Page 77 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 77
k. bovan, m. kovačić, m. vučković ■ being mainstream, being radical ...
definitions. Most of these definitions have been conceptualised in the
context of terrorist attacks in Western Europe and the US, while the in-
tention of this study was to investigate different forms of radicalism in a
country without terrorist attacks, with the focus on young people.
Encouraged with the unclear and confusing use of the term radical-
isation, the general lack of empirical studies on the topic of radicalisation
(see Borum, 2011b; Dalgaard-Nielsen, 2010), and relying on the existing
literature which suggests that young people have been particularly prone
to radicalisation (Özerdem & Podder, 2011; Costanza, 2015), we conduct-
ed empirical research to reveal what young people in Croatia understand
under the term “radical” and what they perceive as elementary character-
istics of radical individuals. To get these answers we conducted six focus
groups among young people in Croatia.
This rather new approach to studying radicalism resulted in sever-
al interesting observations. Firstly, our research confirmed that the radi-
calisation process is highly context dependent (Lub, 2013; Mandel, 2009;
Onnerfors & Steiner, 2018). When giving some examples of radicals from
their point of view, our participants recall politicians and different “ad-
vocacy” groups on the extreme right or extreme left political spectrum in
Croatia. Although terrorist group ISIS has been recognised as an exam-
ple of radicals, our research revealed that terrorists in the Croatian con-
text, which luckily never suffered terrorist attacks, are not among the first
associations with the term radical. Furthermore, when emphasising the
importance of the context for explaining what is radical, authors under-
line the mainstream, i.e. the status quo, defining radical as a shift from
that status quo (Neumann, 2013; Bartlett and Miller, 2012). Findings
from our research immensely support this definition that sees radical as
a shift from the mainstream. Following, from the point of view of young
people in Croatia, any oscillation from something that is widely accept-
ed and widespread in society is, radical. As mainstream, or as a “norm”
in society, they posit centre-right political beliefs and related sets of val-
ues. Consequently, as radical citizens they identify for instance politicians
who do not fit into the “norm”, like Ivan Pernar, one of the leaders of left-
ist populist party Živi zid, or former politician and leader of green liberal
party Orah, Mirela Holy.
Further, young people in Croatia describe as radical Željka Markić,
the leader of the Croatian neoconservative movement “In the Name of
the Family”, that among other things fights against marriage equality for
LGBT individuals. Interestingly, while on the one hand they see Markić
as radical, they also see as radical all those people who fight for LGBT
rights! Protesting for LGBT rights or showing an LGBT flag as an act of
75
definitions. Most of these definitions have been conceptualised in the
context of terrorist attacks in Western Europe and the US, while the in-
tention of this study was to investigate different forms of radicalism in a
country without terrorist attacks, with the focus on young people.
Encouraged with the unclear and confusing use of the term radical-
isation, the general lack of empirical studies on the topic of radicalisation
(see Borum, 2011b; Dalgaard-Nielsen, 2010), and relying on the existing
literature which suggests that young people have been particularly prone
to radicalisation (Özerdem & Podder, 2011; Costanza, 2015), we conduct-
ed empirical research to reveal what young people in Croatia understand
under the term “radical” and what they perceive as elementary character-
istics of radical individuals. To get these answers we conducted six focus
groups among young people in Croatia.
This rather new approach to studying radicalism resulted in sever-
al interesting observations. Firstly, our research confirmed that the radi-
calisation process is highly context dependent (Lub, 2013; Mandel, 2009;
Onnerfors & Steiner, 2018). When giving some examples of radicals from
their point of view, our participants recall politicians and different “ad-
vocacy” groups on the extreme right or extreme left political spectrum in
Croatia. Although terrorist group ISIS has been recognised as an exam-
ple of radicals, our research revealed that terrorists in the Croatian con-
text, which luckily never suffered terrorist attacks, are not among the first
associations with the term radical. Furthermore, when emphasising the
importance of the context for explaining what is radical, authors under-
line the mainstream, i.e. the status quo, defining radical as a shift from
that status quo (Neumann, 2013; Bartlett and Miller, 2012). Findings
from our research immensely support this definition that sees radical as
a shift from the mainstream. Following, from the point of view of young
people in Croatia, any oscillation from something that is widely accept-
ed and widespread in society is, radical. As mainstream, or as a “norm”
in society, they posit centre-right political beliefs and related sets of val-
ues. Consequently, as radical citizens they identify for instance politicians
who do not fit into the “norm”, like Ivan Pernar, one of the leaders of left-
ist populist party Živi zid, or former politician and leader of green liberal
party Orah, Mirela Holy.
Further, young people in Croatia describe as radical Željka Markić,
the leader of the Croatian neoconservative movement “In the Name of
the Family”, that among other things fights against marriage equality for
LGBT individuals. Interestingly, while on the one hand they see Markić
as radical, they also see as radical all those people who fight for LGBT
rights! Protesting for LGBT rights or showing an LGBT flag as an act of
75
