The Right’s ‘Culture War’
What approach can art and culture take?
Status: April 2025
Links
Bundesverband Mobile Beratung e. V.
The Team of the Mobilen Beratung gegen Rechtsextremismus Berlin (MBR)
Publications by Mobile Beratung gegen Rechtsextremismus Berlin (MBR)
Link to the MBR Berlin publication “Nur Schnee von Gestern?” (Water under the bridge?)
Link to the MBR Berlin publication “Alles nur leere Worte?” (Just empty words?)
Link to MBR brochure “Alles nur Theater?” (All just an act?)
Link to the MBR brochure “Wachsam sein”(Be vigilant)
Link to MBR brochure “Handlungssicher im digitalen Raum” (Confidence in the digital space)
Introduction
The aim of the right-wing culture war is to change the balance of power in favour of modernised right-wing extremism. It seeks to achieve cultural hegemony and strives for sovereignty over social debates and discourses. Art and culture, which stand up for an open democratic society, are increasingly at the centre of these clashes. The commitment to work against right-wing extremism, racism and anti-Semitism, and in favour of gender or climate policy or critical commemoration and remembrance policies is coming under increasing pressure. From theatre companies to collectives, socio-cultural centres, ensembles, festivals or literature houses – numerous cultural areas are affected by the attacks.
This culture war is not about fending off certain artistic positions, nor is it about art and culture in the narrower sense. Rather, it is an expression of a political power struggle for sovereignty over images of history, social norms, gender roles and cultural identity. While this article focuses on the effects of the right’s culture war on the arts and culture sector, this cultural struggle itself extends to other areas of society, such as the culture of history and remembrance, education policy and the library sector. In their politics of remembrance, right-wing extremists attempt to relativise the Nazi past, suppress post-colonial perspectives and strengthen national meaning and so-called heroic narratives (Link to the MBR Berlin publication “Nur Schnee von Gestern?” (Water under the bridge?)). At the centre of right-wing attempts to influence libraries is the question of which literature and which perspectives are accessible. There are repeated calls to remove queer or racism-critical books from children's and youth libraries, to “depoliticise” educational programmes or to cancel event formats that deal with diversity. At the same time, right-wing extremists use libraries specifically as a stage to place their own revisionist or conspiracy ideological content (Link to the MBR Berlin publication “Alles nur leere Worte?” (Just empty words?)).
The aim is to achieve cultural hegemony
By achieving cultural hegemony, modernised right-wing extremists are pursuing the goal of imposing their norms and values on society. In doing so, they are guided by the ideas of the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, who emphasised the importance of cultural influence for political change. Gramsci recognised that political power is not only secured through the control of the state, but also through the implementation of a certain world view in society, which is also supported by the majority of its own supporters. This concept is deliberately adopted and reinterpreted by right-wing extremist intellectuals. They want to gradually change the cultural landscape so that their ideological ideas become a matter of course in society. So that is the objective: before political power can be achieved, the social climate must first be changed. Right-wing extremists are therefore specifically focussing on the culture war in order to gain political power through cultural hegemony.
Important strategic goals of the right’s culture war
A central strategic goal of this war is the “de-ideologisation” of art and culture. People or institutions in the cultural sector are defamed as heirs of the 1968 movement and as “left-wing-green-filth”. Everything that is associated with the cipher ‘68, such as profound cultural and social upheavals, sexual liberation, anti-authoritarian education or the differentiation of lifestyles, is attacked with the aim of reversing it.
Another strategic goal is the demand for “neutrality”, which is intended to deliberately create uncertainty and ward off criticism of anti-human positions. It is levied against all those who take a critical stance on right-wing extremism and other ideologies of inequality as well as in favour of emancipatory content. This goes hand in hand with an attempt to portray this criticism as illegitimate and to discredit a substantive discussion.
If right-wing extremists are criticised or excluded from events, they often present themselves as victims of a supposed dictatorship of opinion. They use this victimisation to ward off criticism; critics are accused of censorship attempts or vilified and fought against as left-wing extremists.
The various strategic goals of the right’s culture war serve to shift the boundaries of what can be said. In Germany, the main protagonists in this shift in discourse can be found in the AfD and its environment. Through its media presence and its own resources, the party promises to achieve the greatest impact. For example, it regularly establishes a link between migration and crime, violence and security issues and ethnicises problems affecting society as a whole, such as violence against women or anti-Semitism.
