The Construction and Destruction of “the other”The Influence of Right-wing Populist Rhetoric on Xenophobic Hate Crimes

1

The Construction and Destruction of “the other”

The Influence of Right-wing Populist Rhetoric on Xenophobic Hate Crimes

Stefano Cisternino Master’s Thesis

Spring 2020

Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University Supervisor: Sophia Hatz

Word Count: 23000

2 Abstract

Today, two phenomena are growing; the constant increase in xenophobic hate crimes and the rampant presence of political and media representatives engaged in right-wing populist rhetoric aimed at defending the people from all threats. The question of how right-wing populist rhetoric influences the occurrence of these violent acts has only been addressed indirectly and partially in the academic world. This thesis tries to fill this gap, by proposing the following argument: right- wing populist rhetoric, through a process of continuous growth and affirmation, gradually creates an enemy who is ethnically “different” from the “native” people, leading to a social reaction and therefore to a consequent increase in xenophobic hate crimes. In order to verify this claim, an analysis of two periods of Italian history is conducted by means of Process Tracing. A primary case (1935-1939), focused on the Fascist Party and Mussolini with respect to two ethnic targets:

Ethiopians and Jews. A secondary case (2013-2016), focused on the Lega Nord party and Salvini

with respect to immigrants. The empirical results achieved provide good general support and

suggest the need for further research, in order for countermeasures to be enacted by policymakers to

avoid history repeating itself.

3 Table of Contents

Introduction ... 6

First part: Previous Research and Research gap ... 8

Section Two: Definitions... 10

A. Independent Variable - Right-Wing Populist Rhetoric ... 10

B. Mechanism Between RWPR and Xenophobic Hate Crimes - Social Reaction ... 11

C. Dependent variable - Xenophobic Hate Crimes ... 12

Section Three: Theories and Causal Arguments ... 12

A. Dichotomization Theory ... 13

B. Theory of Delegitimization ... 13

C. Intergroup Threat Theory ... 15

D. Causal Argument ... 16

Third Part: Research Design and Operationalization ... 18

A. Research Design ... 18

B. Case Selection ... 18

C. Generalizability of the Study ... 19

D. Process Tracing (TPA) ... 20

E. Operationalization ... 21

1. Precipitant-RWPR: Construction and Destruction “of the Other from Above” ... 21

2. Departures- Social Reaction: Construction and Destruction “of the Other from Below” ... 23

3. Consequences- Xenophobic Hate Crimes ... 25

F. Data Collection... 25

G. Assumptions ... 27

Fourth Section: Empirical Case Studies ... 27

Structure of the Analysis... 27

Primary case- Fascist Period: 1935-1939 ... 28

A. Causes- RWPR: Construction and Destruction “of the Other from Above” ... 28

Empirical Results- Causes: RWPR ... 35

4

B. Departures-Social Reaction: Construction and Destruction of “the Other from Below” ... 37

Empirical Results- Departures: Social Reaction ... 40

C. Consequences- Xenophobic Hate Crimes ... 41

Empirical Results- Consequences: XHCs ... 43

Conclusive Assessment of the Primary Case ... 43

Secondary Case-Contemporary Period: 2013-2018... 44

A. Causes- RWPR: Construction and Destruction of “the Other from Above” ... 44

Empirical Results –Causes: RWPR ... 50

B. Departures- Social Reaction: Construction and Destruction of “the Other from Below” 2013- 2018 ... 51

Empirical Results –Departures: Social reaction ... 54

C. Consequences-Xenophobic Hate Crimes ... 55

Empirical Results – Consequences: XHCs ... 56

Conclusive Assessment of the Secondary Case ... 56

Section Six: Alternative Theorisation, Limitations and Conclusions ... 57

A. Alternative Theorisation-Threat Perception and Impoverishment ... 57

B. Research Limitations... 59

Theoretical Limitations ... 59

Methodological Limitations ... 59

Empirical Limitations ... 60

C. Conclusions ... 61

Bibliography ... 62

Appendix (Secondary case 2013-2018): Facebook Posts and Tweets ... 74

Italian ... 74

English ... 76

5 List of Abbreviations

APAV Associação Portuguesa de Apoio à Vítima ISMU Multiethnic Studies and Initiatives Foundation

LN Lega Nord Party

Minculpop Ministry of Popular Culture

NIM Index Nationalist, Anti-Immigrant and Anti-Religious Minority Index OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

ODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Pnf National Fascist Party

Pol. Pol. Political Police

RWPR Right-Wing Populist Rhetoric XHCs Xenophobic Hate Crimes

List of Figures, Pictures and Tables

Figure 1:Causal Chain: Construction and Destruction of “the other” ... 17

Picture 1:Abyssine Visions... 31

Picture 2: La Difesa della Razza ... 35

Table 1:OSCE/ODIHR: “Hate report crimes 2013-2018. ITALY” ... 55

6 Introduction

The Italian newspaper, “La Repubblica” (03.02.2018) published a shocking news story about the shooting of six immigrants by an Italian citizen in the quiet city of Macerata (Marche) (Ananasso 2018). The article went on to describe how the subject, immediately before being tackled to the ground by the Police, took off his jacket, put the Italian flag on his shoulders and, turning to the square, made the Roman salute (Ananasso 2018). This may seem like an isolated act, but one can systematically read similar stories in Italian and international newspapers, emblematic of a growing number of xenophobic hate crimes (XHCs). But what leads ordinary citizens to act in such a way?

A possible instigating factor is right-wing populist rhetoric (RWPR), i.e. a communication framework -exploited by various actors (i.e. politicians, media, intellectuals)- based on the representation of a moral and ethnic division between a pure and superior people (natives, i.e.

Italians) and “dangerous others”, (i.e. ethnically different outgroups, such as immigrants), who are portrayed as a burden and a threat to society (Jagers and Walgrave 2007).

Emblematic of this is the comment of Italian leader Matteo Salvini, the main exponent of the right- wing populist party Lega Nord (LN), who on Twitter commented on the bloody act of Macerata, not only not condemning the action, but completely overturning the perpetrator-victim dynamic:

“Immigration out of control leads to chaos, anger, social confrontation. Out-of-control immigration leads to drug dealing, theft, robbery and violence.#Macerata”

(Salvini,@matteosalvinimi, 03.02.2018, Twitter)

There is a direct link between RWPR and XHCs. In the academic world, this link has only been tackled implicitly or rather, the causal link appears incomplete, as the various scholars have dwelt more on the cognitive and emotional effects that RWPR has on society, and have stopped short of extending that link further to possible violent physical reactions, i.e. with the XHCs (e.g. Hameleers and Schmuck 2017). This thesis aims to fill this gap, looking seeking an answer to the question:

How does RWPR influence the occurrence of XHCs?

