Contributionism

Chapter 7 presents the second form of radical right support that I discerned: contributionism. This is found primarily among respondents in the (lower) middle classes, who possess more economic than cultural capital. Having made their way outside the official education system through hard work, they see their relative success as the fruit of their own efforts. Accordingly, this ideal-type is not so much characterized by the belief that one receives too little, as was the case with ‘hard-done-bys’, but rather by the conviction that one gives too much; notably through tax money—collected by politicians and the state (up there). This, in turn, is believed to be redistributed unfairly to non-natives (‘below’, e.g. Arabs, asylum seekers, Greeks), who are believed to violate the self-reliant deservingness criteria of these voters, emphasizing their own ‘disciplined selves’ (Lamont, 2000) The chapter also highlights the differences between French and Dutch ‘contributionists’ and discusses and ideal-type variant of this form of radical right support.

Inside the political supply of the radical right

This chapter empirically investigates the political supply of radical right-wing parties. Not only to make sure that the FN and the PVV are actually comparable, which is a necessary condition to justify a comparison of their voters. But also to find out whether there are differences in their political messages, which, in turn, might account for different demands within their respective constituencies. Based on a fine-grained analysis of 1,378 hand-coded tweets of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, the chapter shows which reference groups they denounce and which groups they claim to support, which issues they prioritize and how they articulate these issues. The findings indicate that the political supply of the two politicians is highly comparable. Rather than offering standardized ‘products’ to a general electorate, both radical right politicians use relatively similar forms of ‘product differentiation’ (Eatwell, 2000), by articulating the demands and identities of multiple societal groups in a nativist fashion. Importantly, both leaders do so through ‘dual closure’ (Parkin, 1979), denouncing both elites (above) and non-native out-groups (below).

The design of the study

The third chapter discusses the case selection of the study and more broadly, its research design. As the subtitle of the book already indicates, two cases are selected here: France (FN) and the Netherlands (PVV). These different cases are highly interesting as they allow pin-pointing the key differences between and similarities among types of radical right-wing voters across various national contexts, as well as improving the specificity and validity of the causal claims. In terms of the research design, the remainder of the chapter follows the same structure as the previous theory chapter, Chapter 2. Accordingly, it first discusses the data and methods used in the supply-side-oriented part of the book, which relies on a content analysis of the tweets of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders. The demand-side-related part, by contrast, relies on multiple data sources and methods. This chapter explains why a sequential mixed-methods approach is followed, using multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) to investigate the structural heterogeneity among radical right voters and life-history interviews to assess ideal-typical forms of radical right support within this structural heterogeneity.

Introduction: wholes-of-parts

Who votes for the radical right and why? In recent years, many studies have been published that try to answer this question. The aim of the introductory chapter is to situate this book in the abundant radical right literature. By doing so, it explains why and how demand-side and supply-side factors need to be taken into account, before arguing why the widespread assumption of electoral homogeneity should be questioned. Drawing on historical and contemporary evidence in the sociological and political science literature, the chapter subsequently introduces the concept of electoral equifinality, that is of key importance for the rest of the study. This section directly leads to the chapter’s final part, in which the research questions and the outline of the book are presented.

Conclusions and perspectives

This chapter presents the main conclusions of the book and connects the findings of the empirical supply-side- and demand-side-oriented parts of the study. Most importantly, it discusses the structural homology between the three-tiered discourse of Le Pen and Wilders on the one hand and the socio-political worldviews of their interviewed voters on the other. By doing so, the chapter explains how the two politicians are able to symbolically unify an agglomerate of voters with highly diverse interests, preoccupations, and preferences. The second part of the chapter, then, presents the most important perspectives for future research. It notably pleads for an electoral equifinality approach to the study of radical right support in particular and electoral behaviour more generally.

Radical conservatism

This chapter presents the third and final ideal type of radical right support I discerned: radical conservatism. The latter can mainly be found among socially well-to-do respondents, voting for the FN and PVV for ideological reasons. Contrary to the first two types, the electoral support of these interviewees is not fostered by feelings of relative deprivation, nor is it strongly shaped by socio-economic considerations or justified by moral claims. Instead, socio-cultural convictions dominate their discourse, notably denunciations of non-native out-groups (especially Muslims) who would lack the willingness to assimilate to the native majority culture. Finally, in contrast to respondents corresponding to other types of radical right support, these interviewees tend to describe themselves explicitly as conservatives and display a relatively high level of political sophistication, which, in turn, is related to their relatively high level of cultural and economic capital. The chapter also discusses an ideal-typical variant of this form of radical right support and highlights the differences between French and Dutch ‘radical conservatives’.

Hard-done-byness

This chapter presents the first form of radical right support that I discerned. The latter can be mainly be found among respondents in lower income groups suffering from intragenerational decline. Their electoral support is ultimately rooted in a specific form of relative deprivation, in which non-native out-groups (below) are perceived as unfairly privileged—notably in terms of housing, health care and welfare-state benefits given to the latter by public workers and politicians (up there). Importantly, both the comparative reference group (below) and the responsible reference group (up there) are resented by these interviewees. Relying defensively on their nationality, the ultimate resource they dispose of, Le Pen and Wilders are seen as the only politicians who would give priority to ordinary natives like themselves. The chapter also discusses ideal-typical variants of this form of radical right support and highlights the differences between French and Dutch ‘hard-done-by’ voters.

Radical right supporters in the social space

This chapter examines the structural sources of heterogeneity among radical right voters. It does so by focusing on three dimensions: whodunnit (social characteristics), whydunnit (political preferences) and howdunnit (the political decision-making process). In order to account for the interrelatedness of socio-structural variables, this part of the study relies on Pierre Bourdieu’s conception of social space. In this two-dimensional framework, the volume of cultural and economic capital constitutes a vertical axis (with high capital volume at the top and low capital volume at the bottom), whereas the horizontal dimension covers the composition of capital (with a dominance of cultural capital on the left side and a dominance of economic capital on the right side of the axis). Based on specific multiple correspondence analyses (MCA), the chapter reports recurring patterns of structural diversity among radical right-wing voters, that are of crucial importance with respect to the findings presented in Chapters 6, 7, and 8.

Theoretical framework

This second chapter lays down the theoretical bedrock of the book. In line with the bilateral framework of this study, it covers both the demand-side and supply-side. With respect to the latter, the chapter links cleavage theory and conflict sociology to the Laclauian notion of equivalence, arguing that the appeal of radical right-wing parties relies on their capacity to coherently unify a multiplicity of heterogeneous demands along the same main antagonism: national versus foreign. Following Weber’s and Parkin’s thoughts on social closure, the chapter theorizes that this nativist core conflict is invoked according to a specific tripartite structure, which has remained quite unnoticed in the existing literature. Pertaining to the demand-side, this chapter first discusses the assumptions underlying an electoral equifinality approach, before turning to the theoretically expected structural heterogeneity among radical right-wing voters. This heterogeneity is theorized along three dimensions within a Bourdieusian framework of social space: social characteristics (who), political preferences (why), and political interest (how). Finally, the chapter discusses different micro-level grievances that are likely to foster radical right support and links them to different socio-structural positions.