How Autocrats Use Digital Nostalgia and Disrupt Democracy – INTERVIEW

From the resurgence of nationalist sentiments in Europe to the strategic use of historical narratives in American politics, Jason Steinhauer provides a nuanced analysis of how our digital age is reshaping the past and its role in our future.

In this interview, Jason Steinhauer explores how social media platforms have fostered a new kind of nostalgia, influencing both democratic and autocratic leaders. He discusses the implications of this digital nostalgia for political discourse, policy-making and the broader societal impact.

Wojciech Przybylski: How important is history for democracy to thrive? You wrote your book with the importance of this subject in mind, not just for historians but for democracy practitioners.

Jason Steinhauer: The book is called History, Disrupted: How Social Media and the Worldwide Web Have Changed the Past. The idea for the book developed over several years, but it came into focus when I was working at the US Library of Congress. The Library of Congress, the largest library in the world with 175 million items, exists to provide information to Congress and the public.

At that time, social media was becoming a significant part of our lives through platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. I noticed a paradox: while sitting next to 175 million items of collected wisdom, policymakers were increasingly relying on the information in their news feeds to shape policy and political discussion. I wanted to understand why we gave so much credence to information on our phones versus other types of information.

My background is in public history, which involves museums, archives, libraries and government institutions – places where history is invoked for public benefit. I was particularly interested in why certain historical content online becomes so influential, while other content does not. Why do we privilege content from social media over academic articles and monographs housed in places like the Library of Congress?

Editor’s Pick: The Fight Against Media Freedom Predators

The answers to these questions were more complicated than I expected. They intersected with issues like the role of technology in our lives, shifting power structures and questions about democracy and autocracy. Both systems are exploited by political actors to advance specific agendas.

Accurate and honest history, rooted in historical evidence and truthful interpretation, is critical to a democracy. That’s why the Library of Congress exists. By examining all this material, we aim to find the truth about what is happening in the world and use that to devise policy solutions. Without this foundation, it’s challenging to address real-world problems.

When historical information is manipulated or distorted for political purposes, it creates significant problems. The book, which started with a simple question, has proven highly relevant to many geopolitical issues we’re facing today, whether it’s the situation in Russia and Ukraine or the contemporary political scene.

That’s one of the reasons why we keep encountering each other at events. We’re all trying to figure out what to do now that the genie is out of the bottle regarding history on these platforms and the broader influence of technology on our lives.

I asked you about why history is important for democracy. But maybe history is even more crucial for autocratic strategies. 

Autocrats seem to pay a lot of attention to history and its manipulation. For example, Putin often uses historical narratives, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary emphasises selective historical events to mobilise his audience. Is it accurate to say that autocrats believe controlling the past helps control the future? Or is this more specific to Europe?

You’re definitely onto something, and I discuss this in the book. I make a distinction between history and the past. History, as a professional discipline, involves rigorous methodologies and standards. In Europe, it’s even considered a science with defined ways of doing it well.

The past, on the other hand, is everything that has happened up until now, including our recent conversation. Autocrats exploit the past because it feels stable and familiar compared to the often unstable present and future. In Europe, issues like immigration, automation, political dysfunction and climate change contribute to a sense of instability. The past offers a stable anchor that people can hold onto.

Populists and autocrats use this to their advantage by promoting a nostalgic view of the past. They don’t need to propose solutions for the future; they can rely on people’s yearning for a return to what they perceive as a better, more stable time. This rhetoric becomes especially potent in times of uncertainty.

This tactic is not limited to Europe; it’s a global phenomenon. Leaders around the world use this strategy to gain and maintain power by promising a return to a more familiar past, which distracts from addressing complex future issues. It’s crucial for citizens to critically assess these nostalgic promises, as they often serve to consolidate power rather than solve real problems.

Educating voters and promoting historical and media literacy are key to recognising these manipulative tactics. Understanding how history is used for political gain helps in critically evaluating such promises and ensures a more informed public.

A Bulgarian writer, Georgi Gospodinov was recently awarded the International Booker Prize for the book Time Shelter. In it, he creates a fantasy world where nostalgia is so strong across European nations that people try to artificially recreate the past. This reflects the strong desire for a return to earlier times and seems to align with your description of how nostalgia plays into populist movements. 

These movements have seen significant success in European elections even though the EU was designed to contain nationalism. In a recent newsletter, you touched on the predictability of results and the unpredictability of the future. You also mentioned the instability of political systems. Given the new leadership in European institutions, do you think nationalism is growing, and will these trends reinforce each other across the Atlantic?