The hypothesis is the following: RWPR, through a process of continuous growth and affirmation, gradually creates an enemy who is ethnically “different” from the “native” people, leading to a social reaction and therefore to a consequent increase in XHCs.

Therefore, in order to determine a direct, logical and causal link between RWPR and XHCs, this

study presents a three-step theoretical approach, defined as the construction and destruction “of the

other” (ethnic target, such as Immigrants). The first step corresponds to the formation of RWPR by

7

providers (i.e. politicians, media, intellectuals). It is analysed on the basis of theoretical processes of dichotomization and delegitimization, focused on the rhetorical transformation of the ethnic target into an enemy of the people, thus defining a process of construction and destruction “of the other”

from above (Moshman 2007; Bar-Tal and Hammack 2012). The variation and temporal affirmation of the RWPR determines the second step, i.e. the transmission, acceptance and re-proposition (cognitive, emotional and behavioural) of the rhetoric by the receivers (i.e. citizens), understood as social reaction. It is analysed on the basis of the Intergroup threat theory (Stephan, Ybarra and Morrison 2009), which specifies how people react to the perception of a threat and how they tend to respond through specific defence mechanisms -increasing group identification and outgroup hostility- thus defining a process of construction and destruction “of the other” from below. The sum of the two processes of construction and destruction “of the other” from above and below leads to the third step, opening the doors to XHCs. Considering the plurality of forms in which the latter can manifest itself, the focus here will be only on actions aimed at physical damage with discriminatory purposes (OSCE/ODIHR 2014).

In this regard, a qualitative analysis is conducted through a specific method of Process Tracing (TPA-Turning Points Analysis), in relation to two specific periods of Italian history (Druckman 2005). The primary case (the fascist period: 1935-1939) focused on the fascist party and dictator Benito Mussolini with respect to two ethnic targets: Ethiopians and Jews. The secondary case (the contemporary period: 2013- 2018) focused on the Lega Nord (LN) party and the leader Matteo Salvini with respect to a single ethnic target: immigrants. An analysis of the two cases allows for a verification of the temporal variation of the RWPR, its effects on society, as well as the possible repetition of the whole process at a historical-comparative level.

The temporal gap between the two cases implies the use of a plurality of sources, mainly secondary.

For the first case in particular, ample space is allocated to analyses of the press, public speeches and

testimonies from private letters and diaries. While for the second case, more attention is given to

social media or national and international reports on the subject. The results of this thesis provide

good general support for both the primary and the secondary case. However, although the results

may be satisfactory, they must be considered with due caution, taking into account the temporal gap

between the two cases and the limitations of the available data. Nevertheless, the conclusions draw

a worrying picture: the replication of the analysis through the two cases has made it clear that Italy

has forgotten its experience with fascist dictatorship and the Holocaust, because it is repeating the

same steps today under a new “media” dictator -Matteo Salvini- and with a new scapegoat-

immigrants.

8

Based on the above, the whole research contributes and enriches the academic world in two main ways. Firstly by bridging the gap inherent in the direct link between RWPR and XHCs through the theoretical process of construction and destruction “of the other”. Secondly, through the adoption of a historical-comparative perspective, it provides a useful tool of analysis for policymakers, in order to avoid the repetition of extreme political and social dynamics -such as those that characterised the fascist dictatorship -which may undermine the very foundations of democracy and multiculturalism.

The thesis is structured into six sections:

1. The first section is dedicated to previous research and the research gap;

2. The second section presents relevant definitions;

3. The third section outlines the theoretical framework and the causal argument;

4. The fourth section focuses on the research design and the operationalization process;

5. The fifth section is the analysis of empirical cases;

6. The sixth and final section concerns the alternative explanation, the limitations of the research and the conclusions.

First Part: Previous Research and Research Gap

In the academic world, many scholars have questioned the factors that have determined the rapid success of right-wing populist parties worldwide (e.g. Lucassen and Lubbers 2012; Sheets, Bos and Boomgaarden 2016; Testa and Armstrong 2012; Béland 2020). Some of them focused on the rhetorical representations of these actors, defining their characteristic traits and effects on society (e.g.Arendt, Marquart and Matthes 2015; Hameleers and Schmuck 2017; Wirz et al. 2018). Scholars agree in defining the RWPR as a communication framework, founded on the one hand on the promotion of the people as a homogeneous, superior entity, ideally impermeable to any external influence (Mudde 2004; Jagers and Walgrave 2007; Engesser et al. 2017). On the other hand, RWPR is also founded on opposition and ostracization with respect to “other”, i.e. an ethnically different outgroup, defined as threat and social burden (Jagers and Walgrave 2007)

. Based on this definition, several previous studies have focused on the role of the providers (i.e. parties, media, intellectuals) describing in detail how RWPR is spread through a plurality of media, i.e. political campaign posters (Schmuck and Matthes 2019), social media (Hameleers and Schmuck 2017), public speeches (Battistelli 2019), and political advertisements (Matthes and Schmuck 2017). These scholars highlight the versatility of this rhetoric, which allows it not only to adapt easily to the shift from traditional media platforms to social media but to be very pervasive in all social spheres

1RWPR is defined in detail in the following section.

9

(Engesser et al. 2017).The high pervasiveness and the presence of a communication framework based on ethnic ostracization, has inspired several studies investigating the effects of such rhetoric on the population, focusing on the connection between providers (i.e. politicians) and receivers (i.e.

citizens) (Hameleers and Schmuck 2017; Heiss and Matthes 2020).

In a prevailing top-down approach and mainly through experimental designs, it has been shown that RWPR has a direct effect on the population, inducing cognitive and emotional responses based on hostility and aggressiveness towards the ostracized outgroup, which can result in anti-immigrant, anti-Islam or anti-Muslim attitudes (i.e. Saleem et al. 2017; Schmuck and Matthes 2019).

Furthermore, Schmuck and Matthes (2019) highlight how RWPR, by engaging directly with emotions and feelings, induces gradual changes -both in inter-group interactions and voting preferences- even in those who are apparently opposed to such rhetoric, potentially influencing all sections of society. This has led several scholars, particularly at European level, to talk about a progressive naturalization of xenophobia, which as a form of extremism becomes part of the moral and social codes of the people (i.e. Schmuck, Matthes and Paul 2017; Heiss and Matthes 2020).

