Page 62 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 62
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
violence and terrorism. The second part of the article discusses a qual-
itative empirical study that was done using focus groups with youth in
Croatia. The goal of the study was to grasp how young people in Croatia
understand the concepts of mainstream and radical individuals.
Radicalisation – Short History and Major Issues
When one is confronted with the vast literature and definitions of rad-
icalisation, one finds that the only thing common among them is that
they portray radicalisation as a process, i.e. a change, a shift from being a
non-radical to becoming a radical. All other aspects are debated and con-
tested – what does it mean to be a radical; are there multiple ways of be-
coming one; what is the relationship of radicalisation with violence and
terrorism; is it a change in attitudes and/or behaviour, etc.
It is perhaps best to start with the meta-approaches to radicalisation.
Neumann (2013) makes a distinction between the Anglo-Saxon and the
European approach to radicalisation, the former focusing on the behav-
ioural aspects of radicalisation (such as terrorism and violence), while the
latter shifts the focus a bit more towards radical ideas1. The Anglo-Saxon
approach to radicalisation was the one that came first in the post-9/11
era, solidifying with the so-called NYPD model (Silber & Bhatt, 2007).
Within this model, radicalisation is the change that happens within in-
dividuals before they plan and execute a terrorist attack. Radicalisation
includes four distinct phases – pre-radicalisation, self-identification, in-
doctrination, and Jihadisation. The model is reminiscent of the staircase
model to terrorism (Moghaddam, 2005) according to which individu-
als, who perceive a certain unfairness or relative deprivation, go up five
“floors” after which their inhibition of killing is removed and they per-
form terrorist acts. Both models were important for dismissing the ideas
that all terrorists are people with psychological problems or are motivated
primarily by their low economic status. Instead, they point to psychologi-
cal factors as being key for terrorist actions, such as the processes of identi-
fication, anger, moral reasoning, cognitive process of categorisation, feel-
ings of helplessness, etc. At the same time, these authors are aware, and are
explicit about, the fact that not all individuals that start on the radicalisa-
tion pathway end up as terrorists.
On the other side of the Atlantic, especially following the London
and Madrid attacks, policy makers and academics have also adopted the
1 Neumann (2013) points out that this distinction is probably due to the emphasis that
American society has on free speech. Thus, the act of violence is problematic, not radical
ideas, since ideas are not illegal and going down the path of intervening into that sphere is
seen as going against freedom of speech.
60
violence and terrorism. The second part of the article discusses a qual-
itative empirical study that was done using focus groups with youth in
Croatia. The goal of the study was to grasp how young people in Croatia
understand the concepts of mainstream and radical individuals.
Radicalisation – Short History and Major Issues
When one is confronted with the vast literature and definitions of rad-
icalisation, one finds that the only thing common among them is that
they portray radicalisation as a process, i.e. a change, a shift from being a
non-radical to becoming a radical. All other aspects are debated and con-
tested – what does it mean to be a radical; are there multiple ways of be-
coming one; what is the relationship of radicalisation with violence and
terrorism; is it a change in attitudes and/or behaviour, etc.
It is perhaps best to start with the meta-approaches to radicalisation.
Neumann (2013) makes a distinction between the Anglo-Saxon and the
European approach to radicalisation, the former focusing on the behav-
ioural aspects of radicalisation (such as terrorism and violence), while the
latter shifts the focus a bit more towards radical ideas1. The Anglo-Saxon
approach to radicalisation was the one that came first in the post-9/11
era, solidifying with the so-called NYPD model (Silber & Bhatt, 2007).
Within this model, radicalisation is the change that happens within in-
dividuals before they plan and execute a terrorist attack. Radicalisation
includes four distinct phases – pre-radicalisation, self-identification, in-
doctrination, and Jihadisation. The model is reminiscent of the staircase
model to terrorism (Moghaddam, 2005) according to which individu-
als, who perceive a certain unfairness or relative deprivation, go up five
“floors” after which their inhibition of killing is removed and they per-
form terrorist acts. Both models were important for dismissing the ideas
that all terrorists are people with psychological problems or are motivated
primarily by their low economic status. Instead, they point to psychologi-
cal factors as being key for terrorist actions, such as the processes of identi-
fication, anger, moral reasoning, cognitive process of categorisation, feel-
ings of helplessness, etc. At the same time, these authors are aware, and are
explicit about, the fact that not all individuals that start on the radicalisa-
tion pathway end up as terrorists.
On the other side of the Atlantic, especially following the London
and Madrid attacks, policy makers and academics have also adopted the
1 Neumann (2013) points out that this distinction is probably due to the emphasis that
American society has on free speech. Thus, the act of violence is problematic, not radical
ideas, since ideas are not illegal and going down the path of intervening into that sphere is
seen as going against freedom of speech.
60
