he intensity of nationalism in a given society can thus be measured through a

number of indicators, such as latent or structural factors, exclusionary citizenship,

socio-economic marginalization, and more virulent and immediate factors
including media discourses, support for nationalist parties and violence against
particular groups (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Dynamics of nationalism

Display full size

Virulent exclusionary nationalism does not emerge out of the blue, but rather it
requires a series of factors to align. First, while nationalism might be a latent
feature of a given society and the level of exclusion might very, this in itself does
not trigger virulent exclusionary nationalism that dominates political discourse,
elections and policy. For nationalism to become virulent, a critical juncture is
required, a particular moment of crisis. Thus, virulent nationalism can be best
understood as a response to indigenous or exogenous shocks to an existing
system. These shocks might be ideological, economic, institutional or social.

For such a critical juncture to occur at the global level, a global crisis is required,
such as the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War. It is thus
during this global critical juncture that we witnessed the peak of ethnic conflict
since the end of World War Two, as both ideological conflicts became infused
with ethnic contestation and new conflicts emerged. The global economic crisis in
2008 and the following year might constitute a similar critical juncture and has
been linked to such disparate phenomena as the rise of Donald Trump, the
collapse of autocracies in the Arab world in 2011 and the crisis of the EU.
The escalation from virulent to violent nationalism is best understood through the
concept of frames. These cognitive frames through which individuals interpret the
social world around them help them structure their behavior. When the ‘normal’
frame predominates, it prevents people from using violence against others. Once
the ‘crisis’ frame is brought about, the normal context is replaced by a crisis that
can facilitate the use of force (Oberschall, 2000). This switch of frames is brought
about through the use of symbols and historical memories, evoking fear of the
other, usually through an elite promoting this environment or through a mass
movement (Kaufman, 2001).

The idea of a homogenous group, confronted by outsiders, who merit exclusion,

interlinks with broad authoritarian and populist trends. Next to media reports
about a global rise of nationalism, the ‘populist explosion’ (Judis, 2016) and the
global decline of democracy (Puddington, 2017) have been key themes in global
reporting. Authoritarianism, populism and nationalism are interlinked, yet distinct
phenomena.