Such a hypothetical naturalization would be determined by continuous and repeated exposure to this rhetoric, which causes society to perceive itself as constantly being threatened by an outgroup represented at the same time as very visible and very dangerous, leading to a chain process of negative feelings and emotions, such as fear and anger (Hameleers and Schmuck 2017; Hameleers, Bos and de Vreese 2017; Battistelli 2019). Previous studies on RWPR and its effects, mainly focus on these cognitive and emotional responses with respect to the outgroup, not defining a direct link with the possible violent physical reaction -which is always theoretically implicit- especially with XHCs. As a result, both in public discourse and in discussions between experts in the field, the existence of a link between RWPR and XHCs has been recognised, but it remains relegated to the stage of implicit assumption (see Albornoz, Bradley and Sonderegger 2018; Chu 2018; Rees et al.

2019). This implies that even systematic empirical research on such a link- or similar links- is on the one hand particularly scarce and dispersive. On the other hand, it is compartmentalised, i.e. the link is subdivided into sub-sections -apparently lacking any interconnection between them- each involving a specific focus on individual aspects of RWPR and its effects on the social fabric (namely the function of the providers and the creation of RWPR; the role of providers and the cognitive and emotional effects on receivers; the role of receivers and their impact on XHCs).This thesis aims to bridge this gap by creating a direct link between RWPR and XHCs, through a comprehensive approach that combines the perspective of the provider with that of the receiver. In other words, this study proposes a theoretical process, defined as the construction of a destruction

“of the other”, which allows us to observe the function, role and effects of RWPR "from above" in

10

relation to the provider, and “from below” in relation to the receiver, verifying whether the combination of the two leads to xenophobic violence. In this way, creating a single causal link from the creation of RWPR by the provider, to its transmission, acceptance and re-proposition (cognitive, emotional and behavioural) by the receiver, up to the xenophobic physical act against the

“dangerous other”. Consequently, testing not only the role of the various means of communication, the different cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses but also the long-term impact of the whole process on society in what regards the so-called naturalisation of xenophobia. Moreover, by adopting a historical-comparative approach inherent to the single Italian case, the present research allows us to observe the parallel evolution of both RWPR and the media, and evaluate both the temporal differences and the similarities, providing a useful tool for policymakers seeking to avoid the repetition of the extremist phenomena that characterised Italian fascism.

Section Two: Definitions

A. Independent Variable - Right-Wing Populist Rhetoric

The concept of RWPR is threefold, in that it has three different components that define it. The first of these is rhetoric, which is defined by Reinemann et al.(2017, 13) as:“oral, written and visual communication of individual politicians, parties, social movements or any other actor that steps into the public sphere (including the media and the citizens)”. Rhetoric is defined as populist when it adheres to the set of ideas that define populism (Priester 2012). A widely-recognised definition of populism is that of Albertazzi and McDonnell:“an ideology which pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous 'others' who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity and voice”

(Albertazzi and McDonnell 2008, 3).

Combining the two concepts of rhetoric and populism, populist rhetoric can be defined as:“a communication frame that appeals to and identifies with the people, and pretends to speak in their name”(Jagers and Walgrave 2007, 322). However this interpretation is minimal, and poorly elaborated. What makes it possible to fill this conceptual vagueness or flexibility and define its right wing or left wing political orientation is the type of ostracism and antagonism that is rhetorically predominant along the vertical and horizontal dimensions of society (Heiss and Matthes 2020). In other words, on the one hand populism tends to define a relationship of vertical antagonism with the elites (economic, cultural, political), considered and represented as corrupt and greedy, enemies of the interests and needs of the people. On the other hand, it defines a horizontal ostracism with the

“dangerous others”(ethnic, religious, social minorities), who are defined as a threat and a burden to

11

the majority, making existing physical-somatic, cultural, historical-social differences not only salient but harmful to the “real people”. Vertical criticism against the elites is more compatible with left-wing ideology. This factor tends to be mainly present among left-wing populist actors, who assume a socio-economic interpretation of the people as a social class. The resulting left-wing populist rhetoric addresses a disappointed and unhappy populace, criticizes the capitalist system and claims social equality (Engesser et al. 2017).

The horizontal component however, is characteristic of right-wing ideology. On this basis, it is possible to precisely define the RWPR. It conceives of the people as an ethnos, in order to create a unique and homogeneous identity based on the commonality of the ethno-nationalist traits of the members of the ingroup. The ingroup is composed of natives, i.e. the real people, distinct and separate from the “others”(Craig 2012, 112-127). In this way, it creates a “belief system that puts one group of people or ways of doing things above all others”(Craig 2012, 114). The nationalistic component of the RWPR translates in turn into an open attitude of exclusion and therefore ostracism towards other ethnic minorities:“Those groups are blamed for all misfortune and accidents affecting the general population. Consequently, these categories are scapegoated and must be fiercely dealt with, if not simply removed from the territory of the people”(Jagers and Walgrave 2007, 324).

In conclusion, RWPR is defined as a communication frame founded on the one hand, on the promotion and defence of the people, understood as a homogeneous entity, superior and impermeable to external influences, and on the other, on opposition and ostracization with respect to an ethnically different “other”, defined as a threat and social weight. Moreover, it is important to emphasise that this rhetoric is not static but is affected by a continuous process of growth and affirmation over time, through which it progressively creates an “enemy”, naturally inclined to deviance and incapable of any form of integration, which must be excluded and possibly eliminated, even through violence (Battistelli 2019, 45). It is precisely this ability to vary and adapt over time that makes it as dangerous as a weapon, as it allows it to gradually become predominant over all other visions or positions, thus defining a single people, a single identity and a single way of thinking and acting.