This technique of permanently shifting the discourse invokes freedom of speech in order to make itself unassailable. The boundaries are being systematically shifted with reference to freedom of speech and with the gesture of resistance against a supposed dictatorship of opinion. Terms such as “ethnicity inversion”, “knife-wielding migrants”, “girls in headscarves”, “gender madness” or “gay rights lobby” are used constantly to make them seem like normal language usage.
Any response that freedom of speech must not be misused to defame other people – especially minorities – is scorned as “political correctness” and “wokeness” as well as “censorship”. Analogies are drawn to the GDR dictatorship or other authoritarian states in order to portray themselves as the true representatives of democracy. The self-staging alternates between the role of the taboo-breaker, the courageous provocateur and the victim. If a statement goes too far for parts of the public, it is simply relativised – but the topic is set, attention is aroused and the desired effect is achieved.
Challenges for the democratic cultural sector
Influencing cultural institutions
For many years, the Mobile Counselling Service against Right-Wing Extremism in Berlin has observed that right-wing extremists use various methods to defame and prevent unpopular activities in the arts and cultural sector and to mark people who are committed to democracy as political enemies and put them under pressure (Link to MBR brochure “Alles nur Theater?” (All just an act?)).
One frequently used means is to influence funding structures. The AfD in particular is specifically asking parliamentary questions about the funding models of cultural projects in order to uncover alleged “left-wing networks” or “ideological distortions”. Such questions are not only used to gather information, but are also intended to put projects or institutions on the defensive and feel under pressure to justify themselves. In addition, political committees are specifically used to influence cultural institutions. With the AfD's entry into the cultural and budget committees of the Bundestag and state parliaments, there has been an increase in attempts to demand the reduction or even cancellation of state funding for certain projects. In Berlin, for example, requests have been lodged to cut funding to the Friedrichstadt-Palast, the Gorki Theatre and the Deutsches Theater, with the claim that they are engaged in “Gesinnungstheater” (left-wing theatre).
There are also repeated legal attempts to ban or restrict certain artistic content by means of lawsuits. Theatre plays or art events that confront the AfD or right-wing extremist networks are particularly affected.
Another means is targeted disruptive action. Time and again, cultural events are interrupted, discussion forums are hijacked or their rooms are used specifically to place right-wing narratives and then spread the actions to the public. For a while, the far-right group “Generation Identity” mainly disrupted cultural events, disseminating its propaganda there, with the aim of maximising its success in the media.
The people involved influence certain milieus and provoke threats and assaults. The use of legal instruments is also part of this strategy. Pressure is exerted through enquiries about the non-profit status of associations or legal demands for “political neutrality” of projects, organisations and schools; such measures can cause financial or legal difficulties for entire projects.
Digital threats and campaigns
Coordinated social media campaigns are used to pillory cultural institutions and individuals, for example by spreading tendentious information taken out of context. Right-wing blogs and networks stage a public outrage that is amplified by inflammatory comments. In many cases, this puts the cultural professionals or institutions concerned under massive pressure.
The strategic use of social media by right-wing extremists has a clear objective: They attack the central values of an open, liberal society and portray democratic institutions as “left-green dominated” or “ideologically controlled”. As a result, art and cultural institutions are discredited and have to defend themselves against insinuations instead of being able to pursue their actual work.
Which topics are in focus?
The attacks are particularly directed against projects and organisations that advocate a diverse society. Issues such as migration, post-colonial reappraisal, anti-racism, feminism and gender and sexual diversity are a particular focus of far-right campaigns. Efforts to give marginalised groups more space are systematically defamed as “identity politics” and portrayed as a threat to a supposedly “neutral” cultural landscape. The clear direction of impact is particularly evident in debates about “national culture”: right-wing extremist cultural policy calls for a stronger orientation towards “traditional values”, advocates the promotion of customs and a non-inclusive, national-ethnic concept of homeland, and a “German identity” is to be created with “German dominant culture”. Emancipatory content and the representation and promotion of socially marginalised groups are to be pushed out of public cultural work.
Various cultural policy decisions show that this intimidation works. In individual cases, some concerts, theatre performances or art exhibitions have been cancelled after right-wing extremist groups had deliberately stirred up public opinion. The cancellation of a concert by the band “Feine Sahne Fischfilet” in Dessau in 2018 is an example of this: right-wing mobilisation meant that the event could not take place for fear of further hostilities. In Zwickau, Saxony, a queer-feminist collective was disinvited from a theatre festival in 2023 following fierce hostility on social media. Even though in this case the organisers cited the non-approval of funding as justification, there had been defamation of the theatre and the city administration by various right-wing extremist groups as well as intimidation of the audience and disruption of events in the run-up to the event.
