Page 61 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 61
Being Mainstream, Being Radical:
How do Young People Understand Radicalism
in Croatia
Kosta Bovan, Marko Kovačić and Milica Vučković
Introduction
To understand new modes of terrorist attacks that were happen-
ing in USA and Europe at the beginning of the 21st century, poli-
cy-makers and researchers in terrorist studies employed the concept
of radicalisation. Since then, however, several authors have questioned the
analytical use of radicalisation in explaining terrorist actions (e.g. Githens-
Mazer & Lambert, 2010; Hafez & Mullins, 2015; Kühle & Lindekilde,
2010; Kundnani, 2012), as well as the lack of sound empirical support for
radicalisation models and theories (Borum, 2011b; Dalgaard-Nielsen,
2010; Geeraerts, 2012). Some authors have been explicit about the useless-
ness of the concept. For example, John Horgan (2013) stated in an inter-
view with Rolling Stone magazine that “the idea that radicalisation causes
terrorism is perhaps the greatest myth alive today in terrorism research”,
and Marc Sageman (2013) told in an interview for Huffington Post that
“the notion that there is any serious process called ‘radicalisation’, or in-
doctrination, is really a mistake”. Regardless of the negative tone of these
quotes, it is clear that the concept of radicalisation is present in the (USA)
mainstream media. Keeping the above-mentioned caveats in mind, this
article has two goals. First, we offer an elaboration of the way researchers
have used radicalisation in the past, point to several issues, and offer a rel-
ativistic and contextual approach to it (following authors like Sedgwick
(2010), Onnerfos & Steiner (2018), and Neumann (2013)). With this ap-
proach radicalisation can be studied in a broader context (non-Western,
as well as non-democratic states), and not necessarily limited to political
59
How do Young People Understand Radicalism
in Croatia
Kosta Bovan, Marko Kovačić and Milica Vučković
Introduction
To understand new modes of terrorist attacks that were happen-
ing in USA and Europe at the beginning of the 21st century, poli-
cy-makers and researchers in terrorist studies employed the concept
of radicalisation. Since then, however, several authors have questioned the
analytical use of radicalisation in explaining terrorist actions (e.g. Githens-
Mazer & Lambert, 2010; Hafez & Mullins, 2015; Kühle & Lindekilde,
2010; Kundnani, 2012), as well as the lack of sound empirical support for
radicalisation models and theories (Borum, 2011b; Dalgaard-Nielsen,
2010; Geeraerts, 2012). Some authors have been explicit about the useless-
ness of the concept. For example, John Horgan (2013) stated in an inter-
view with Rolling Stone magazine that “the idea that radicalisation causes
terrorism is perhaps the greatest myth alive today in terrorism research”,
and Marc Sageman (2013) told in an interview for Huffington Post that
“the notion that there is any serious process called ‘radicalisation’, or in-
doctrination, is really a mistake”. Regardless of the negative tone of these
quotes, it is clear that the concept of radicalisation is present in the (USA)
mainstream media. Keeping the above-mentioned caveats in mind, this
article has two goals. First, we offer an elaboration of the way researchers
have used radicalisation in the past, point to several issues, and offer a rel-
ativistic and contextual approach to it (following authors like Sedgwick
(2010), Onnerfos & Steiner (2018), and Neumann (2013)). With this ap-
proach radicalisation can be studied in a broader context (non-Western,
as well as non-democratic states), and not necessarily limited to political
59