B. Mechanism Between RWPR And Xenophobic Hate Crimes - Social Reaction

Every new, unforeseen and possibly harmful phenomenon creates social insecurity and discomfort,

especially if certain actors work to exploit it. This feeling of instability provokes many people’s fear

of being threatened (Bauman 2016, 11-16). In other words, to suffer damage, or rather, a loss,

inherent to the well-being they enjoy both in the field of economic and social security, relating to

12

the satisfaction of needs, and strategic security, relating to their own safety and that of their loved ones (Bauman 2016, 16). The RWPR links to the fear of society suffering damage or loss-therefore, the perception of a threat- to a specific subject, recognised as the author of the damage and therefore threatening (dangerous others) (Battistelli 2019, 11-16). Attributing a negative intention to a certain subject means sanctioning him or her as an enemy. This implies a specific reaction on a social level -understood as a cognitive, emotional and behavioural response- to the identification of a scapegoat upon which blame is channelled (Battistelli 2019, 15). Such a status not only makes feelings of fear and anger towards such a “dangerous other” plausible and acceptable, but accentuates its effects, generating a chain reaction capable of triggering forms of extreme intolerance, such as XHCs.

C. Dependent Variable - Xenophobic Hate Crimes

The term hate crime indicates an act based on intolerance, as a discriminatory element is attributed to the definition of the crime (APAV 2018). The perpetrator chooses to perform such an action against (a) specific person(s) in order to send a specific message of non-acceptance and therefore hate, to the entire community to which the victim belongs (OSCE/ODIHR 2014). In these dynamics, the victim appears almost “secondary”, as what is attacked is his identity or rather his specific identity characteristics, defined as “protected”: fundamental distinctive traits, shared by a group of people, which reflect a deep aspect of an individual's identity and create an identity typical of the group (APAV 2018). These characteristics, although they may be unalterable (i.e. race, disability, sexual orientation) or fundamental (i.e. culture, religion), appear “different” in the eyes of the perpetrator and therefore are perceived as a threat to his or her identity (APAV 2018). So hate crimes are really “identity crimes”(OSCE/ODIHR 2014). In this regard, these crimes can take on xenophobic characteristics, therefore they are motivated by a phobia-a fear- of foreigners, focusing hatred and consecutive action against minorities that are recognised as ethnically and racially different, and therefore opposed to the majority (APAV 2018). By labelling them as “foreigners”, all those “protected” characteristics specific to each ethnicity and race are cancelled, placing all minorities into a single category, the enemy (Dal Lago 1999). XHCs manifest themselves in a plurality of forms, ranging from more “mild” forms, such as hate speech or forms of economic, political, or social discrimination, to extreme gestures such as violent aggression and racial murders.

Section Three: Theories And Causal Arguments

The theoretical framework is presented below. It allows for a deepening of the relationship or rather

the mechanism linking RWPR to XHCs. First, since RWPR has been defined as a communication

frame based on the ethno-nationalist division and opposition between the “good” people and the

13

“dangerous others”, two theories are introduced: the dichotomization theory and the delegitimization theory. These theories focus on the psychosocial processes intrinsic to the creation and progressive temporal affirmation of RWPR. They therefore constitute an extension and deepening of this definition. They clarify how this rhetorical representation is formed and what function it assumes within society, and within intergroup relations in particular. Since the rhetorical ostracisation of ethnically different minorities is a crucial element of RWPR, these theories explain and detail how the providers’ use of this communication framework transforms a specific outgroup into a threat and an enemy in the eyes of the “native” people. In this way, the communicative action undertaken by the providers, intended as a dichotomising and delegitimizing rhetorical representation of specific ethnic targets, can be theoretically defined as a process of construction and destruction “of the other” from above.

In the second place, a third theory is presented namely, the Intergroup threat theory, aiming to shed light both on the social reaction- i.e. the mechanism connecting the two variables in consideration - and on XHCs. This last theorisation makes explicit the effects of RWPR on society, i.e. how society reacts on cognitive, emotional and behavioural levels to this dichotomous and delegitimizing communication frame towards “the other”. Thus, a logical nexus is created, which clarifies how society accepts and reacts to this rhetoric and how this leads to xenophobic violence. In this way, the social reaction can be defined theoretically as a process of construction and destruction “of the other” from below. The section concludes with the presentation of the causal argument and the related hypothesis.

A. Dichotomization Theory

The process of dichotomization is based on the creation of a cultural and social construct that renders some dimensions of the identity of each social group (i.e. religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) salient and demarcating. At the same time it eliminates other dimensions or makes them peripheral (Moshman 2007). Through this mechanism, the groups that are part of the social fabric will tend, over time, to be defined on the basis of an ever decreasing number of factors, until a complete reduction into only two categories: “Us” and “Them”(Moshman 2007). The next step is to recognize only one of these identities as legitimate and “true”, namely “Us”, while denying the identity of the other group through a process of delegitimization (Bar-Tal and Hammack 2012).

B. Theory of Delegitimization

Bar-Tal and Hammack (2012, 1) define delegitimization as:“the categorization of a group, or

groups, into extremely negative social categories that exclude it, or them, from the sphere of human

14

groups that act within the limits of acceptable norms and/or values, since these groups are viewed as violating basic human norms or values and therefore deserving maltreatment”.

In the history of our species, delegitimization serves to subtract from human beings the two qualities that define them (Albarello and Rubini 2008).

1. Identity: all those characteristics that make the other person autonomous, independent, capable of acting and making choices;

2. Community: belonging to a social network of individuals who care for each other.

Although delegitimization is a weapon, it has specific functions: it provides a description and justification for intergroup relations (Bar-Tal and Hammack 2012).

Description system: it provides information about the delegitimized group (i.e. origins, intentions, customs and habits). However, these data are the result of a purely negative representation of the

“other”. In this way the delegitimized group is made progressively visible, indicating and sanctioning it as the cause of all the evils of society, therefore portraying it as a threat (Volpato 2012). At the same time, delegitimization strengthens internal cohesion: those who are part of the delegitimizing group assume themselves as being in a privileged position and as hierarchically superior to “the others”(Bar-Tal and Hammack 2012).

Justification system: through this process, the relationship between the legitimized and the delegitimized group is progressively rationalized. In this way, delegitimization provides a moral justification, allowing for the legitimization of violence, making it no longer extreme but

“normal”(Bandura, Underwood and Fromson 1975).

Bar-Tal and Hammack (2012) have identified five delegitimization strategies:

1. Social expulsion: members of the delegitimized group are considered violators of fundamental social norms (i.e. murderers, criminals);

2. Characterization in traits: the members of the group are defined by extremely negative personality traits (i.e. niggers, Jews);

3. Use of political labels: the members of the group are categorized into political groups considered unacceptable by the delegitimizing society (i.e. communists);

4. Comparison between groups: Intergroup comparisons that negatively define the members of the delegitimized group are proposed (i.e. “us” victims, “them” invaders);

5. Dehumanization: the delegitimized group is categorised as inhuman through comparisons

with animals or monsters (i.e. rats, cockroaches).