Intimidation in the private sphere
Hostility is increasingly crossing the line into the private sphere. The counselling practice of the Mobile Counselling Service against Right-Wing Extremism Berlin shows that cultural workers are increasingly becoming the target of attacks in their private lives. The targeted publication of names and addresses or the call to seek out individuals in their private surroundings are common means of intimidation, including threats of violence and death threats, whether online or in their immediate social environment. (Link to the MBR brochure “Wachsam sein”(Be vigilant))
One example of this was a case in Berlin in which an AfD member of the House of Representatives took a camera team to visit the production company of a satirical programme that had produced a critical report on right-wing extremist riots in Chemnitz. The company's doorbell nameplate was shown in close-up, whereupon those responsible received anti-Semitic death threats. In other cases too, right-wing extremists have gained access to home addresses or personal information in order to publicise them and intimidate cultural workers.
Recommendations for action
Cultural institutions, collectives and individual cultural professionals are not defenceless in the face of right-wing extremist disruptions and attacks. They can protect themselves by preparing for attacks, formulating clear positions and building networks of solidarity. It is crucial not to wait to react to attacks that have already happened, but to prepare strategies at an early stage, act confidently and strengthen your own resilience.
Clear positioning as a protective mechanism
Probably the most important basis for dealing with right-wing extremist hostility is a clear democratic stance. Cultural institutions that position themselves publicly not only create orientation for their audiences and employees, but also prevent right-wing extremists from gaining the power to define their work. Those who do not express their position clearly and comprehensibly, on the other hand, run the risk of being put on the defensive.
Right-wing extremists work specifically with reinterpretations of terms. When people talk about “freedom of speech”, for example, they mean that nationalist or racist positions should also be heard. When “neutrality” is demanded, what is meant is that critical and emancipatory positions should disappear. Cultural institutions must therefore realise that there is no such thing as “neutral” art and culture. Anyone who stands up to discrimination and supports an open society is not acting “ideologically”, but is defending fundamental democratic and basically self-evident values. It can be a clarifying, productive and empowering process for cultural institutions to discuss their own guiding concepts, to determine exactly what is meant by terms such as democratic, open, diverse, freedom or inclusive and to describe their own understanding of art and culture in a comprehensible way in contrast to that of right-wing extremism.
A “Code of Conduct” – binding and value-based action
One way of anchoring such a positioning in the long term is to draw up a “Code of Conduct”. Such a code of conduct defines which values apply in an organisation, how hostility is dealt with and which protective measures are to be taken in the event of threats. In order to be able to recognise and classify right-wing extremism or other forms of discrimination, employees need to be trained. An internal traffic light system can provide practical assistance. Behaviours and actions that are prohibited, undesirable or legitimate are described based on the three traffic light colours; the system also indicates when which measures are taken by whom and when they are not necessary. The development of such an internal code of conduct should involve as many employees as possible. If you develop this kind of code of conduct at an early stage, you can fall back on it in an emergency and prevent acute incidents from turning into a chaotic crisis situation.
Dealing with the demand for neutrality – standing up for democracy and human rights
Publicly funded cultural institutions are a particular focus of right-wing extremist attacks. It is often claimed that cultural institutions that are financed with taxpayers’ money must be “politically neutral”, and there are also calls for cutbacks or restructuring. This is where action is needed. Those who engage with administration, politics, other cultural institutions and democratic actors in supervisory bodies or advisory boards at an early stage can arm themselves against such attempts to exert influence.
In principle, state agencies and municipal administrations are required to treat political parties equally. However, the reference to state funding does not mean, for example, that this state requirement of equal treatment is transferred to independent organisations such as associations. Furthermore, party-political neutrality does not mean neutrality in terms of values. If constitutionally protected values are disparaged or attacked, then publicly funded institutions do not have to accept this. On the contrary, standing up for democracy and human rights is necessary and as such can never be “neutral”, but is based on universal values.
Dealing with disruptive actions – don't let them take the floor!
