Page 121 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 121
s. dragoš ■ factors of radicalization
society, a fundamentalist attitude to reality, and an “alternative” reading
of events). How much impact this radicalism will have depends on both
the social circumstances and the most powerful man in the country who
is creating them.
The reason why Figure 1 is marked as a “cage” is because it illus-
trates the social context that moves various combinations of dimen-
sions towards one or the other direction. When negative extremes of the
four dimensions coincide, everything goes wrong, because they encour-
age closed, self-referential logic. One of the important constituents of the
context that strengthens the development of individual dimensions is so-
cial power: that is why it does matter who combines the extremes in the
abovementioned dimensions (Figure 1) – whether the actors are people in
power or from the social margins. In this context, Koopmans (1993) and
others22 point out that the qualification of radicalism primarily depends
on the state and its reaction to certain events. Since in Europe Muslims
(beside the Roma) are now the most stigmatised part of the population,
some educational experts warn that Muslim schools – despite their prac-
ticing religious indoctrination – pose less threat for the radicalisation of
their students than mixed schools that are also attended by Muslim chil-
dren, because in mixed schools children are exposed to more pressure
coming from the environment due to their specific religious or ethnic dif-
ferences (Merry, 2018). While I am certainly not trying here to advocate
educational indoctrination, what I am suggesting is a choice of lesser risk.
Although studies with the opposing findings also seem convincing (e.g.
Hewstone et al., 2018), it is very likely that the reduction of discrimina-
tion and stigmatisation that can occur in the learning process does not de-
pend on the (non-)existence of religious schools, but on the social context
in which they operate.
Apart from social power and status, the context of radicalisation also
depends on material inequality and the related expectations. According
to Gallup and Castelli (1989: p. 122) – “American blacks are, by some
measures, the most religious people in the world.” They see the reason for
this in the context in which such people live, as individual religiosity is
most influenced by ethnicity or colour of skin, social-economic status, de-
gree of education, size of the city in which a person lives, and the religios-
ity of one’s parents (Batson et al., 1993: pp. 38–43). If the changes in eco-
nomic or social conditions that are occurring in the richest societies of the
world prevent the majority of people from expecting that their material
22 “The tolerance of different regimes for certain types of behavior can cause dramatic shifts in
what constitutes radicalism over very short periods of time” (Cross & Snow, 2011: p. 117).
119
society, a fundamentalist attitude to reality, and an “alternative” reading
of events). How much impact this radicalism will have depends on both
the social circumstances and the most powerful man in the country who
is creating them.
The reason why Figure 1 is marked as a “cage” is because it illus-
trates the social context that moves various combinations of dimen-
sions towards one or the other direction. When negative extremes of the
four dimensions coincide, everything goes wrong, because they encour-
age closed, self-referential logic. One of the important constituents of the
context that strengthens the development of individual dimensions is so-
cial power: that is why it does matter who combines the extremes in the
abovementioned dimensions (Figure 1) – whether the actors are people in
power or from the social margins. In this context, Koopmans (1993) and
others22 point out that the qualification of radicalism primarily depends
on the state and its reaction to certain events. Since in Europe Muslims
(beside the Roma) are now the most stigmatised part of the population,
some educational experts warn that Muslim schools – despite their prac-
ticing religious indoctrination – pose less threat for the radicalisation of
their students than mixed schools that are also attended by Muslim chil-
dren, because in mixed schools children are exposed to more pressure
coming from the environment due to their specific religious or ethnic dif-
ferences (Merry, 2018). While I am certainly not trying here to advocate
educational indoctrination, what I am suggesting is a choice of lesser risk.
Although studies with the opposing findings also seem convincing (e.g.
Hewstone et al., 2018), it is very likely that the reduction of discrimina-
tion and stigmatisation that can occur in the learning process does not de-
pend on the (non-)existence of religious schools, but on the social context
in which they operate.
Apart from social power and status, the context of radicalisation also
depends on material inequality and the related expectations. According
to Gallup and Castelli (1989: p. 122) – “American blacks are, by some
measures, the most religious people in the world.” They see the reason for
this in the context in which such people live, as individual religiosity is
most influenced by ethnicity or colour of skin, social-economic status, de-
gree of education, size of the city in which a person lives, and the religios-
ity of one’s parents (Batson et al., 1993: pp. 38–43). If the changes in eco-
nomic or social conditions that are occurring in the richest societies of the
world prevent the majority of people from expecting that their material
22 “The tolerance of different regimes for certain types of behavior can cause dramatic shifts in
what constitutes radicalism over very short periods of time” (Cross & Snow, 2011: p. 117).
119
