Page 56 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 56
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
racism, becoming small criminals, going into jail, meeting some Islamist
preacher there … So, Kepel spoke of radicalisation of Islam when Roy
spoke of islamisation of radicality … But a third excellent specialist, Farhad
Khosrokhavar, published recently a great book in which he demonstrates
that there is not only one single model, but many different paths, some of
them including long training in religion, and others a short one, or almost
none. And we should avoid two risks. One can be called “sociologism”:
explaining terrorism only by social determinations, which is risky since
many people share the same experience, but only a few may become ter-
rorists; the second risk can be called “psychologism”: explaining terrorism
by the personality, without taking into account the social background of
actors. Many people are “radicalised” and will never commit any terrorist
attack, and many people have an authoritarian and destructive personali-
ty but will not act like this too.
Some scholars argue that radicalisation is exclusively a reaction to
the status quo [causal interpretation]? Do you find this interpre-
tation ‘reductionist’ or otherwise problematic?
This is a very old way of thinking, explaining the action without analys-
ing the actor, nor any kind of interaction, but observing the system and
its modifications that make people react. Terrorism, like any other action,
has its meaning, even if we should consider much more its loss of mean-
ing. Actors do not become actors only because they react, for instance to
some change in the status quo. They become actors in order to fulfil some
goals, and because they want, as subjects, to transform the situation, and
not only react.
Existing research on violent extremism focuses prevalently on its
etiology looking for a causal explanation of the process of radicali-
sation leaving several conceptual issues either neglected or even ig-
nored. What are the most important shortcomings of existing dis-
cussions on radicalisation(s) and violent extremism?
Let me say again that any causal explanation is generally too simplistic.
And let me add a methodological remark: we need, when discussing this
kind of affirmation, some proof, some test, some demonstration. In my
case, the demonstrations were the result of fieldwork with former (or not
so former) terrorist actors: when it has been possible for me to present
to these people my analysis of their action as terrorists, the test was in
what they did with my analysis. When they accepted it, and when they
said something like: this analysis helps me to understand better what
happened with such event, or what I did in such context, when they did
54
racism, becoming small criminals, going into jail, meeting some Islamist
preacher there … So, Kepel spoke of radicalisation of Islam when Roy
spoke of islamisation of radicality … But a third excellent specialist, Farhad
Khosrokhavar, published recently a great book in which he demonstrates
that there is not only one single model, but many different paths, some of
them including long training in religion, and others a short one, or almost
none. And we should avoid two risks. One can be called “sociologism”:
explaining terrorism only by social determinations, which is risky since
many people share the same experience, but only a few may become ter-
rorists; the second risk can be called “psychologism”: explaining terrorism
by the personality, without taking into account the social background of
actors. Many people are “radicalised” and will never commit any terrorist
attack, and many people have an authoritarian and destructive personali-
ty but will not act like this too.
Some scholars argue that radicalisation is exclusively a reaction to
the status quo [causal interpretation]? Do you find this interpre-
tation ‘reductionist’ or otherwise problematic?
This is a very old way of thinking, explaining the action without analys-
ing the actor, nor any kind of interaction, but observing the system and
its modifications that make people react. Terrorism, like any other action,
has its meaning, even if we should consider much more its loss of mean-
ing. Actors do not become actors only because they react, for instance to
some change in the status quo. They become actors in order to fulfil some
goals, and because they want, as subjects, to transform the situation, and
not only react.
Existing research on violent extremism focuses prevalently on its
etiology looking for a causal explanation of the process of radicali-
sation leaving several conceptual issues either neglected or even ig-
nored. What are the most important shortcomings of existing dis-
cussions on radicalisation(s) and violent extremism?
Let me say again that any causal explanation is generally too simplistic.
And let me add a methodological remark: we need, when discussing this
kind of affirmation, some proof, some test, some demonstration. In my
case, the demonstrations were the result of fieldwork with former (or not
so former) terrorist actors: when it has been possible for me to present
to these people my analysis of their action as terrorists, the test was in
what they did with my analysis. When they accepted it, and when they
said something like: this analysis helps me to understand better what
happened with such event, or what I did in such context, when they did
54
