Should the Concept of Radicalisation be Abandoned?

Should the Concept of Radicalisation be Abandoned?

Introduction Since the 9/11 attacks in the US and others, such as the 7/7 London bombing, the concept of radicalisation has become widely used in counter-terrorism policy-making and terrorism research. Initially, scholars believed that there was no explanation of terrorism other than the perpetrators’ evil mind-set. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, terrorism was perceived as an external threat. However, by 2004 there was a change in this terrorism account after attacks occurred in various places, including Madrid and London. Counter-terrorism experts started noticing radicalisation signs among individuals living in western countries. Governments abandoned the concept of capturing and killing terrorists applied in the war against terror in Iraq and found a new discourse to guide their efforts to deal with terrorism.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com

The radicalisation concept was adopted as a tool for policy-makers to explain how individuals became terrorists and offer the basis for preventative tactics.

After the 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands and the 2005 London 7/7 attacks on the city’s transport system, the challenge of home-grown terrorism perpetrated by Europeans became prominent. Radicalisation was seen as a recruitment process initiated by foreigners to persuade individuals in western countries to participate in terrorist campaigns in those nations. It was perceived as a long process through which recruiters gradually manipulate recruits to participate in the jihad. The focus of European and US governments shifted to eliminating homegrown political violence, leading to counter-radicalisation policies. They started to come up with counter-radicalisation strategies to deter such violent acts. An example of these strategies is the Prevent Programme in the UK. They assumed that knowing the signs of radicalisation of groups and individuals would enable them to devise an early warning system to identify violence. Law enforcement agents believed that they could profile and monitor Muslims for radicalisation signs and then apply interventions to prevent them from turning into terrorists. For example, under the Prevent Strategy, the UK government engages in the surveillance of citizens, particularly Muslims, to identify signs such as changes in behaviour that indicate that a person is in the process of being radicalised. Terrorism researchers and think-tanks did not provide governments with all the factors causing home-grown terrorism. Instead, they modelled the pathway through which people become supporters of violent ideologies assumed to lead to terrorist violence.

With the increasing use of the concept of radicalisation, there has been a concern on whether it has been useful in helping counter-terrorism agencies to identify potential terrorists and prevent attacks. The use of this concept has sparked controversy among scholars. Some argue that the concept is a myth, while others claim that it is a source of ambiguity. Moreover, the term

radicalisation has numerous meanings and can refer to different ideas in diverse contexts. Others assert that focusing on the concept of radicalisation ignores all the other causes of terrorism.

Another argument is that counter-radicalisation efforts have led to negative consequences such as unfairly targeting Muslim communities, which has increased their vulnerability to radicalisation.

There have been discussions on whether the concept should continue to be used or be discarded for these reasons.

The topic of radicalisation is plagued by intuition, assumptions, and conventional wisdom instead of scientific research. Academic interest in radicalisation in the UK and US increased after 7/7, with a shift from studying international terror organisations to home-grown terrorism in Europe. This shift indicated the need of the media and politicians to use easy to comprehend narratives, explaining how Muslims turned into suicide bombers. In their quest to come up with such stories, the media and policy-makers have increasingly relied on radicalisation’s conventional wisdom by theorising that factors such as influence, ideology, and alienation cause radicalisation, while rejecting other factors, including foreign policy. Policy-makers and the media have also cited research that supports a simple explanation of radicalisation to provide easy answers that justify their notions about the occurrence of radicalisation.

This discussion aims to answer the question of whether the concept of radicalisation should continue to be used or be abandoned? The essay explores various reasons why this concept should no longer be in use. The concept of radicalisation should be abandoned because of different definitions, end-points, and agendas, diverse radicalisation mechanisms, an inexistent link between cognitive and behavioural extremism, different meanings in various contexts, varied counter-radicalisation measures, does not explain how people turn into terrorists, and results in adverse effects such as the targeting of Muslim communities.

