Professor Hutter, as a political sociologist who focuses on societal change, you address questions concerning how societal processes of transformation such as globalization influence political conflicts. You also examine who articulates these conflicts, and how they go on to impact politics on a larger scale. Can your field of research serve as a bulwark of democracy?

We are currently experiencing a number of erosion processes in which the resilience of democracy as a system is being put to the test. The field of social sciences can take on a number of important roles in this regard. First, social scientists can help to gain an overall picture of the situation by asking questions such as: Which conflicts currently exist? How are they structured? Who is driving mobilization? Second, we have to work more closely with relevant actors from outside of academia, such as from civil society, administrative bodies, and sometimes even politics. This is where political sociology can very much be applied and have real-world impact, for example, in order to understand how democratic forces organize on site and in person when confronted with antidemocratic actors.

At the same time we often hear that there is plenty of expertise, but too little of it is being put into practice. Can we blame politicians for this?

No, academia also holds a share of the blame, partly because there is rarely one correct answer in the social sciences, and partly because we often do not communicate our expertise in such a way that it reaches all relevant actors.

Where do you see research gaps at present?

We know comparatively quite a lot about how parties should respond to right-wing populist or right-wing extremist positions. Studies have shown, for example, that it is simply not productive to adopt right-wing issues and narratives if you want to beat them in the polls. However, we have little research on what happens on a local level within clubs, initiatives, and associations when these attitudes take hold. We need more analyses on counter strategies in these contexts and how effective they are.

You are the director of the Center for Civil Society Research at Freie Universität Berlin and the WZB Berlin Social Science Center. What do you investigate at the Center?

What interests us is how people come together to organize and take action as a collective, from “quiet” engagement within clubs and neighborhood initiatives through to larger social movements and protests. We have been observing significant change in this area. Engagement is becoming more fragmented and informal so that many people do not necessarily want to sign up to become members of a club, but instead get involved in individual projects. At the same time these spaces continue to serve as pillars of democracy. Our research focuses on what civil society can achieve under these conditions, in particular after it has undergone such changes.

Your data show that 2024 was one of the years with the highest intensity of protests, yet they were mostly concentrated within the space of a few weeks. How do you interpret this?

You could put a positive spin on the fact that so many people took to the streets to protest against right-wing extremism in such a short time span. But you could also interpret this as a weakness, as these were highly reactive mobilizations to specific events, such as the revelations surrounding the “remigration” debate. It did not give rise to a sustained wave of protest.

You differentiate between “loud” and “quiet” engagement for democracy. What do you mean by this?

“Loud” engagement is what everyone sees, like protests, rallies, and public statements. “Quiet” engagement happens in everyday life, in things as basic as people helping out their neighbors or getting involved in associations, sports clubs, mentoring programs, and neighborhood initiatives. These are spaces in which people with highly diverse backgrounds come together to pursue common interests.

How does this type of “quiet” interaction strengthen democracy?

This kind of contact is a chance for people to move outside of their regular social circles and engage with other groups. Regularly working, studying, or exercising with other people builds up a certain amount of interpersonal trust. You learn about how other people live and can better accept these differences. These are formative experiences that also have the potential to make political conflicts more civil.

You have spoken before about pressure from outside and from within civil society. What exactly do you mean by that?

“Pressure from outside” refers to right-wing extremist or antidemocratic actors exerting pressure on specific targets. This can be confrontational in nature, but it can also be framed as cooperative, taking the form of donations or coordinated actions in person. This can create challenges for clubs and associations, especially in regions in which a right-wing hegemony is in development. “Pressure from within” means that people in the center of society avoid certain conversations because they feel like polarization has simply grown too strong. Our surveys for Germany show that about one-quarter of those questioned had avoided conversations for political reasons over the course of the previous month. However, the real trouble is when members of this group – who form the heart of many civil society organizations – retreat from discussions, while extremist positions become more omnipresent.

A lot of people say they have no interest in speaking to dyed-in-the-wool right-wing extremists. Does that seem like a reasonable stance to you?

It is certainly an understandable reaction. But when people stay silent and cede space within their club or local initiative to more radical voices, then this can shift the Overton window in the wrong direction. It is important to note that this phenomenon is not limited solely to people facing off against others who are openly hostile toward democracy. It can also affect legitimate differences in opinion, such as the rate at which climate policies should be enacted. This is an area where we see people split rapidly into two camps and demonize the other side.

What gives you hope?

More than anything: the millions of people engaged in civil society around Germany. The ideas are there, the energy is there, and that gives us something to work with. Politicians should not jeopardize this with budget cuts and smear campaigns. Scholars and scientists can contribute by collecting evidence to advance knowledge, providing access to that knowledge, and facilitating conversations between different groups. 

Christopher Ferner conducted the interview.

---

This article originally appeared in German in the Tagesspiegel newspaper supplement published by Freie Universität Berlin on November 29 , 2025.