You’re hitting on a crucial point. In my book, I argue that technologies and social media are central to understanding the resurgence of nostalgia and its exploitation by populists and autocrats. For instance, I have a chapter called “Nostalgia on Demand”, which discusses how platforms like Facebook were designed to prioritise nostalgic content. This not only keeps users engaged but also creates visually compelling displays that drive advertising revenue.

The rise of digital nostalgia on platforms like Facebook and Instagram has turbocharged nostalgic emotions and political movements. Some scholars anticipated this in the early 2010s, predicting that these technologies could be used to create and weaponise nostalgic moments for political purposes.

When I visited countries like Georgia, North Macedonia and Bulgaria, it became evident that the deep penetration of social media into daily life correlates with the rise of digital nostalgia as a political tool. For example, in Belgium, the party Vlaams Belang has effectively used social media to engage voters, especially younger ones, through evocative and nostalgic imagery. Similar patterns are seen in Bulgaria and elsewhere.

The question of instability also ties into this. When the world feels unstable – due to issues like immigration, climate change or economic uncertainty – there is a retreat to the comfort of nationalism and the nation-state. This sense of security in closing borders and restricting identity becomes appealing.

This dynamic is evident in Brexit, and it’s also seen in regions like Flanders, Spain, France and Italy. Technology, instability, nostalgia and nationalism are all interacting to create a potent political mix. Understanding these connections is essential for grasping the current political climate and its future trajectory.

You mentioned several European countries. Given that we’re all in the same digital and informational bubble, there are shared dynamics across the Atlantic. 

In Europe, there’s a deep fear of returning to past nostalgia, particularly from a century ago. In the US, the “America First” policy echoes a sense of isolationism rooted in the myth of America as a new, self-sufficient civilisation. How strong is this nostalgia in the US, and how important is it for the American public?

Nostalgia is indeed a powerful force in American politics. This sentiment is evident across both the Republican Party and, to some extent, the Democratic Party.

The US faces significant challenges, including climate change, rising inequality and the impact of AI and automation. In many regions, especially those hit hard by the decline of manufacturing, there are communities struggling with poverty, crime and a lack of opportunity.

In his book Hillbilly Elegy, J.D. Vance highlights these issues, reflecting the reality for many Americans. The nostalgia for a time when manufacturing jobs were plentiful and people felt secure has been harnessed by figures like Vance and Donald Trump. The “Make America Great Again” slogan taps into this yearning for a perceived better past, offering a sense of hope and stability amid current hardships.

This nostalgia often substitutes for concrete policy solutions. For example, while there is a need for a transition to green energy to combat climate change, political rhetoric frequently clings to outdated energy policies, such as ‘drill, baby, drill’. The nostalgia for a prosperous past resonates strongly in communities facing economic decline and offers a simpler, though ultimately inadequate, solution to their problems.

Based on your analysis in History, Disrupted, what can be done to address the challenges of disinformation, the role of social media and the use of history in politics? How can democracies adapt and thrive in this context?

This is a crucial question. Here are a few key recommendations:

1. Promote Accurate History: Honest and rigorous historical scholarship is essential for democracy. It helps clarify deeper issues behind current problems and informs better solutions. Unfortunately, funding for historical research has been cut, so it’s important to support this work, even if it’s not always engaging or immediately appealing.
2. Embed Historians in Policy Making: Historical thinking should be integrated into policy development. Federal agencies, especially those without dedicated history offices, would benefit from having historians involved in shaping policy, not just preserving agency history. This approach should extend to state and local levels as well.
3. Enhance Collaboration Between Historians and Journalists: Historians and journalists should work together from the start to develop stories, rather than the current model where journalists seek historians’ input after the fact. This collaboration can lead to more nuanced and accurate reporting.
4. Involve Historians in Technology Development: Historians and humanities scholars should be involved in the development of new technologies. Understanding how past technologies have been used and misused can provide valuable insights for creating ethical and effective future technologies.

Building these connections and integrating historical insights into various spheres of public and political life will help address the broader challenges we face. For those interested in contributing to these efforts, there are many opportunities to get involved and make a difference.

*This interview was edited from a conversation to improve readability. You can listen to the complete discussion on our Visegrad Insight podcast at the top of the page or click here.

Jason Steinhauer is the author of ‘History, Disrupted’, a public historian, creator of the field of history communication, Global Fellow at The Wilson Center & former director of the Lepage Centre for History in the Public Interest.

• Hungary
• Identity Politics
• Information Sovereignty
• Politics of History
• Russia
• Social Media
• USA