Different Definitions, End-Points, and Agendas There are several reasons why the concept of radicalisation needs to be abandoned. One of the sources of confusion regarding the concept of radicalisation is in the definition. The concept has both absolute and relative meanings (Sedgwick 2010). According to Borum (2012), there is no consensus on the meaning of the concept of radicalisation. The meaning of the concept of radicalisation keeps changing, and there is no clear explanation of the underlying causes of violent behaviour (Gemmerli 2015). Many literature on radicalisation focuses on Islam and Muslims but does not define the concept (Githens-Mazer 2012). It is used to mean different ideas and concepts, leading to confusion. Some of the concept's meanings include populism linked to revolutionary opportunity, the process of political moderates becoming militants, intensification of political behaviours and orientations, and revolutionary acts following declining power (Githens-Mazer 2012).

Some individuals perceive radicalisation as a concept fabricated by security agencies and media.

British audiences view the concept as misappropriated and are uncertain about its contextualisation and usage. For example, British media outlets such as Newsnight propagated the idea that the coverage of Israel assault on Gaza had led to overnight radicalisation (Hoskins & O’Loughlin 2009). Such dramatic framing of extremism portrays it as a type of psychological virus that suddenly afflicts vulnerable individuals. Governments have misused the term for political convenience even though they are aware of the impact on alienating Muslims (Hoskins & O’Loughlin 2009). However, others assert that the concept is not a myth but should be abandoned because of its ambiguous meaning.

Another area of radicalisation’s ambiguity is the lack of agreement regarding its end-points. The concept is defined as the process through which individuals turn into extremists (Newmann 2003). The definition is ambiguous because extremism has several meanings, such as political ideas contrary to the core values of a society, different types of religious or racial supremacy, methods of realising political aims, or principles that deny democratic principles or basic human rights. Some individuals consider it a cognitive occurrence that results in diverse ideas about governance and society, while others perceive it as violent actions resulting from those ideas.

Thus, distinctions are drawn between cognitive radicalisation and violent extremism, behavioural radicalisation, or action pathways. Various governments define radicalisation in diverse ways, depending on their interpretation of the concept. According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, radicalisation is a cognitive process involving people changing from mainstream to extremist beliefs (Newmann 2003). Similarly, in the US, radicalisation is considered to acquire jihadist, radical, or extremist beliefs. However, the British government connects radicalisation with terrorism by defining the concept as supporting violent extremism and terrorism and, in some cases, participating in terrorist groups (Newmann 2003). For example, the UK government revoked the British citizenship of Shamima Begum, who left the country to join ISIS in Syria in 2015 when she was 15 years old (Sabbagh 2021). Her attempts to go back to the UK to fight this decision failed as the Supreme court ruled against her appeal.

The use of the concept also has differing agendas, including security, foreign policy, and integration. These agendas sometimes differ and coincide. Conflicting agendas confuse what can be termed as radical or moderate (Sedgwick 2010).

Diverse Radicalisation Mechanisms

Another reason why the concept should be abandoned is there are numerous mechanisms of radicalisation at the individual, mass, and group levels. These include personal victimisation, martyrdom, political grievance, hate, within-group competition, extremity shift in groups, competition with state power, extreme cohesion, and competition for base support (McCauley & Moskalenko 2008). There is no clear pathway to radicalisation, which is frustrating to intelligence analysts and scholars (Hafez & Mullins 2015). There are various radicalisation models and theories, and none can explain all violent radicalisation on its own.

No Link between Cognitive and Behavioural Extremism Another reason why the concept of radicalisation needs to be abandoned is that the focus on cognitive radicalisation has led to the flawed assumption that extremist beliefs precede violent actions. This assumption implies that individuals who become cognitive radicals become terrorists. Thus, if people are prevented from becoming cognitive radicals, they are deterred from becoming terrorists. However, this logic is not true as extremist political beliefs and violent deeds are not inevitably linked. For example, the Copenhagen shooter frequented locations that were ideologically and religiously heterogeneous and visited the gym more than the mosque (Crone 2016). Indeed, there are more radicals than terrorists, and not all terrorists hold strong extremist beliefs. Thus, cognitive extremism is not a necessary condition for individuals to become terrorists (Newmann 2003).

There is no agreement among scholars on whether extremist ideas and extremist actions are connected. Some scholars claim that the two phenomena are separate, and a distinction should be made between them. They believe that radicalisation entails internalising beliefs, while extremist acts such as recruitment into Al-Qaeda involve people transforming themselves into weapons of jihad. Others argue that the two concepts should not be separated as when people develop an

extremist mind-set, they are willing to facilitate, use, or support violence (Newmann 2003).

