Page 129 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 129
s. dragoš ■ factors of radicalization
period examined in this survey, these value orientations only grew strong-
er over the following 14 years (Toš, 2017: pp. 376 ss).
Conclusion
The potential for radicalisation is not the characteristic of a single social
sphere, system or organisation; quite the contrary, it can emerge in all di-
mensions of human (social and psychological) action. With the concept
of radicalisation, as illustrated with the “cage” of four dimensions, we can
thus avoid the most common mistakes that can occur when addressing
the problem indicated in the title of this paper, namely the unreflected
use of synonyms, voluntarist qualifications and ignoring the difference
between the general and specific. The dimensions included in the concept
are political (involving the mode of action), cognitive (attitude to reality),
existential (direction of action) and temporal in the acausal sense (which
Merleau-Ponty names the “network of intentionalities”). Radicalism aris-
es because of an unfavourable combination of these dimensions, when
moves along them coincide in the direction of extremes. Social context
is an important amplifier of such shifts, and within this the primary fac-
tors are the power relations among the actors, inequality in the distribu-
tion of goods and opportunities, and the related expectations people have
with regard to their lives. The example of Slovenia is particularly inter-
esting to illustrate such effects, because this country does not have a very
problematic degree of inequality among its citizens. Nonetheless, pub-
lic opinion in Slovenia has become radicalised to a greater extent than
in other European countries (although it remains within the political di-
mension of the “mode of action”, as shown in Figure 1). The main charac-
teristics of the social context that explains this state of affairs are the pro-
longed and openly expressed division between – on one hand – people’s
expectations, which are socially rather egalitarian and politically orient-
ed to the left (socialist), and – on the other hand –the actions of the polit-
ical elites who have applied neoliberal strategies of development. The fu-
ture direction of Slovenian society, in terms of the strengthening of these
individual and contradictory characteristics, depends on the social con-
text. The least favourable direction would be the one leading towards the
cage of radicalisation (Figure 1), where the extremes coincide. Slovenia is
currently at a crossroads where everything still remains open, including a
destructive version of the future that could resemble the 1930’s. This is be-
cause the country has many of the factors needed to realise this outcome,
as laid out in the following equation: an aversion to parliamentary democ-
racy and capitalism + favourable views of socialism and a strong leader +
127
period examined in this survey, these value orientations only grew strong-
er over the following 14 years (Toš, 2017: pp. 376 ss).
Conclusion
The potential for radicalisation is not the characteristic of a single social
sphere, system or organisation; quite the contrary, it can emerge in all di-
mensions of human (social and psychological) action. With the concept
of radicalisation, as illustrated with the “cage” of four dimensions, we can
thus avoid the most common mistakes that can occur when addressing
the problem indicated in the title of this paper, namely the unreflected
use of synonyms, voluntarist qualifications and ignoring the difference
between the general and specific. The dimensions included in the concept
are political (involving the mode of action), cognitive (attitude to reality),
existential (direction of action) and temporal in the acausal sense (which
Merleau-Ponty names the “network of intentionalities”). Radicalism aris-
es because of an unfavourable combination of these dimensions, when
moves along them coincide in the direction of extremes. Social context
is an important amplifier of such shifts, and within this the primary fac-
tors are the power relations among the actors, inequality in the distribu-
tion of goods and opportunities, and the related expectations people have
with regard to their lives. The example of Slovenia is particularly inter-
esting to illustrate such effects, because this country does not have a very
problematic degree of inequality among its citizens. Nonetheless, pub-
lic opinion in Slovenia has become radicalised to a greater extent than
in other European countries (although it remains within the political di-
mension of the “mode of action”, as shown in Figure 1). The main charac-
teristics of the social context that explains this state of affairs are the pro-
longed and openly expressed division between – on one hand – people’s
expectations, which are socially rather egalitarian and politically orient-
ed to the left (socialist), and – on the other hand –the actions of the polit-
ical elites who have applied neoliberal strategies of development. The fu-
ture direction of Slovenian society, in terms of the strengthening of these
individual and contradictory characteristics, depends on the social con-
text. The least favourable direction would be the one leading towards the
cage of radicalisation (Figure 1), where the extremes coincide. Slovenia is
currently at a crossroads where everything still remains open, including a
destructive version of the future that could resemble the 1930’s. This is be-
cause the country has many of the factors needed to realise this outcome,
as laid out in the following equation: an aversion to parliamentary democ-
racy and capitalism + favourable views of socialism and a strong leader +
127
