Page 16 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 16
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
Such factors have led to a certain degree of introspection in the ac-
ademic community in more recent years about the radicalisation process
models that characterised much of the early, post-9/11 debate, and which
were driven to a significant degree by bureaucratic impetuses in the coun-
ter-terrorism realm. Indeed, some of the protagonists of the “step” mod-
els of radicalisation in this period, such as Horgan and Sageman, are start-
ing to question their own earlier thinking to such an extent that one could
ponder whether the established notion of radicalisation is reaching its end
(Schmid, 2013). For somewhat different reasons, there are also critics who
suggest that the bureaucratic drivers of the radicalisation debate actually
had covert, sinister motives in othering certain communities and practis-
ing a form of institutional Islamophobia (Kundnani, 2009: p. 24).
In this paper, the argument is presented that radicalisation is not be-
coming a completely moot concept, and that some of the original think-
ing still has a great deal of utility. More specifically, theories that empha-
sise the dual and synergistic processes of top-down (macro-level) and
bottom-up (micro-level) drivers which may (or may not) cause a particu-
lar individual to become involved in a violent and extreme act, remain im-
portant and useful in our analysis. Any theories that over-emphasise the
importance of ideology over individual identity factors, or vice versa, are
likely to have far less utility.
The various theories and debates across the spectrum of discussion
concerning radicalisation are reviewed in this paper. These will consider
each of the macro- and micro-level positions, before moving on to an anal-
ysis of the synergistic, over-arching theories that, it is argued, sensibly take
the discussion forward. Some of the implications of the debate for poli-
cy-makers will also be briefly considered in conclusion.
The Macro-level Approach
One of the areas of socio-political research that has also enjoyed a resur-
gence in recent years alongside the question of radicalisation is that ex-
amining populist politics; boosted in part by the rise of new, Far Right
movements in Western politics, and by the elevation to power of the pro-
tagonists of identity-politics such as President Trump in the US.
Much of the analysis in this area takes a structuralist stance, in the
sense of structuralism as a Neo-Marxist critique of global politics and
economy. This leads to an analysis of postmodern and post-industrial so-
ciety, in which political constituencies are increasingly thinking not only
about the traditional deleterious effects of inequitable distribution in cap-
italist society, but also, in a somewhat postmodern way, about “govern-
ance structures of social organization and cultural life styles” (Kitschelt,
14
Such factors have led to a certain degree of introspection in the ac-
ademic community in more recent years about the radicalisation process
models that characterised much of the early, post-9/11 debate, and which
were driven to a significant degree by bureaucratic impetuses in the coun-
ter-terrorism realm. Indeed, some of the protagonists of the “step” mod-
els of radicalisation in this period, such as Horgan and Sageman, are start-
ing to question their own earlier thinking to such an extent that one could
ponder whether the established notion of radicalisation is reaching its end
(Schmid, 2013). For somewhat different reasons, there are also critics who
suggest that the bureaucratic drivers of the radicalisation debate actually
had covert, sinister motives in othering certain communities and practis-
ing a form of institutional Islamophobia (Kundnani, 2009: p. 24).
In this paper, the argument is presented that radicalisation is not be-
coming a completely moot concept, and that some of the original think-
ing still has a great deal of utility. More specifically, theories that empha-
sise the dual and synergistic processes of top-down (macro-level) and
bottom-up (micro-level) drivers which may (or may not) cause a particu-
lar individual to become involved in a violent and extreme act, remain im-
portant and useful in our analysis. Any theories that over-emphasise the
importance of ideology over individual identity factors, or vice versa, are
likely to have far less utility.
The various theories and debates across the spectrum of discussion
concerning radicalisation are reviewed in this paper. These will consider
each of the macro- and micro-level positions, before moving on to an anal-
ysis of the synergistic, over-arching theories that, it is argued, sensibly take
the discussion forward. Some of the implications of the debate for poli-
cy-makers will also be briefly considered in conclusion.
The Macro-level Approach
One of the areas of socio-political research that has also enjoyed a resur-
gence in recent years alongside the question of radicalisation is that ex-
amining populist politics; boosted in part by the rise of new, Far Right
movements in Western politics, and by the elevation to power of the pro-
tagonists of identity-politics such as President Trump in the US.
Much of the analysis in this area takes a structuralist stance, in the
sense of structuralism as a Neo-Marxist critique of global politics and
economy. This leads to an analysis of postmodern and post-industrial so-
ciety, in which political constituencies are increasingly thinking not only
about the traditional deleterious effects of inequitable distribution in cap-
italist society, but also, in a somewhat postmodern way, about “govern-
ance structures of social organization and cultural life styles” (Kitschelt,
14