15

The processes of dichotomization and delegitimization act and assert themselves over time, involving several levels of the social construct. On the basis of what has been said, it is possible to describe these mechanisms as part of a rhetorical process and therefore reconnect to the independent variable under consideration. The RWPR first creates a dichotomous representation, identifying an

“Us” and a “Them” defined as “others”. It then progressively deprives the “others” of their identity and humanity over time, that is, delegitimizing and ostracizing them, making them “dangerous”. In this way the RWPR, thanks to its ability to vary and adapt over time, defines a precise division between a good and pure people and the “dangerous others”. This rhetorical representation can be created and strengthened over time by the various right-wing populist actors, defining a process of construction and destruction “of the other” from above.

C. Intergroup Threat Theory

Social groups form the basis of each individual's identity (Stephan, Ybarra and Morrison 2009).

Given their primary importance in intergroup dynamics, each member is directly or indirectly committed to the preservation of his or her ingroup in time or space from any threat (Agroskin and Jonas 2010). Such a threat can be real but can also only perceived: the feeling that another group may be intent on harming its own (Stephan, Ybarra and Morrison 2009). Two different but complementary types of threats can be distinguished (Stephan, Ybarra and Morrison 2009):

1.Symbolic: perception that the outgroup is intended to change, replace or destroy the group's system of values and beliefs;

2.Real: perception that the outgroup is in a position to cause physical damage or a loss of power or resources (economic, political, social).

The perception of a threat, whether real or symbolic, creates a particular chain process, through negative emotions (i.e. fear, anger, hatred), negative attitudes (i.e. cognitive and perceptual prejudices) and finally, negative behavioural responses, aimed at eliminating the threat (i.e.

discrimination, rebellion, violent action) (Hameleers and Schmuck 2017). This process implies the definition of specific defence mechanisms, through which the population tries to react:

1.Ingroup identification: the more the individual feels threatened, the more he will tend to

abandon his individuality to join his group (Hogg 2009). This leads, in the first place, to a

depersonalization of the members of the ingroup and the creation of a single homogeneous and

impermeable identity (Fritsche, Jonas and Fankhänel 2008). Secondly, it involves a parallel process

of hyper-legitimization of the ingroup, as each member identifies it as a source before its security

and will therefore be led to celebrate each of its identity characteristics (i.e. values, traditions,

16

beliefs) (Agroskin and Jonas 2010). This last factor also serves to cognitively consolidate a precise hierarchical order: the ingroup is and must be superior to the outgroup (Agroskin and Jonas 2010).

Thirdly, it leads to each member’s complete compliance with the group's codes of action and thought. The latter will be drawn from the rhetoric and behaviour of those who are recognised as members of the group: political authorities, media, intellectuals (Hogg 2009). As these actors have promoted specific codes based on the dichotomization and delegitimization “of the other”, individual members will also adopt and promote them in a compliant manner (Hogg, Meehan and Farquharson 2010).

2.Outgroup hostility: the growing group identification leads to a parallel reduction of empathy towards the outgroup, leading to the adoption of a malevolent attitude based on enmity with the

“other”(Hameleers and Schmuck 2017).

This process is defined as the people’s cognitive, emotional and behavioural response to the reception and acceptance of RWPR. This mechanism directly affects the meanings with which people interpret the world and their own possibilities of action in it, leading not only to an acceptance of rhetoric but to its re-proposal on a social level. In other words, the dichotomous and delegitimizing relationship between good and pure people and “dangerous others” defined from above, will be re-proposed and strengthened from below, in a process of construction and destruction of “the other” from below.

The sum and continuous repetition of these processes on multiple levels leads to what Bandura, Underwood and Fromson (1975) defined as a “moral disengagement”, i.e. the gradual deactivation of moral limits, thus creating a cognitive shield from feelings of shame, guilt and pity. In these circumstances, society may feel “morally obliged” to unite against those who threaten or hinder it (Bandura, Underwood and Fromson 1975). From this derives a “naturalization” of violence, making XHCs the “only” actions capable of defending one's group identity.

D. Causal Argument

The research question underlying this whole study is: How does RWPR influence the occurrence of XHCs?

In order to find an adequate answer to this question, this study proposes the following causal argument, understood as a three-step process:

1.Construction and destruction “of the other from above”: the independent variable, RWPR, is

engaged in a temporal process of dichotomization and delegitimization, through which it creates a

17

specific ethno-nationalist representation of reality based on a division between a good and pure people and the “dangerous others”(Engesser et al. 2017).The main exponents of this rhetoric are political, media and intellectual actors (providers).

2.Construction and destruction “of the other from below”: understood as social reaction, i.e. the cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses of the people (receivers) to the RWPR. The latter occurs through society’s initial perception of the threat with respect to the “others”, followed by specific socio-cognitive responses or defence mechanisms, i.e. a greater identification with one's own group and a growing hostility towards the outgroup (Stephan, Ybarra and Morrison 2009).

Through this process, society internalizes and re-proposes the same processes of dichotomization and delegitimization towards “others”, strengthening their intrinsic meaning, their effects, but above all their consequences.

3.XHCs: the two processes of construction and destruction “of the other” from above and below tend to reinforce each other, defining a vicious circle that finally leads to a violent response. In other words, society, devoid of moral constraints and in a continuous legitimization of the characteristic processes of the RWPR, will accept and promote racial violence as an apparently natural reaction to a threat (Bandura, Underwood and Fromson 1975). In conclusion, this will lead to an increase in XHCs.

Based on this causal argument, I derive the following hypothesis:

H1: RWPR, through a process of continuous growth and affirmation, gradually creates an enemy who is ethnically “different” from the “native” people, leading to a social reaction and therefore to a consequent increase in XHCs.

Figure 1:Causal Chain: Construction and Destruction of “the other”

18 Third Part: Research Design and Operationalization A. Research Design

The primary interest of this research is to evaluate and analyze the variation of RWPR and its consequences on the social fabric over time. In this regard, the research method adopted by this thesis is that of case study, with the Process Tracing method

. In other words, an in-depth study of two cases (small N-study) is conducted -specifically two periods of Italian history, Fascism and the modern period- through the use of qualitative methods, which allow to present and analyze in detail the causal mechanism identified. And, secondly, to judge whether the latter has actually repeated itself over time, first characterizing Fascism and then subsequently proposing itself again today. In order to achieve these aims, each case presents a comparison through time, functional for correct examination of the temporal variation of the RWPR, thus defining two-within-case comparisons.

