Page 8 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 8
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 5–6
and the behavioral dimension of radicalization? Is radicalization problem-
atic only when it turns to violent extremism or is radicalization wrong in
itself? Is the process of radicalization problematic irrespective of the meth-
od being used or is its negative valence associated exclusively with the use
of indoctrination?
These and other questions are a clear sign that existing research and
its focus on the etiology of radicalization [looking primarily for a caus-
al explanation of the process of radicalization or the turn to violent ex-
tremism] leaves several definitional and conceptual issues either neglect-
ed or outrightly ignored. Radicalization, as Jonathan Githens-Mazer and
Robert Lambert, have emphasized ‘is a research topic plagued by assump-
tion and intuition, unhappily dominated by “conventional wisdom” rath-
er than systematic scientific and empirically based research’ (2010: 889).
At the same time, radicalization and violent extremism are only one part
of the puzzle associated with the polarization of contemporary societies as
hate speech and fake news [as well as other dystopian narratives (e.g. sen-
sationalism)] combined with prejudices and stereotypes are an important
factor contributing to social fragmentation and the phenomenon of con-
flicting diversity. Most importantly perhaps, these [and other] problems
also challenge some of the foundational principles of contemporary dem-
ocratic societies. For example, how to strike a balance between the respect
of privacy and the requirements of security? What are the limits of the
freedom of expression etc.?
In his well-known essay on punishment and accountability
[‘Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment’], H.L.A. Hart, one of
the most important scholars working in jurisprudence, made an insightful
comment on punishment, one of the most controversial and pressing pub-
lic issues back in the 1950s [at least in the UK]. As he eloquently empha-
sized, ‘[g]eneral interest in the topic of punishment has never been greater
than it is at present and I doubt if the public discussion of it has ever been
more confused’ (Hart, 2008: 1). This observation applies well also to the
many issues addressed in this journal special issue of Šolsko polje entitled
‘Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity’. Its over-
all aim is to move beyond the ‘conventional wisdom’ over radicalization
(Githens-Mazer & Lambert, 2010: 889) best represented by many well-
known slogans [e.g. ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’],
metaphors [e.g. ‘hearts & minds’]2 as well as various thought-terminating
clichés [e.g. ‘what goes on before the bomb goes off’]. It brings together
2 The metaphor of the ‘hearts and minds’ figures prominently in both radicalization and
violent extremism literature including other adjacent areas of scholarly research, e.g. coun-
ter-insurgency operations (Egnell, 2010), ‘war on terror’ (Mockaitis, 2003) etc. as well as in
6
and the behavioral dimension of radicalization? Is radicalization problem-
atic only when it turns to violent extremism or is radicalization wrong in
itself? Is the process of radicalization problematic irrespective of the meth-
od being used or is its negative valence associated exclusively with the use
of indoctrination?
These and other questions are a clear sign that existing research and
its focus on the etiology of radicalization [looking primarily for a caus-
al explanation of the process of radicalization or the turn to violent ex-
tremism] leaves several definitional and conceptual issues either neglect-
ed or outrightly ignored. Radicalization, as Jonathan Githens-Mazer and
Robert Lambert, have emphasized ‘is a research topic plagued by assump-
tion and intuition, unhappily dominated by “conventional wisdom” rath-
er than systematic scientific and empirically based research’ (2010: 889).
At the same time, radicalization and violent extremism are only one part
of the puzzle associated with the polarization of contemporary societies as
hate speech and fake news [as well as other dystopian narratives (e.g. sen-
sationalism)] combined with prejudices and stereotypes are an important
factor contributing to social fragmentation and the phenomenon of con-
flicting diversity. Most importantly perhaps, these [and other] problems
also challenge some of the foundational principles of contemporary dem-
ocratic societies. For example, how to strike a balance between the respect
of privacy and the requirements of security? What are the limits of the
freedom of expression etc.?
In his well-known essay on punishment and accountability
[‘Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment’], H.L.A. Hart, one of
the most important scholars working in jurisprudence, made an insightful
comment on punishment, one of the most controversial and pressing pub-
lic issues back in the 1950s [at least in the UK]. As he eloquently empha-
sized, ‘[g]eneral interest in the topic of punishment has never been greater
than it is at present and I doubt if the public discussion of it has ever been
more confused’ (Hart, 2008: 1). This observation applies well also to the
many issues addressed in this journal special issue of Šolsko polje entitled
‘Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity’. Its over-
all aim is to move beyond the ‘conventional wisdom’ over radicalization
(Githens-Mazer & Lambert, 2010: 889) best represented by many well-
known slogans [e.g. ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’],
metaphors [e.g. ‘hearts & minds’]2 as well as various thought-terminating
clichés [e.g. ‘what goes on before the bomb goes off’]. It brings together
2 The metaphor of the ‘hearts and minds’ figures prominently in both radicalization and
violent extremism literature including other adjacent areas of scholarly research, e.g. coun-
ter-insurgency operations (Egnell, 2010), ‘war on terror’ (Mockaitis, 2003) etc. as well as in
6
