Page 57 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 57
m. sardoč ■ an interviw with michel wieviorka
something with my analysis, I could consider that there was some element
of demonstration. So, to these people that propose a causal explanation:
what is the proof, the demonstration, the test?
Can the process of radicalisation be considered as ‘the last of
the remaining options’ (when the ‘ loss of meaning’ is taken into
account)?
I wouldn’t give a general answer, I would take this as a hypothesis, and I
would test it with concrete actors. Did they have the feeling of having no
other option? How do they react when I introduce this idea? My first re-
action to this question is that I would be surprised to see terrorist actors
accepting this kind of proposal, and say: yes, it is or it was the last option. I
imagine much more them saying: it was the best option, far from any oth-
er one.
The brutality of terrorist attacks and their ever-increasing fre-
quency also open the space for ‘moral panic’, Islamophobia, right-
wing populism and political extremism that contribute consid-
erably to the polarization of societies. How to deal with these
so-called ‘collateral’ problems associated with radicalisation and
violent extremism?
When terrorist attacks are striking a society, there is a lot of fear and irra-
tionality that develops. Democracy then is in danger, the executive power
will consider it necessary not to let the judicial and the legislative powers
work as usual, and will diminish their capacity of action. Rumours, look-
ing for scapegoats, prejudice will develop. Some very small issues will be-
come big affairs; people will sometimes say they want a very strong, non-
democratic authoritarian regime. I don’t have any recipe in order to face
such challenges, I can only say that social scientists have here an important
responsibility, we must explain, provide serious analysis, contribute in the
public debate on the basis of our researches.
Furthermore, how can radicalisation be understood within the
framework of discussions about diversity? Perhaps as ‘conflicting
diversity’?
What you still want me to call “radicalisation” is one aspect of thinking
and eventually acting when the processes of subjectivation, desubjecti-
vation and resubjectivation appear in social life. If such processes exist,
it is because social life is made of divisions, and they appear and devel-
op when a non-radical action is not possible, when it is not possible for
some individuals to transform through debates and non-violent conflicts
55
something with my analysis, I could consider that there was some element
of demonstration. So, to these people that propose a causal explanation:
what is the proof, the demonstration, the test?
Can the process of radicalisation be considered as ‘the last of
the remaining options’ (when the ‘ loss of meaning’ is taken into
account)?
I wouldn’t give a general answer, I would take this as a hypothesis, and I
would test it with concrete actors. Did they have the feeling of having no
other option? How do they react when I introduce this idea? My first re-
action to this question is that I would be surprised to see terrorist actors
accepting this kind of proposal, and say: yes, it is or it was the last option. I
imagine much more them saying: it was the best option, far from any oth-
er one.
The brutality of terrorist attacks and their ever-increasing fre-
quency also open the space for ‘moral panic’, Islamophobia, right-
wing populism and political extremism that contribute consid-
erably to the polarization of societies. How to deal with these
so-called ‘collateral’ problems associated with radicalisation and
violent extremism?
When terrorist attacks are striking a society, there is a lot of fear and irra-
tionality that develops. Democracy then is in danger, the executive power
will consider it necessary not to let the judicial and the legislative powers
work as usual, and will diminish their capacity of action. Rumours, look-
ing for scapegoats, prejudice will develop. Some very small issues will be-
come big affairs; people will sometimes say they want a very strong, non-
democratic authoritarian regime. I don’t have any recipe in order to face
such challenges, I can only say that social scientists have here an important
responsibility, we must explain, provide serious analysis, contribute in the
public debate on the basis of our researches.
Furthermore, how can radicalisation be understood within the
framework of discussions about diversity? Perhaps as ‘conflicting
diversity’?
What you still want me to call “radicalisation” is one aspect of thinking
and eventually acting when the processes of subjectivation, desubjecti-
vation and resubjectivation appear in social life. If such processes exist,
it is because social life is made of divisions, and they appear and devel-
op when a non-radical action is not possible, when it is not possible for
some individuals to transform through debates and non-violent conflicts
55