Thus, terrorism starts with cognitive extremism and culminates into pursuing extremist goals through violent means. Many scholars have challenged the existence of a link between attitudinal or ideological extremism and behavioural extremism as most individuals who hold radical ideas do not perpetrate terror attacks (Della Porta 2018). There is no evidence of a gradual radicalisation process in the people involved in several attacks in Europe, including the Copenhagen shooter, Merah, the Kouachi brothers, those behind the 2015 Paris attacks, Coulibaly, and Nemmouche (Crone 2016). Another example is Darren Osbourne, who drove a van into a crowd of Muslims. He was not radicalised by far-right groups but was triggered to perpetrate the attack after watching “Three Girls”, a BBC drama involving young girls' abuse (Malik 2018). The widely accepted process of radicalisation does not apply in this case.

Therefore, the concept should no longer be used. Radicalisation models have made national security agencies believe that they can avert future terror attacks by performing intensive surveillance on Muslims' mental and spiritual lives. However, radicalisation literature does not provide a convincing demonstration of a causal link between radical religious ideology and violence (Kundnani 2012). For example, Brenton Tarrant, the terrorist who perpetrated the Christchurch massacre in New Zealand mosques did not subscribe to radical religious ideology but was a white supremacist who was radicalised through Facebook and YouTube (D’Anastasio 2020). Thus, the idea of radicalisation should be abandoned.

Different Contexts of Radicalisation Another area of radicalisation’s ambiguity is in context and normative matters. The meaning of the concept varies from one society to another, depending on what is considered mainstream. Diverse historical, political, and cultural contexts produce different views of

radicalism. For example, free speech is a mainstream belief in western countries but is considered radical in North Korea (Newmann 2003). Moreover, gay marriage was considered radical in the past but is accepted in current times.

Furthermore, the concept of radicalisation should be abandoned because radicalism is not always linked to crime and has positive connotations in some countries, such as the US. Individuals termed as radicals include those who participated in the American Revolution and those who fought for the freedoms that Americans enjoy in the present, including abolishing slavery and the women’s right to vote. Individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr, who led the civil rights movement, were considered radical and were threatened by the government (Newmann 2003). Therefore, radicals are a significant part of the American national story, and they spurred progressive change. Thus, government attempts to fight radicalism are viewed as attacks on constitutional freedoms and a strategy to criminalise individuals with dissenting views. Governments are believed to use the term to serve their political agendas such as marginalising individuals who challenge the status quo (Newmann 2003). Thus, radicalisation is a context-dependent concept that is not always linked to extremism and should, therefore, be abandoned.

Disagreement on Counter-Radicalisation Measures There is no agreement on how to counter radicalisation. However, there are different approaches to deal with radicalisation in different countries. The Anglo-Saxon approach focuses on behavioural radicalisation, such as violent and terrorist actions (Newmann 2003). It does not focus on cognitive radicalisation, and such governments respect people’s freedom of expression and religion. For example, the US does not interfere with the citizens’ constitutional right to free

speech. According to the Anglo-Saxon approach, radicalisation should be dealt with by focusing on law-breaking and violence.

In contrast, the European approach focuses on behavioural and cognitive radicalisation, but more emphasis is placed on the latter. According to this approach, extremist ideas result in extremist actions. The European approach originated from the destabilisation of European democracies such as Germany and Italy by extremists in the early 20th century. The success of Germany’s National Socialists and Italy’s Fascists demonstrated to Europeans that extremist movements can gain mass support, rise to power through elections, and destroy democracies (Newmann 2003).

Thus, the European approach emphasises dealing with social unrest and subversion and eliminating the ideological breeding grounds of terrorism.