It may be necessary to prepare for disruptive actions, especially when organising your own events on topics that have a mobilising effect on right-wing extremists (Link to MBR handout “Wichtiger denn je: Wir lassen uns das Wort nicht nehmen!“ (More important than ever before: don’t let them take the floor)). An effective means of restricting participants at events in enclosed spaces is to include an exclusion clause in the announcements indicating that right-wing extremist individuals or groups will be denied access. This helps to exclude right-wing extremist troublemakers at an early stage. The legal framework for such an exclusion rate should be examined in advance, particularly in the case of publicly funded premises.
Moderation also plays a decisive role: It must be prepared to not simply ignore provocatively placed right-wing extremist narratives, but to actively counter them and bring the discussion back to the actual topic. A moderation strategy that briefly mentions the provocations, but does not go into them in depth, has proved successful in order to avoid giving the troublemakers a platform. Should massive disruptions nevertheless occur, emergency measures that have been discussed and planned in advance can be implemented: previously developed solutions such as clear contradiction by the moderator, switching off the microphone or interrupting the event.
A well-prepared event organiser can prevent right-wing extremists from hijacking the space for their own purposes. The aim is not to avoid controversial discussions, but to protect basic democratic values and ensure an objective debate. Particular attention should be paid to those potentially affected by right-wing extremist attacks. They need to be assisted and given specific support (e.g. by offering to accompany them home).
Dealing with attacks through parliamentary questions
Right-wing extremist politicians use parliamentary questions specifically for the purpose of intimidation and hostility. These questions are often formulated in such a way that they force the cultural institution into a position of justification. It is important to respond to such requests in a level-headed manner and not to allow yourself to be put under pressure.
A proven strategy is to keep answers factual and concise. Content should be limited to information that is already publicly available in order to avoid additional areas of attack. If a question contains incorrect assumptions or uses defamatory wording, a brief correction will suffice.
Dealing with requests for visits from elected representatives
AfD politicians sometimes demand special access to state-funded cultural institutions and try to stage their presence as a gain in legitimacy for their party and their political positions. However, there is no special entitlement to visits outside the regular public opening hours, even if an institution is subsidised by the state. In principle, the right of control of members of parliament only applies to executive bodies that have been delegated sovereign powers to fulfil their tasks, but not to cultural institutions that decide independently on their content.
Should elected representatives nevertheless attempt to instrumentalise their visit politically, a clear and forward-looking communication strategy is important. Organisations can, for example, make it clear through a public statement that they stand for democratic values and oppose any form of political influence on artistic freedom. It is important not to leave such attempts uncommented, but to proactively emphasise your own stance.
Dealing with digital attacks and media defamation
Art and cultural institutions must prepare themselves for the fact that hostility will not only occur at events or in the press, but also in digital spaces (Link to MBR brochure “Handlungssicher im digitalen Raum” (Confidence in the digital space)).
Effective protection is a clear social media strategy. Each institution should define whether its own social media presence serves primarily as an information channel or as a discussion platform. This results in different moderation tasks. Social media teams and managers should be trained to recognise, classify and respond to hate comments in a coordinated manner.
A tried and tested means of moderation is the formulation of netiquette, i.e. digital house rules that define expectations for the discussion climate and make it clear what content will not be tolerated. Such netiquette should be clearly communicated on the platform, for example by means of a “pinned” series of posts or regular notices in the comments column.
Despite clear rules, right-wing extremist networks can still start inflammatory discussions. In such cases, moderation teams should act quickly: Document violations, forward threats to counselling centres or law enforcement agencies and consistently sanction smear campaigns. Platforms sometimes offer options for blocking and reporting users who deliberately break the rules.
In addition to consistent moderation, awareness should also be raised and strengthened among the community. Anyone who is confronted with right-wing extremist hate speech needs support and solidarity. An active and vigilant community can help to defuse discussions at an early stage and shape the digital space democratically.
Stay strong – stand together – show solidarity
But all these measures can only work if cultural professionals do not remain isolated and stand together. Right-wing extremist attacks are aimed at singling out individuals or organisations and putting them under pressure. The most important counter-strategy is therefore solidarity.
Whether through networks such as “Die Vielen” (The Many), nationally organised campaigns or collective counter-actions – those who do not remain alone can defend themselves better. A resilient cultural landscape is not created through retreat, but through joint action. Because in the end, one central insight remains: The best protection against the cultural war from the right is art and culture that does not allow itself to be intimidated and takes a stand.
Competent and free support is also available: The mobile counselling teams against right-wing extremism are active in every federal state. They provide assessments of right-wing extremist phenomena and advise on how to deal with them.