Page 54 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 54
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
Palestinian cause, but also, less important, with the Asala, the Armenian
movement. Classical terrorism was highly political, not religious.
Global terrorism began to appear, from my point of view, in the early
or mid eighties, with some attacks in Lebanon, and, later, in France – but
not only. In the nineties, it began to be much more active, and there was
a summit in 2001, in the United States, with Bin Laden and 9/11. Global
terrorism is religious, and either meta-political or infrapolitical. The actors
want to die, as “martyrs”. In some cases, the actors are at the crossroads of
two logics, a domestic one – they are for instance migrants in a country
where they feel badly treated – and a geopolitical one – they are part of
a world fight, like in the Huntington theory of “Clash of Civilizations”.
In some cases, they have no territorial basis, and act as a network, which
has been the case with Al Qaeda, but they may also try to have their own
State, the Califate for Daech. Global terrorism can become individual, i.e.
actors act as “lone wolves”, without strong ties with any network. It is in
fact not so frequent with Daech; I would say that the more a country expe-
riences only these kind of terrorist actors, the more it means that there are
no strong centers abroad, no real capacity to organize important attacks
from abroad, like in Paris in January and November 2015.
My book (in English: The Making of Terrorism [University of
Chicago Press]) results from some eight or nine years of research, includ-
ing fieldwork, at a time when classical terrorism was at stake, and it mainly
deals with it. But I also made my research at a time when the new, Global
Terrorism was appearing – which was very difficult to understand and,
much more, to conceptualize.
Should we only use one term for this process or do we need to em-
ploy the term radicalisation(s) instead?
Radicalisation is not a concept, nor a theoretical category, but one of these
words that is used in ordinary life, or by experts, technocrats, journalists,
etc. when they want to speak of those people that are ready to commit
terrorist acts. Or who commits them. When social scientists use it, they
very quickly understand that it is not easy to pass from an ordinary vo-
cabulary to a scientific one. In history, so many actors have been involved
in commitments that today we could call “radical”! The French or Soviet
Revolutionaries were radicalized! Those that were acting in order to de-
colonize their people were radicalized! Leftism, and extreme-right ideolo-
gies are radical! It is much more useful to introduce other concepts such as
subjectivation and desubjectivation, and to analyze processes where they
are at stake.
52
Palestinian cause, but also, less important, with the Asala, the Armenian
movement. Classical terrorism was highly political, not religious.
Global terrorism began to appear, from my point of view, in the early
or mid eighties, with some attacks in Lebanon, and, later, in France – but
not only. In the nineties, it began to be much more active, and there was
a summit in 2001, in the United States, with Bin Laden and 9/11. Global
terrorism is religious, and either meta-political or infrapolitical. The actors
want to die, as “martyrs”. In some cases, the actors are at the crossroads of
two logics, a domestic one – they are for instance migrants in a country
where they feel badly treated – and a geopolitical one – they are part of
a world fight, like in the Huntington theory of “Clash of Civilizations”.
In some cases, they have no territorial basis, and act as a network, which
has been the case with Al Qaeda, but they may also try to have their own
State, the Califate for Daech. Global terrorism can become individual, i.e.
actors act as “lone wolves”, without strong ties with any network. It is in
fact not so frequent with Daech; I would say that the more a country expe-
riences only these kind of terrorist actors, the more it means that there are
no strong centers abroad, no real capacity to organize important attacks
from abroad, like in Paris in January and November 2015.
My book (in English: The Making of Terrorism [University of
Chicago Press]) results from some eight or nine years of research, includ-
ing fieldwork, at a time when classical terrorism was at stake, and it mainly
deals with it. But I also made my research at a time when the new, Global
Terrorism was appearing – which was very difficult to understand and,
much more, to conceptualize.
Should we only use one term for this process or do we need to em-
ploy the term radicalisation(s) instead?
Radicalisation is not a concept, nor a theoretical category, but one of these
words that is used in ordinary life, or by experts, technocrats, journalists,
etc. when they want to speak of those people that are ready to commit
terrorist acts. Or who commits them. When social scientists use it, they
very quickly understand that it is not easy to pass from an ordinary vo-
cabulary to a scientific one. In history, so many actors have been involved
in commitments that today we could call “radical”! The French or Soviet
Revolutionaries were radicalized! Those that were acting in order to de-
colonize their people were radicalized! Leftism, and extreme-right ideolo-
gies are radical! It is much more useful to introduce other concepts such as
subjectivation and desubjectivation, and to analyze processes where they
are at stake.
52