In order to have as clear and precise a methodological framework as possible, it is important to place a particular emphasis on what the time variation of the independent variable means, considering its central role in this study. Since the focus is the RWPR, the term variation is intended to indicate both its temporal evolution and its adaptation to the populist goals and fears of society.

This allows us to define and examine its change across time, between its minimum, intended as the creation or construction of the foundations of such rhetoric and the definition of the factors that characterize it. And a maximum, considered as the achievement of a state hypothetically close to the 'omnipresence' of this rhetoric, that is, its progressive affirmation with respect to any other idea, perspective, other rhetorical style. In this variation over time, from a minimum to a maximum, there is a process of growth and strengthening of this rhetoric to near ubiquity. In conclusion, the temporal variation of the independent variable -as presented- allows for an effective testing of both the theorisation under consideration and the repetition of the specific causal mechanism over time.

B. Case Selection

1.Fascist period (1935-39): This fascist period is the primary case, as it allows us to precisely define and analyse the steps related to the temporal evolution of the independent variable. From a minimum (1935): with the creation of rhetoric by the fascist regime and its leader Mussolini, in relation to a specific objective, the creation of an Italian empire, and a particular external ethnic target: the Ethiopians (Palmieri 2015). At an intermediate point: with the affirmation of both rhetoric and the Italian empire in Ethiopia (1936-1938). To a climax: with the achievement of the near omnipresence of this rhetoric and the definition of a new internal ethnic target: the Jews (1938-

2 Process Tracing is defined in detail in section D.

19

1939). Although the fascist regime lasted for over 26 years (1919-1945), a time span of only 5 years (1935-1939) allows us to observe the variation under consideration because before 1935, the dynamics under consideration were “dormant”, due to the end of the First World War and the consequent economic and political crises affecting Italy.1940 marked the beginning of the Holocaust, and the transformation of rhetoric into mass persecution.

2.Modern period (2013-2018):The secondary case is the modern period. It has a confirmation function as it allows, through a more restricted analysis, to verify whether the dynamics under consideration are being replicated in the present. The case focuses on a time span of 6 years, taking the LN Party and its leader Matteo Salvini as main actors with respect to a specific ethnic target:

immigrants. 2013 marked the creation of this party’s rhetoric and its affirmation on the national level, at first only regionalist and secondary(Terracciano 2019). At an intermediate point between 2014-2017, the party’s rhetoric reached a crescendo of popular consensus, leading to their apparent omnipresence, as demonstrated by their victory in the 2018 national elections.

C. Generalizability Of The Study

Especially between 2017 and 2019, Italy has constantly been linked to terms like: populism,

xenophobia, and racism by the foreign press. Just to mention a few of the articles that have

represented this populist and xenophobic Italian drift: In Foreign Policy, Robertson (2018)

compared Italy to the concretization of xenophobia and right-wing populism in Europe. While in

The Independent, O'Grady (2018) described Italy as a country characterised by nationalism, anti-

immigrant feelings and xenophobic violence. These are worrying signs that deserve to be explored

in depth, especially from a historical-comparative point of view, in order to assess the influence of

the world wars and the fascist past on contemporary Italy and Europe. This past is common to all

European democracies. It is good to underline that the formation of the National Fascist Party and

the RWPR that characterised it (1922), were not seen with disfavour at European level. In fact, this

rhetorical and ideological approach was widespread throughout Europe (Pessot 2017). Besides Nazi

Germany, countries such as Norway (with the National union party of Vidkun Quisling), Romania

(with the Iron Guard of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu), England (with the “Black Shirts” of Oswald

Mosley) stand out. Furthermore, many other countries (i.e. Belgium, Croatia, Austria, Portugal) not

only adhered to the same rhetorical approach but also actively participated in the extermination of

the same ethnic targets as Italy and Germany (Pessot 2017). Thus, the political histories of

individual European countries share many common elements, such as the presence of fascist parties,

discriminatory rhetoric and ideology, and persecution of the same ethnic targets. The presence of

such common elements lends weight to the hypothesis that these countries may share similar

20

common elements in the present, specifically both the same rhetorical dynamics and an increasing number of XHCs. This hypothetically allows for the generalization of this study to other European contexts. Based on the above, it should be stressed that the generalizability of this study remains limited to a hypothetical stage, since it focuses only on the causal mechanism of interest and its temporal repetition in the specific Italian case. In other words, this study presents and analyses -in a historical-comparative way- a specific causal pathway inherent to the Italian context, in order to not only define the process through which X causes Y(or how the RWPR influences the presence of XHCs) but also to verify and then confirm its repetition, first in the fascist period and then in the modern period. From this, it follows that what has been said about the generalizability of this study remains valid but it is bound to a hypothetical condition, since it is defined as per the specific Italian framework. In conclusion, I affirm that the present study can be generalized to other European contexts if the necessary precautions are considered, as it is essential to consider all of the numerous differences that exist today between European countries (social, economic, political, etc.), as well as the historical differences that may have influenced the evolution of the phenomena under analysis (RWPR and XHCs).

D. Process Tracing (TPA)

The type of method used to conduct this analysis is Process Tracing. Process Tracing “is a

technique that consists of searching an historical record of events for evidence about whether a

postulated process did or did not occur”(Druckman 2005, 202). Specifically, using a characteristic

framework can facilitate the analysis of the chain of events. Turning Points Analysis (TPA) is the

type of Process Tracing best suited for my research. It is a particularly suitable method for

facilitating the definition and analysis of precise timelines and causal orders, and considers the

interdependence of the analysed factors (Druckman 2005, 202). This type of method is mainly

applied in the study of negotiations and their evolution, as processes extended in time and

conditioned by a plurality of factors that need a precise chronological and exposure order especially

in a research context. Considering negotiations as part of a temporal continuum, it allows us to first

of all define specific causes (precipitants), which trigger changes in the conduction of the latter

(departures or turning points), ultimately giving rise to consequences, the result of the entire

negotiation process (Druckman and Olekalns 2011, 1). Based on the above, this method and this

framework in particular, can also be applied in other studies, such as the case at hand. In fact, using

the TPA structure makes it possible to define a precise causal evolution, understood as a linear

process between (a) cause(s) and a specific outcome. Therefore, it is possible to extrapolate the

following elements from the previous process:

21

1.Precipitants: are the causes that lead to a certain change. In this case we can talk about the temporal variation of the independent variable (RWPR), identifying it as: construction and destruction “of the other from above”;

2.Departures:are the changes that occur during the process, (i.e. the social reaction): creation and destruction “of the other from below”;

3.Consequences: these compose the final point, in this case the dependent variable (XHCs).