How People Become Terrorists Another criticism of radicalisation is that it does not answer the simple question of why, when, and how some people become terrorists and others do not. If these questions were answered, it would be possible to identify terrorists early before they perpetrate attacks. There is no fixed or predetermined trajectory to terrorism or path dependency between radical ideas and violent acts (Coolsaet 2016). For example, although the Adam brothers, Rahman and Lamine, were exposed to extremist ideas and horrific videos of violence against Muslims, only the former attempted a terrorist attack (Githens-Mazer & Lambert 2010). Therefore, the concept of radicalisation should be abandoned because it cannot explain why one sibling became a terrorist while the other one did not. Yet, they were both exposed to extremist ideologies. Lamine seemed more likely than Rahman to become a violent extremist because he was more exposed to extremist concepts and ideas. However, it was Rahman who tried to engage in terrorist activities. Thus, the conventional

wisdom on the concept of radicalisation does not explain why exposure to extremist ideas can lead to involvement in terror attacks in one case and not another.

Adverse Effects of Radicalisation The radicalisation concept should also be abandoned because it is a destructive political label that allows the stigmatisation of particular Muslim individuals and groups and allows the media and the government to differentiate between people with mental instabilities that engage in terrorsit attacks and bad Muslims. As a result, there is support for those who back government projects, while those who critically engage in policies affecting Muslims are punished (GithensMazer & Lambert 2010). Thus, radicalisation has become a tool of power that non-Muslim communities and governments use to control Muslims.

The concept of radicalisation should be abandoned because the increased focus on it as the cause of terror attacks has led to governments ignoring other factors that contribute to terrorism, including foreign policy. For example, the US ‘War on Terror’ foreign policy after the 9/11 attacks increased religious inspired terrorism in the country as the airstrikes in the Middle East led to numerous casualties and the displacement of many civilians. Civilians in these conditions are more likely to support extremist ideology and view the Taliban as a legitimate resistance force against the invasion by the US (Morris 2019.) The UK government focuses on dealing with structural issues involving integration, equality, and cohesion to end the terrorist problem (Richards 2011). An emphasis on radicalisation through initiatives such as the Prevent Programme in the UK has led to the unfair targeting of Muslims, which has made them feel alienated and frustrated and may increase the risk of making them more vulnerable to radicalisation (Richards 2011). Due to its ambiguity, the concept of radicalisation has led to the

creation of the image of Muslims as a threat, resulting in increased suspicions between Muslim communities and law enforcement officers. This has adversely affected the ability of security agencies to collect information (Coolsaet 2016). When applying counter-radicalisation programs to fight terrorism, it is important to avoid adverse effects such as making some groups feel stigmatised or targeted for these initiatives to be successful (Ducol 2017). Thus, due to these negative effects, the use of the radicalisation concept should be abandoned.

Conclusion Radicalisation is an ambiguous term that should no longer be used in discourse on terrorism and extremism. However, since the concept is too entrenched in policy and academic research to be discarded easily, several recommendations can be made regarding its use. One of the recommendations on using the radicalisation concept is to be specific whenever it is applied by clarifying the context, such as concerning integration, security, and social questions. People should also remember that the meaning of the term radicalisation does not stem from scientific objectivity but is based on a political understanding of reality that keeps changing. Furthermore, people should be honest about the normative and political nature of radicalisation’s conception.

They should also be critical of using the concept under the guise of preventing violence to marginalise people who hold divergent views, such as Muslims.

Several recommendations are also made to security and counter-terrorism agencies regarding the use of the concept of radicalisation. Firstly, security agencies should bear in mind that all radicalisation is local. Therefore, they should examine the local context instead of targeting ideology to determine the underlying motivations, factors, and conditions for why groups and individuals become extremists and violent. Adopting a one-size-fits-all strategy will not work in all countries. Another recommendation is to engage in local empowerment to successfully de-

radicalise individuals. They can be de-radicalised by reconnecting them to the local society.

Counter-terrorism agencies should also reduce the emphasis on de-radicalisation and focus on the prevention of extremism. Separating the prevention of extremism from de-radicalisation will reduce the suspicions brought about by the exclusion and marginalisation of some communities.

Islam's discussion should also be separated from de-radicalisation to prevent it from becoming an anti-immigration and anti-Islam campaign. Counter-terrorism agencies should be aware of the limits to the prevention of terror activities. In the same way that measures employed to prevent crimes or suicide does not guarantee that these vices will not happen, tactics to prevent terrorism will not always work. Therefore, preventive measures such as reconnecting people to society should be implemented with proper policing and law enforcement and intelligence to avert terror activities.

