Page 50 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 50
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
not necessarily require a strong indoctrinatory upbringing or extremist
community for it to rise. Further, the indicators suggest that there are far
more youth who may be radicalized than is perceived by the greater pub-
lic. Given that the youth need not commit an act of violence, but rather
have a narrowing of extremist views, it suggests that the numbers are be-
yond the rare individual, and there may be more youth who are increas-
ingly becoming radicalized. This is troubling given that there is some ev-
idence to suggest that youth are more susceptible to radicalization than
adults. The nature of recruiting youth makes it easier to conform and cre-
ate allegiances among youth who are negotiating their own cognitive and
emotional development as adolescents. It thus begs the question of wheth-
er schools are able to attend to this concern.
In this way, we argue that schools ought to provide more robust po-
litical deliberation in classrooms. The ability for students to better negoti-
ate the complex historical, political, social and religious discourses builds
capacity to trouble single narratives and rhetoric that perpetuates a super-
ficial account of the ‘Other’. Giving voice to students may help unpack
the issues, rhetoric and power, and in so doing, help develop the disposi-
tions that create more political engagement and tolerance. And while we
do not suggest that students may drastically shift their ideological stances,
it may better create a possibility that the other perspective may hold some
weight. In an effort to disrupt polarized radical views, educators can build
students’ capacity to create a complexity to such long contested and com-
plex issues, as part of the effort to prevent socialization into violent ex-
tremist movements.
Finally, in so doing, we do not suggest that this is yet another addi-
tive burden that teachers must do to solve society’s ills. Nor do we think
that schools shoulder the burden for redressing the radicalization of
youth. Yet, these recommendations call for a shift in pedagogy to what
is currently done, that creates a deliberative space for students to feel in-
cluded and empowered. In this way, the suggestions offered above support
good pedagogical practices that are helpful to all students – not simply
the ones who may be more susceptible and at-risk for radicalization. The
ability to negotiate and wrestle with the historical and contemporary po-
litical discourses in a controlled learning environment, may better allow
individuals to negotiate a more nuanced perspective more generally that
does not revert back to ‘absolute truths’ and ‘rhetorical slogans’.
References
Anzalone, C. (2015) Canadian Foreign Fighters in Iraq and Syria.
Combatting Terrorism Center (CTC) Sentinel, April 2015, 8(4).
48
not necessarily require a strong indoctrinatory upbringing or extremist
community for it to rise. Further, the indicators suggest that there are far
more youth who may be radicalized than is perceived by the greater pub-
lic. Given that the youth need not commit an act of violence, but rather
have a narrowing of extremist views, it suggests that the numbers are be-
yond the rare individual, and there may be more youth who are increas-
ingly becoming radicalized. This is troubling given that there is some ev-
idence to suggest that youth are more susceptible to radicalization than
adults. The nature of recruiting youth makes it easier to conform and cre-
ate allegiances among youth who are negotiating their own cognitive and
emotional development as adolescents. It thus begs the question of wheth-
er schools are able to attend to this concern.
In this way, we argue that schools ought to provide more robust po-
litical deliberation in classrooms. The ability for students to better negoti-
ate the complex historical, political, social and religious discourses builds
capacity to trouble single narratives and rhetoric that perpetuates a super-
ficial account of the ‘Other’. Giving voice to students may help unpack
the issues, rhetoric and power, and in so doing, help develop the disposi-
tions that create more political engagement and tolerance. And while we
do not suggest that students may drastically shift their ideological stances,
it may better create a possibility that the other perspective may hold some
weight. In an effort to disrupt polarized radical views, educators can build
students’ capacity to create a complexity to such long contested and com-
plex issues, as part of the effort to prevent socialization into violent ex-
tremist movements.
Finally, in so doing, we do not suggest that this is yet another addi-
tive burden that teachers must do to solve society’s ills. Nor do we think
that schools shoulder the burden for redressing the radicalization of
youth. Yet, these recommendations call for a shift in pedagogy to what
is currently done, that creates a deliberative space for students to feel in-
cluded and empowered. In this way, the suggestions offered above support
good pedagogical practices that are helpful to all students – not simply
the ones who may be more susceptible and at-risk for radicalization. The
ability to negotiate and wrestle with the historical and contemporary po-
litical discourses in a controlled learning environment, may better allow
individuals to negotiate a more nuanced perspective more generally that
does not revert back to ‘absolute truths’ and ‘rhetorical slogans’.
References
Anzalone, C. (2015) Canadian Foreign Fighters in Iraq and Syria.
Combatting Terrorism Center (CTC) Sentinel, April 2015, 8(4).
48
