Page 115 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 115
s. dragoš ■ factors of radicalization
of the individual and entire groups” (ibid.: pp. 33–38). Although modern
pluralism is useful, because it promotes the peaceful coexistence of dif-
ferent lifestyles, it cannot be considered a “direct inhibitor of the process
of expansion of crises of meaning”, as Berger and Luckmann have put it.
The authors show that the problem lies in the narrow scope of pluralisa-
tion processes. Namely, pluralisation only suggests to the individual how
they should behave towards others, but that is all. Pluralisation is neither a
map nor an algorithm for action. Now individuals have to find their own
way of how to “very concretely lead one’s life,” as they find themselves in a
situation when “the unquestioned validity of the traditional order is shak-
en” (ibid.: pp. 29–30), faster and faster and more and more dramatically.
Moreover systems theory – about which Berger and Luckmann give
an account with regard to the individual as a psychic system (confronta-
tion with meaning) – points to the same problem with regard to inter-
active, social and societal systems.15 The processes of modernisation and
pluralisation have come to present a growing challenge for the system-
ic regulation of their boundaries with the environment due to the grow-
ing contingency; that is, the possibility that “something can be like this or
like something else” (Luhmann, 1995: pp. 25, 56–57). The growing contin-
gency is related to the growing complexity and the need for its selection,
which, as I have said, applies to all human systems. The more complex
the circumstances the more difficult is the regulation of the difference be-
tween a system and its environment (both external and internal). With re-
gard to the strategies of radicalisation, contingency is important, because
it increases the degree of vagueness, insecurity, distress and risk, and in
turn radicalism can (under certain circumstances) become a possible exit
from the resulting dilemma.
The Cage of Radicalisation
Radicalism means – as I defined it at the beginning of this paper – a com-
bination of four factors (as illustrated in Figure 1):16
- Cognitive factor: this involves the attitude to reality. Its perception
is possible on the dimension between two extreme poles, between
complete relativism and the opposite extreme, a fundamentalist at-
titude to the world or to certain truths in individual fields. With
regard with this dimension Krüger’s definition of fundamentalism
seems appropriate: “‘Fundamentalism’, thus understood, implies not
only a set of substantive ideas, but also a particular cognitive style
15 For a general theory of systems and their classification see Luhmann, 1995: pp. 1–11.
16 Figure 1 present factors as dimensions in space.
113
of the individual and entire groups” (ibid.: pp. 33–38). Although modern
pluralism is useful, because it promotes the peaceful coexistence of dif-
ferent lifestyles, it cannot be considered a “direct inhibitor of the process
of expansion of crises of meaning”, as Berger and Luckmann have put it.
The authors show that the problem lies in the narrow scope of pluralisa-
tion processes. Namely, pluralisation only suggests to the individual how
they should behave towards others, but that is all. Pluralisation is neither a
map nor an algorithm for action. Now individuals have to find their own
way of how to “very concretely lead one’s life,” as they find themselves in a
situation when “the unquestioned validity of the traditional order is shak-
en” (ibid.: pp. 29–30), faster and faster and more and more dramatically.
Moreover systems theory – about which Berger and Luckmann give
an account with regard to the individual as a psychic system (confronta-
tion with meaning) – points to the same problem with regard to inter-
active, social and societal systems.15 The processes of modernisation and
pluralisation have come to present a growing challenge for the system-
ic regulation of their boundaries with the environment due to the grow-
ing contingency; that is, the possibility that “something can be like this or
like something else” (Luhmann, 1995: pp. 25, 56–57). The growing contin-
gency is related to the growing complexity and the need for its selection,
which, as I have said, applies to all human systems. The more complex
the circumstances the more difficult is the regulation of the difference be-
tween a system and its environment (both external and internal). With re-
gard to the strategies of radicalisation, contingency is important, because
it increases the degree of vagueness, insecurity, distress and risk, and in
turn radicalism can (under certain circumstances) become a possible exit
from the resulting dilemma.
The Cage of Radicalisation
Radicalism means – as I defined it at the beginning of this paper – a com-
bination of four factors (as illustrated in Figure 1):16
- Cognitive factor: this involves the attitude to reality. Its perception
is possible on the dimension between two extreme poles, between
complete relativism and the opposite extreme, a fundamentalist at-
titude to the world or to certain truths in individual fields. With
regard with this dimension Krüger’s definition of fundamentalism
seems appropriate: “‘Fundamentalism’, thus understood, implies not
only a set of substantive ideas, but also a particular cognitive style
15 For a general theory of systems and their classification see Luhmann, 1995: pp. 1–11.
16 Figure 1 present factors as dimensions in space.
113
