Page 55 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 55
m. sardoč ■ an interviw with michel wieviorka
Despite the fact that in the EU’s Internal Security Strategy and
Action, radicalisation is defined as ‘a complex phenomenon in
which individuals adopt a radical ideology that can lead to com-
mitting terrorist acts’, the relationship between radicalisation, vi-
olent extremism and terrorism is anything but unambiguous or
unproblematic. Is there any distinction between these terms that
is in need of further clarification?
If social scientists expect to have their conceptual categories provided by
the US or EU bureaucrats or politicians, then we can consider that social
science does not exist! How do some individuals enter in a specific way
of thinking, this is a first question. And here, it is clear that there is not
only one worse way, but several, and that in order to understand this phe-
nomenon, we need in-depth interviews or any other solid materials. In my
own research for instance, I have been frequently surprised by the narra-
tive which were provided to me by former terrorists accepting to tell me
their life-story: the moment when they passed to some ideological “radi-
calisation” was not at all what you could have expected. It may have been
purely accidental, or connected with very ordinary events, or interactions.
Then, there is a second question due to the fact that many people can share
radical ideas or ideology, but very few act as terrorists. Why and how do
some people only pass from ideas to action? As far as Islamic terrorism is
at stake, I consider that religion is absolutely decisive, even if the terrorist
actor doesn’t know a lot about Islam, or if he discovered Islam only a few
months before he committed an attack. Without religion, there wouldn’t
be this impetus that makes possible the decision to die: dying, here, due to
religion, means passing to another word, where you will have a wonderful
life. So, let us forget this confusing word, “radicalisation”, and let us ana-
lyse terrorism with other categories!
The ‘causal’ interpretation of the process of radicalisation as a
‘path’ or ‘staircase’ to terrorism advanced by some scholars has
been very influential in this area of scholarly research. Is the pro-
cess of radicalisation deterministic [that any individual who
is radicalised is already a potential terrorist (the equivalence
premise)]?
We had some years ago an interesting debate in France on this issue. Gilles
Kepel, a good specialist, explained that religion is the key element in or-
der to analyse passing to terrorism, in opposition to another good special-
ist, Olivier Roy, who gave more importance to social radicalisation, i.e.
the social trajectory that leads to terrorism, for instance, in France: young
migrants, living in poor neighbourhoods, victims of discrimination, and
53
Despite the fact that in the EU’s Internal Security Strategy and
Action, radicalisation is defined as ‘a complex phenomenon in
which individuals adopt a radical ideology that can lead to com-
mitting terrorist acts’, the relationship between radicalisation, vi-
olent extremism and terrorism is anything but unambiguous or
unproblematic. Is there any distinction between these terms that
is in need of further clarification?
If social scientists expect to have their conceptual categories provided by
the US or EU bureaucrats or politicians, then we can consider that social
science does not exist! How do some individuals enter in a specific way
of thinking, this is a first question. And here, it is clear that there is not
only one worse way, but several, and that in order to understand this phe-
nomenon, we need in-depth interviews or any other solid materials. In my
own research for instance, I have been frequently surprised by the narra-
tive which were provided to me by former terrorists accepting to tell me
their life-story: the moment when they passed to some ideological “radi-
calisation” was not at all what you could have expected. It may have been
purely accidental, or connected with very ordinary events, or interactions.
Then, there is a second question due to the fact that many people can share
radical ideas or ideology, but very few act as terrorists. Why and how do
some people only pass from ideas to action? As far as Islamic terrorism is
at stake, I consider that religion is absolutely decisive, even if the terrorist
actor doesn’t know a lot about Islam, or if he discovered Islam only a few
months before he committed an attack. Without religion, there wouldn’t
be this impetus that makes possible the decision to die: dying, here, due to
religion, means passing to another word, where you will have a wonderful
life. So, let us forget this confusing word, “radicalisation”, and let us ana-
lyse terrorism with other categories!
The ‘causal’ interpretation of the process of radicalisation as a
‘path’ or ‘staircase’ to terrorism advanced by some scholars has
been very influential in this area of scholarly research. Is the pro-
cess of radicalisation deterministic [that any individual who
is radicalised is already a potential terrorist (the equivalence
premise)]?
We had some years ago an interesting debate in France on this issue. Gilles
Kepel, a good specialist, explained that religion is the key element in or-
der to analyse passing to terrorism, in opposition to another good special-
ist, Olivier Roy, who gave more importance to social radicalisation, i.e.
the social trajectory that leads to terrorism, for instance, in France: young
migrants, living in poor neighbourhoods, victims of discrimination, and
53