Another problem with the concept of radicalisation is its ambiguity. To advance the study of radicalisation and eliminate the ambiguity surrounding the concept, there is a need to access more reliable data. One recommendation is to increase the collaboration between the intelligence community and the academics to ensure that the latter has access to radicalisation cases for thorough analyses. The intelligence community can declassify documents on radicalisation cases without compromising their sensitive nature to allow the scholarly community to access and test the radicalisation theories. Creating a database with enough information about radicalised people can enable academics to access radicalisation and perform comparative studies.

Overall, the concept of radicalisation is relatively new and is increasingly used in academic, counter-terrorism, and policy-making circles in the last few years. Although new thinking is often associated with progressive connotations, it does not always mean that it is better. The new radicalisation concept has not been instrumental in dealing with the challenge of terrorism.

Therefore, it should be entirely abandoned by refocusing on the people who participate in or support terror activities instead of dwelling on what people think. Even if the concept is not discarded, people should ensure that they use it correctly to eliminate the ambiguity surrounding it and prevent its adverse effects, such as targeting innocent members of some communities.

Reference List Borum, R 2012, ‘Radicalisation into violent extremism I: A review of social science theories’, Journal of Strategic Security, vol. 4, no. 4, pp.7-36.

Coolsaet, R 2016, ‘‘All radicalisation is local’. The genesis and drawbacks of an elusive concept’, Egmont Paper, no. 84, pp. 1-48.

Crone, M 2016, ‘Radicalisation revisited: Violence, politics and the skills of the body’, International Affairs, vol. 92, no. 3, pp.587-604.

D’Anastasio, C 2020, ‘The Christchurch shooter and YouTube’s radicalisation trap’, Wired, viewed 8 March 2021, <https://www.wired.com/story/christchurch-shooter-youtuberadicalization-extremism/>.

Della Porta, D 2018, ‘Radicalisation: A relational perspective’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 21, pp.461-474.

Ducol, B 2017, ‘Peter R. Neumann: Radicalized: New Jihadists and the threat to the West (London: IB Tauris, 2016)’, Democracy and Security, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 395-396.

Gemmerli, T 2015, ‘Radicalisation: A politically contrived concept’, Danish Institute for International Studies.

Githens-Mazer, J 2012, The rhetoric and reality: radicalisation and political discourse’, International Political Science Review, vol. 33, no. 5, pp.556-567.

Githens-Mazer, J & Lambert, R 2010, ‘Why conventional wisdom on radicalisation fails: The persistence of a failed discourse’, International Affairs, vol. 86, no. 4, pp.889-901.

Hafez, M & Mullins, C 2015, ‘The radicalisation puzzle: A theoretical synthesis of empirical approaches to home-grown extremism’, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, vol. 38, no. 11, pp.958-975.

Hoskins, A & O’Loughlin, B 2009, ‘Media and the myth of radicalisation. Media, War, and Conflict, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 107-110.

Kundnani, A 2012, ‘Radicalisation: The journey of a concept’, Race & Class, vol. 54, no. 2, pp.3-25.

Malik, K 2018, ‘Radicalisation’ has become a redundant concept’, The Guardian, 4 February, viewed 27 February 2021, <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/04/darren-osborneradicalisation-redundant-concept>.

McCauley, C & Moskalenko, S 2008, ‘Mechanisms of political radicalisation: Pathways toward terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 20, no. 3, pp.415-433.

Morris, C 2019, ‘To what extent has US foreign policy contributed to an increase in religious inspired terrorism since 1945?’, Journal of Global Faultlines, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.186-203.

Neumann, PR 2003, ‘The trouble with radicalisation’, International Affairs, vol. 89, no. 4, pp.873-893.

Richards, A 2010, ‘The problem with ‘radicalisation’: The remit of ‘Prevent’ and the need to refocus on terrorism in the UK’, International Affairs, vol. 87, no. 1, pp.143-152.

Sabbagh, D 2021, ‘Shamima Begum loses fight to restore UK citizenship after supreme court ruling’, The Guardian, 26 February, viewed 8 March 2021, <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/26/shamima-begum-cannot-return-touk-to-fight-for-citizenship-court-rules>.

Sedgwick, M 2010, ‘The concept of radicalisation as a source of confusion’, Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 22, no. 4, pp.479-494.