A theory testing process tracing approach is adopted for this case, in order to test whether the hypothesized causal mechanism is between X (independent variable) and Y (dependent variable).

As Beach and Pedersen (2013,146) acknowledge, “first, theory- testing is used when there are well developed theoretical conjectures but we are unsure whether they have empirical support”.

E. Operationalization

1. Precipitant-RWPR: Construction and Destruction “of the Other from Above”

The indicators considered are the dichotomization and delegitimization categories of Bar-Tal and Hammack (2012). These are defined and interpreted as specific rhetorical manifestations (such as oral, written and visual representations) used by the main representatives of the RWPR-the providers (parties, media, intellectuals)- based on the antagonism and ostracization of the identified ethnic targets.

Dichotomization focuses on the rhetorical definition of two distinct homogeneous categories, namely ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. Therefore, in order to verify their presence in empirical cases, we consider testimonies that confirm this division or rather rhetorical separation in the language used by providers through the various media. For a complete understanding it is useful to refer to an example. Chiurco (2019) underlines how the growth of right-wing populist parties and the simultaneous increase of immigrants in Europe has incited various right-wing populist leaders to propagate an ethno-nationalist rhetorical representation of reality, increasingly based on the moral and social divisions between ingroups and outgroups. In other words, the latter, in their public speeches, tend to constantly represent the division between two homogeneous categories, the

“native” people (i.e. Italians, Dutch, French, etc.) and the others (i.e. immigrants).

As regards the five categories of delegitimization:

1.Social expulsion focuses on the representation of the deviant character of the outgroup,

highlighting characteristics contrary to the social and moral codes of the native majority. Therefore,

22

it considers testimonies that highlight a language aimed at painting the ethnic targets purely as deviant, and rhetorically highlighting the impossibility of ethnic integration. Palmieri (2015) and Volpato (2013) describe how during European colonialism -particularly at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries- intellectuals (especially anthropologists) used terms such as “criminals”,

“psychopaths” and “barbarians” in their reports on the colonies in reference to the populations conquered or who were to be conquered. The aim was to underline their intrinsic difference from the ingroup, but above all their status as indisputable violators of universal social norms.

2.Characterization in traits emphasises only the negative connotations of the outgroup. Therefore, the focus is on empirical data that certify the use of a rhetoric based on the circumscription of only the negative traits of the ethnic targets. Both Sarfatti (1994) and Palmieri (2015), with regard to Italian Fascism and German Nazism, highlight how race membership was a positive distinctive factor for the ingroup, which clearly defined the superiority of the “natives”. At the same time, if applied to the outgroup, it was not only a distinctive but also a negative trait (i.e. Ethiopians, Jews, black race, Jewish race, etc.).In the same way, Palladino (2018) underlines how various contemporary right-wing populist leaders including Salvini, Le Pen and Wilders use the terms

“foreigner”, “clandestine” and “immigrant” as distinctive and negative traits.

3.Use of political labels: ethnic targets are associated with political groups considered unacceptable to the majority of natives. Empirical evidence of language that negatively associates minorities with specific political groups that are antagonistic to the majority are considered (i.e. communists).

Avagliano and Palmieri (2013) show how during the Second World War, the two opposing alliances used these forms of political labelling to further delegitimise their respective enemies. This is why, for example, the Italians and the Germans labelled the British and the Russians as “pro- Jewish” and at the same time delegitimised the Jews on their territory as “pro-English” or

“communists”.

4.Comparison between groups is based on the representation of an intergroup comparison that emphasises the threat or damage the delegitimized group causes the delegitimizing group. It is defined as a reversal of the perpetrator-victim relationship, to present the majority as the victim of the minority. In this case, empirical data that precisely indicate the presence of a language that exalts such a rhetorical reversal are considered. Palladino (2018) describes how the various right- wing populist leaders tend to represent their people as victims “of the other” conceived of as an aggressor or invader. The comparison serves both to highlight the damage to the group but also the growing and uncontrollable threat constituted by the “other”, which “spreads”, “penetrates”,

“infiltrates”.

23

5.Dehumanization consists of the negation of “the other’s” humanity. It is considered as testimonies that use language aimed at the complete psycho-physical devaluation and ostracization of specific ethnic targets. Volpato (2013) describes how Jews were continuously represented by dehumanizing characteristics in newspapers in other European countries (i.e. Romania, Croatia, etc.) and not only in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. For example they were described as evil genes (more devils than humans) to symbolise their innate cruelty, or as birds of prey (animals and not human beings) to emphasise their inherent greed.

The validity of these indicators, in my opinion, can be considered strong because:

I believe that there is a good level of overlap between the indicators and the whole process under examination, verifying both the solidity of the definition and that of the theoretical framework, firstly because the RWPR has been defined as a communication framework based on the moral and ethno-nationalist division between “good” and “dangerous”. Secondly because the theoretical framework has deepened this relationship, specifying how this dichotomization is temporally created and sustained through a process of continuous ostracization, defined as delegitimization. I would add that the degree of validity is not “perfect” but only high, as the indicators focus more on the process of antagonism and ostracization created by the RWPR towards ethnic targets, leaving out possible factors inherent to the representation of good and pure people.

2. Departures- Social Reaction: Construction and Destruction “of the Other from Below”

The indicators under consideration focus on the receivers’ (the citizens) reactions to the reception, acceptance and possible re-proposal of the RWPR. They define a conductive link between the construction and destruction from above and below, thus allowing us to observe and analyse the effects of RWPR on society.

1.Threat perception: the feeling of being threatened by the outgroup. Two indicators representing the two different types of perceived threat are considered:

A. Real: the perception of a physical threat to the well-being of the group (physical damage or loss of power or resources).

B. Symbolic: perception of a threat to the ingroup system of values, beliefs and traditions, subject to a risk of being modified, assimilated or destroyed.

Chiurco (2019) highlights how, following the economic crisis of 2011, citizens of several European

countries, including Italy, have begun to perceive immigrants as threats to their economic well-

being (they steal our jobs) and to their religious values (Islam vs. Catholicism). Therefore, empirical

24

evidence confirming the presence in Italian society of a language that represents such perceptions with respect to ethnic targets is considered.

