Is society becoming more extreme?

In the face of anti-Islamification rallies in Germany and the gruesome terror attacks in Paris serious question are being raised about social cohesion within European societies.

Questions are being asked about whether Western societies are becoming more extremist in general, as opposed to militant, terms.

Are we beginning to see unusual numbers of people holding trenchant positions at the poles of public opinion, especially on keystone issues? What does this hold for our collective future?

In sociological terms, of course, some extremes can be important. By their very existence they help to define the middle ground, the mainstream. They mark the boundaries of opinion, providing a gauge for the health of public debate.

However, too much polarisation results in a shrinking middle ground and the growth of alienation, bitterness and recrimination.

On the political front, parties like UKIP and France's Front National are gradually attracting a wider hearing. But is this a reflection of a growing political extremism within the electorate?

I'm not so sure. In the European elections last year, some newspapers reported that voters had 'lurched' to the right, by supporting groups like UKIP.

To lurch is to stagger or lunge suddenly, usually without forethought. When editors apply such adjectives to the voting process, they infer that electors have cast their votes thoughtlessly.

I have no axe to grind for UKIP, but I'd argue that by throwing more support behind UKIP voters weren't lurching. Many of them were responding to a perceived elitism at the top of British politics.

For some time, more than a few Brits have asked: 'How can Oxford PPE graduates, coming straight out of university into politics, without any outside work experience, possibly understand my everyday concerns?'

People think it's little wonder MPs create such problems as the expenses scandal. How can they do otherwise when they have little or no real-world frames of reference for their behaviour?

Some of the swing away from traditional parties to smaller, fringe-dwellers also reflects that we've moved away from institutional loyalty.

In a more segmented and diversified age, we are inclined to vote according to issues, particularly the two or three that matter most to us, as individuals and as families.

Of course, in this media-saturated age we also vote for personality.

'Who can best negotiate a bacon sandwich?' may not be the stuff of Shakespearean political drama, but it does – if only subconsciously – colour the zeitgeist when it comes to 'Who can I relate to best?'

On a social level, any movement toward extremes is coloured in part by the impacts of globalisation, urbanisation and the high mobility of modern society. Each represents challenges to social cohesion.

We have more and more people living in smaller spaces who feel that they have less and less in common with each other.

It's harder for us to feel that we actually belong together in our communities, that we're all part of the same essential narrative, or share a common history.

This is exacerbated by the process of digitisation and the fact that so much of our conversation is mediated through gadgets and screens.

Before being accused of Luddism, I need to point out that as a social futurist I am very keen on new technologies, which I study relatively closely.

But technology is not destiny – the future is shaped more by human choice than by tools. We must decide how best to use technology – and we're still having that debate when it comes to such things as social media.

In response to all of this, there's a rise in tribalism, which in its most far-fetched guise is linked to xenophobia and ultra-nationalism.

In most cases, however, tribalism takes a much more benign form, as the expression of a search for others who think like us and share our worldview or heritage.

To break through the hubbub of a noisy age and locate potential friends, people of normally moderate views may experiment with the fringes of opinion a little more openly. They might also express half-formed views in uncharacteristically strong ways – in the cybersphere, for example.

However, this flirtation with outside-the-mainstream views isn't always driven by an extremist mindset. The goal is not necessarily to court controversy; it is to find community.

We must also consider the impact of the digital revolution – and especially what psychologists call 'social disinhibition'. This refers to the fact that people will often take risks and say things online that they'd never say in person.

According to one recent survey, two percent of Brits admit to having insulted someone they don't know online within the past year. Extrapolated across the population that suggests one million people may have deliberately insulted at least one million other people.

Normally circumspect people often feel that the online world represents an alternate reality; a zone where they will enjoy anonymity.

Studies suggest that, comforted by this false sense of security, many of us are prone to express views much more strongly online, on a whole range of subjects. This may add to the perception that our social discourse is becoming more extreme.

Finally, any perceived rise in extremism must be measured against socio-economic factors.

Paris offers a case in point. France has an unemployment rate of over ten percent. Perhaps a sizeable proportion of those who are out of work will be living among the nation's almost five million Muslims.

Dealing with poverty or lack of opportunity is vital to promoting cohesion and respect. However, this will not magic away the problem of militant extremism, for the latter is a moral and ideological issue.

The vast majority of young people from the same background as the Charlie Hebdo killers have already decided to get on with life, using whatever opportunities come their way, or finding more constructive means to bring about change.

Is society becoming more extreme? Certainly there are pockets of radical extremism, but there is still a robust mainstream which agrees on more than it disagrees about.

Our social discourse still looks a little too much to political correctness as a guarantee of cohesion. At times it allows those who lecture the most ardently for tolerance to deny it to others.

We also, at times, refuse to acknowledge facts that are in front of our faces. This, perhaps, is human nature.

We must do more to tackle anti-semitism and other forms of religious bias, at home as abroad. We must also do more to root out the promoters of violent militancy and boost opportunities for those who are legitimately marginalised.

Yet for the most part, in Britain anyway, society is probably still small 'c' conservative in its values. We must treasure what harmony we have and, without compromising proven principles and ethics, work all the harder to nurture it.