Page 114 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 114
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
medium ones. But, as noted above, neither is without them. With, in this
sense, both politics as well as religion being typically omnipresent or hy-
percomplex12 systems, it makes sense to consider the following two theses
in relation to radicalisation. For lack of space I will not go into detail, but
will only give a short formulation of both:
- the more the systems of institutionalised meanings (in our case, pol-
itics and religion)13 are hypercomplex, the greater the possibility for
the radicalisation of dissatisfied minorities among the members of
the system;
- although, in the long term, modernisation and pluralisation of so-
cial systems are narrowing the space for radical choices, this can
only be said for top to bottom radicalisation, and not in the opposite
direction.
The more optimistically we understand modernisation the more
these two theses will sound pessimistic, as a “tax” on Enlightenment il-
lusions. This “tax” is justified for two reasons; the first is linked to the ex-
pected scope of modernisation processes, and the second to their depth.
The estimations of both were exaggerated, beginning with the father of
sociological science, Émile Durkheim (for more on this see Berger &
Luckmann, 1999: pp. 33–34). Sociologically, there is no controversy, and
thus it is believed that – more than ever before in the history of human
societies – such strong factors as modernisation and modern14 pluralism
lead to relativisation due to demonopolisation. Values, the persuasiveness
of their explanations and the power of institutional mechanisms that sup-
port them, are becoming weaker due to the competition that erodes them.
This results in the “decanonisation” of truths as well as “dis-orientation
12 It is hypercomplex in terms as understood by systems theory (for a definition, see Niklas
Luhmann, 1995: 471), and the fundamental problem of these systems is autoparalysis. Will-
ke describes this problem as the paradox of the “relationship between complexity and con-
tingency: paradoxality of the principled possibility of creating diverse realities by choosing
certain options of the complex whole on one hand, and the autoparalysis of the complex
system for the very abundance of options” on the other (emphasis in Willke, 1993: p. 87).
Willke wrote this diagnosis, that gives a good explanation of today’s crisis of the system of
parliamentary democracy, in 1989, that is, in different times that were extremely optimistic
for the development of democracy.
13 Because the art system also belongs among hypercomplex systems (specific theories or
aesthetics + “language” + rules + institutions + production processes + definitions of sys-
tem boundaries of inside/outside), this system is also considered overburdened and con-
sequently equally susceptible to radicalisation. However, it is not dangerous, because – as
opposed to politics and religion – it is based on essentially different relationship between
coercive and persuasive forms of power.
14 As a consequence of modernisation processes, modern pluralism differs from previous
pluralisms in pre-modern societies (Berger & Luckmann, 1999: pp. 28–29).
112
medium ones. But, as noted above, neither is without them. With, in this
sense, both politics as well as religion being typically omnipresent or hy-
percomplex12 systems, it makes sense to consider the following two theses
in relation to radicalisation. For lack of space I will not go into detail, but
will only give a short formulation of both:
- the more the systems of institutionalised meanings (in our case, pol-
itics and religion)13 are hypercomplex, the greater the possibility for
the radicalisation of dissatisfied minorities among the members of
the system;
- although, in the long term, modernisation and pluralisation of so-
cial systems are narrowing the space for radical choices, this can
only be said for top to bottom radicalisation, and not in the opposite
direction.
The more optimistically we understand modernisation the more
these two theses will sound pessimistic, as a “tax” on Enlightenment il-
lusions. This “tax” is justified for two reasons; the first is linked to the ex-
pected scope of modernisation processes, and the second to their depth.
The estimations of both were exaggerated, beginning with the father of
sociological science, Émile Durkheim (for more on this see Berger &
Luckmann, 1999: pp. 33–34). Sociologically, there is no controversy, and
thus it is believed that – more than ever before in the history of human
societies – such strong factors as modernisation and modern14 pluralism
lead to relativisation due to demonopolisation. Values, the persuasiveness
of their explanations and the power of institutional mechanisms that sup-
port them, are becoming weaker due to the competition that erodes them.
This results in the “decanonisation” of truths as well as “dis-orientation
12 It is hypercomplex in terms as understood by systems theory (for a definition, see Niklas
Luhmann, 1995: 471), and the fundamental problem of these systems is autoparalysis. Will-
ke describes this problem as the paradox of the “relationship between complexity and con-
tingency: paradoxality of the principled possibility of creating diverse realities by choosing
certain options of the complex whole on one hand, and the autoparalysis of the complex
system for the very abundance of options” on the other (emphasis in Willke, 1993: p. 87).
Willke wrote this diagnosis, that gives a good explanation of today’s crisis of the system of
parliamentary democracy, in 1989, that is, in different times that were extremely optimistic
for the development of democracy.
13 Because the art system also belongs among hypercomplex systems (specific theories or
aesthetics + “language” + rules + institutions + production processes + definitions of sys-
tem boundaries of inside/outside), this system is also considered overburdened and con-
sequently equally susceptible to radicalisation. However, it is not dangerous, because – as
opposed to politics and religion – it is based on essentially different relationship between
coercive and persuasive forms of power.
14 As a consequence of modernisation processes, modern pluralism differs from previous
pluralisms in pre-modern societies (Berger & Luckmann, 1999: pp. 28–29).
112