2.Ingroup identification defines a form of exaltation and social celebration of the ingroup with respect to the outgroup, a single indicator defined as ingroup bias, represents this. Staub (1989) and Pessot (2017) describe how during the Second World War, many ordinary citizens wrote daily letters to their leaders (i.e. Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, etc.) exalting their homeland and the deeds of their army engaged in war abroad. In each letter, the writers considered their people superior to others (considered inferior and/or enemies) and find their incarnation in the leader.

In this case, the focus is on those testimonies that highlight the presence in Italian society of linguistic forms of celebration of its national identity and its leaders.

3.Outgroup hostility: the adoption of both verbal and behavioural malevolent attitudes, based on enmity towards ethnic targets. In this regard, two indicators are considered:

A. Social re-proposition of the delegitimizing categories of the RWPR intends to evaluate the possible transmission from top to bottom of such categories, highlighting the possible development of racist and derogatory rhetoric towards the outgroup in Italian society.

B. Moral and verbal legitimization of violence indicates society’s moral disengagement and the revaluation of violence -no longer considered a senseless or deviant action- as a plausible and desirable solution against the perceived threat posed by the outgroup.

Terracciano (2019) and Lunaria (2019) highlight how the progressive affirmation of social media, both as a means of political promotion and as a popular communication tool, has led to a gradual legitimisation of xenophobic violence online. At the European level, particularly among young people, a language “without filters” has spread, characterised by the use of both delegitimizing terms addressed to specific ethnic targets (i.e. “dirty and criminal” immigrants) and a growing incitement to conduct violence, considered a “natural” means against ethnic targets.

In this regard, empirical evidence is considered that testifies the presence at a social level both of a re-proposition -oral, written and visual- of the delegitimizing categories and of the consequent acceptance of violence as a solution against ethnic targets.

These indicators offer a high validity because the social reaction represents the cognitive, emotional

and behavioural response of the people to the reception and assimilation of RWPR. Theoretically

this involves the activation of specific psychosocial defence mechanisms, deriving from the

perception of being threatened “by the other”, such as a greater identification with one's own group

25

and a consequent feeling of hostility towards the outgroup. I believe this is a good level of overlap between indicators and the whole process under consideration.

3. Consequences- Xenophobic Hate Crimes

While XHCs are the culmination of the whole process and present themselves in a plurality of forms, the focus here will be on physical violence alone. All the others are excluded, as manifestations of xenophobic hatred -verbal and symbolic- already present themselves in the processes of construction and destruction, from above and below. On this basis, a single general indicator related to physical violence is used: physical damage caused to the subject(s) with a discriminatory xenophobic purpose (i.e. beatings, rapes, murders, etc.). Therefore, to verify their presence in empirical cases, this analysis considers testimonies that demonstrate and confirm the perpetration by the receivers (the citizens) of acts of physical violence with a xenophobic- discriminatory purpose against specific ethnic targets. In relation to German Nazism, Staub (1989) described how the persecution of Jews was not only orchestrated by the government but was perpetuated through daily acts of xenophobic violence conducted by ordinary citizens. In this case, the violence was not directed at individuals but was both a subjugating instrument and a way of targeting the category they represented (i.e. Jews).

The validity of this indicator, in my opinion, is average because: the definition of XHCs implies a plurality of possible manifestations (verbal, symbolic, etc). The indicator focuses only on forms of xenophobic physical violence. In this case, the validity is not low, because although the level of overlap is minimal, the indicator represents exactly what has been defined in the theoretical causal process, i.e. the culmination of a process leading to xenophobic violence.

F. Data Collection

1.RWPR: mainly secondary sources (books and academic papers) are used. The focus for both cases is on the media involved in the dissemination of this rhetoric, such as public speeches, the press (articles and images) and social media.

2.Social Reaction: secondary sources that document the testimonies of Italians and victims are used. In relation to both the RWPR and the social reaction, testimonies from diaries and private letters are also used for the primary case only. In the secondary case, national and international reports were also used for both factors.

3.XHCs: secondary sources are always used. For the primary case, police reports and fiduciary

notes of the regime are used. For the second case, greater reliance was placed on national and

international reporting on these crimes (OSCE/ODIHR sources), with a particular focus on the

26

research of the Lunaria Organization -National Observatory on Migration and Racism, a major institution fighting XHCs and the most important research centre on the subject.

It is important to make three specifications with regards to the sources used:

1.Italian sources: first, considering that the study focuses on RWPR and its influence in the specific Italian case, mainly Italian sources are considered. In this regard, it should be noted that the author has personally translated all Italian quotations. Moreover, for the secondary case only, given Leader Matteo Salvini's frequent use of online posts and tweets, an appendix following the bibliography lists all of these sources in chronological order.

2.Evidentiary Leverage: secondly, different sources are used for the two cases under analysis.

Each source has a different empirical weight for research purposes, the difference implies a greater difficulty in comparison and data collection. With the awareness of this problem, it is good to underline that the present study adopting a comparative historical approach naturally led to the adoption of different sources to simultaneously improve the understanding and analysis of the two periods considered. The complete standardisation of sources would have limited this study, preventing us from capturing important details concerning the causal relationship being investigated. In this case, the differences are not a limitation but an advantage in order to better understand certain processes, as for example the historical evolution of the media exploited by RWPR.

3.Corpus: thirdly, this study uses a wide variety of sources for a proper examination of theoretical

and historical dynamics. For the fascist period, the focus is on the testimonies (i.e. newspaper

articles, letters and diaries, etc.) that make it possible to observe and analyse in detail not only the

historical events, but also the evolution of public opinion and its reactions -emotional, cognitive and

behavioural- with respect to ethnic targets. For the modern case on the other hand, among the

various sources used, particular attention is given to national and international reports, in order to

have a comprehensive view of the dynamics involved and thus allow us to examine the Italian

context from different points of view. Given the plurality of data and testimonies considered for

both cases, it was necessary to carefully and thoughtfully evaluate the sources to be presented and

analysed. The ultimate goal is to obtain a corpus –i.e. the set of sources used- deriving from an

impartial selection and consisting only of the most emblematic and authoritative. To this end, the

data considered derive from the recognition of specific trends in the study of testimonies related to

the two cases. In other words, during the data collection phase -both for the fascist and the modern

period- it was possible to notice a constant use of the same sources (quotations, historical events,