identified ‘enemy’ responsible for the individuals’ problems 

Scapegoating: the fabrication of the “other”, a political tactic that has brought decades of oppressive political success. 

I define those who capitalise on hate as “tyrants”. Why do tyrants operate through oppressing others, destructing relations, and harvesting distrust among people? Frustration is turned into distrust and hate towards the “other”: redirecting attention from the tyrant’s irresponsible actions that caused the initial psychological distress. Additionally, hate can be fabricated for cash. For provocative media presences like Ben Shapiro, hate proves indefinitely profitable. 

A polarised society is a breeding ground for desensitisation and dehumanisation. Tyrants successfully capitalise off social insecurity by allowing the public to consume themselves with deconstructive forms of hate. Remember, we are less likely to retaliate when occupied with meaningless conflict. 

The power of hate is, paradoxically, entrenched in its ability to superficially unite people. It is an emotion that simultaneously drives division and unity. 

The prevalence of polarised groups demonstrates the inherent human need for connection and understanding. This can be explained by the Social Identity Theory by Henri Tajfel and others. It assumes we have an individual and social self, and that our self-esteem is derived from our social group membership. Membership is achieved through social identification with the group: ‘in-group’, and self-esteem derived through comparison towards other social groups: ‘out-groups’. Prejudice towards the “other” is produced by ‘in-group’ bias: believing your social group is superior to the ‘out-group’. 

Social identification reliant on mutual hate contributes to political criminalisation. The fear of normalised crime forces people into conditions of deprivation and exacerbates the hostile social conditions in which crime is born. 

This phenomenon is highlighted by the notorious South Cali gang, the Crips: formerly a group of political resistance against systemic racism in the United States. The label of criminality placed upon them worked to subordinate the voices of young Black men and deprive them of cultural capital to perpetuate existing power relations. Before long, ‘criminal and antisocial’ activity became a social reality as members began to internalise the marginalising labels while deprived of the environment to flourish through productive activism. Ultimately creating a circular model of crime. 

Politicising crime is profitable, easy, and successful – when properly marketed. You start to see various videos of people discussing bad posture, its aesthetic deficiencies, and potential health deficiencies. You weren’t previously aware of the “ideal” posture but you start to question yours and whether it is the reason you lack confidence. An insecurity is nurtured within you as you’re peppered by videos addressing the same problem – it appears you’re not the only one struggling with this. Later, you see a video of a weighted hoop that can solve all your fabricated insecurities for only £10.99! 

Let’s apply this framework to the politicisation of crime. Increased exposure to sensationalist criminal media (particularly during electoral campaigns) depicts crime as a normalised threat. Hateful identity politics uses this opportunity to frame a social group as a scapegoat. An illusory correlation between stereotyped profiles and antisocial attributes is painted upon the public psyche. The insecurity must originate from somewhere, so when politicians point fingers at the “problem” they appear both knowledgeable of the threat and capable of providing protection. This is especially effective if the target group has experienced former stigmatisation, which is why the narrative of the “criminal” immigrant is contemporarily so effective. 

So what can we do? If political support depends on manufacturing hateful identity politics, we must refuse to invest energy. Their support requires our misguided insecurity. Part of challenging those who seek to divide and foster hate is to acknowledge that we can’t assume anything of other people, unless we listen to THEIR stories. We need to humanise a political process that is dependent on extreme dehumanisation: look between the lines of hateful political propaganda and evaluate its purpose. 

As my favourite artist once beautifully said: let’s create, solve, love, accomplish, and unify.