Page 109 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 109
Factors of Radicalization
Srečo Dragoš
Introduction
When addressing radicalism a problem occurs at the very begin-
ning – in terms of the unclear definition of the subject under
examination. Usually, the problem begins with vague defini-
tions that are too broad or inadequate in other ways. As pointed out by
Đorić (2016), expert elaborations tend to contain three kinds of errors in
this respect: the use of synonyms, voluntarist qualifications and disregard
of the difference between the general and specific. A superficial use of syn-
onyms often leads to the equalisation of terms, such as populism, right-
wing radicalism, extremism, neo-fascism, ultra-radicalism, terrorism, and
so on.
Most often the voluntarist approach uses radicalism as a stigma
in political discourse, and this occurs in two ways: for disqualification,
where the designation of radicalism is used as a label of inferiority to de-
marcate competitive ideas or groups; or the same designation can serve
as an “orientation” criterion of the analysis in which the term radicalism
serves to qualify the extreme poles of the relationship between the left and
the right wings, in order to more easily discern the nuances between dif-
ferent competitive actors in the political space. This is not always wrong,
because such an “orientation” use is not necessarily without an analyti-
cal value, but it can only be realised under three conditions: if the con-
cept of radicalism is clearly defined, if it is consistently applied, and at the
same time empirically supported. If this is not the case, and only one of
these conditions is absent, we have slipped into voluntarism. There is a
107
Srečo Dragoš
Introduction
When addressing radicalism a problem occurs at the very begin-
ning – in terms of the unclear definition of the subject under
examination. Usually, the problem begins with vague defini-
tions that are too broad or inadequate in other ways. As pointed out by
Đorić (2016), expert elaborations tend to contain three kinds of errors in
this respect: the use of synonyms, voluntarist qualifications and disregard
of the difference between the general and specific. A superficial use of syn-
onyms often leads to the equalisation of terms, such as populism, right-
wing radicalism, extremism, neo-fascism, ultra-radicalism, terrorism, and
so on.
Most often the voluntarist approach uses radicalism as a stigma
in political discourse, and this occurs in two ways: for disqualification,
where the designation of radicalism is used as a label of inferiority to de-
marcate competitive ideas or groups; or the same designation can serve
as an “orientation” criterion of the analysis in which the term radicalism
serves to qualify the extreme poles of the relationship between the left and
the right wings, in order to more easily discern the nuances between dif-
ferent competitive actors in the political space. This is not always wrong,
because such an “orientation” use is not necessarily without an analyti-
cal value, but it can only be realised under three conditions: if the con-
cept of radicalism is clearly defined, if it is consistently applied, and at the
same time empirically supported. If this is not the case, and only one of
these conditions is absent, we have slipped into voluntarism. There is a
107
