Shengyuan Ji, December 2022
Radicalisation
The term ‘radicalisation’ has been defined as the process by which someone is encouraged to develop extreme views or beliefs in support of terrorist groups and activities’ . This definition is very vague; indeed, it does not really provide a definition for the term itself, but leans on two other very loaded concepts – extremism and terrorism – to indicate likely (negative) outcomes without expanding on the process itself. One inevitable problem is that it can cause readers to equate radicalisation with terrorism and extremism. And yet political scientists are careful to use a distinct term, to indicate separate states and behaviours. Since terrorism and extremism are widely regarded as so challenging to society that they are heavily criminalised, the equation of radicalisation with them may encourage us to think of radicalised people as being ‘criminal’ whether or not they have committed any crimes. As we know, however, vulnerable people are often particularly susceptible to radicalisation, and for that reason we should be open to considering them as potential victims and not just perpetrators. In this blog, I look closely at the three terms – radicalisation, terrorism and extremism – and their relationship to each other.
Some scholars (and the media at large) often define radicalisation in relation either to religion or political ideology. At times, the emphasis focuses on one particular religion: namely Islam. Scholars such as Mullins (2012)1 have argued that radicalisation is the process of coming to adopt militant Islamist ideologies. Similarily, Goerziq and Al-Hashimi (2015)2 have defined radicalisation as ‘the process of progressively adopting more radical beliefs and ideas of Islam’. Both approaches explicitly connect radicalisation to Islam. Rightly, other scholars and thinkers have pushed back against this connection, arguing that the definition of radicalisation should not be categozied in relation to any particular religion or political ideology but as a process which can happen in relation to any kind of belief system. This point of view has been supported by a research report, authored by A.P. Schmid and released by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), explaining related terms. As Schmid acknowledges, ideas of ‘radicalisation’ remain both blurred and potentially polarising, even demonising, and more work is required to address them in less biased ways:
The terms ‘radicalisation’, ‘de-radicalisation’ and ‘counter-radicalisation’ are used widely, but the search for what exactly ‘radicalisation’ is, what causes it and how to ‘de-radicalise’ those who are considered radicals, violent extremists or terrorists has so far been a frustrating experience. The popularity of the concept of ‘radicalisation’ stands in no direct relationship to its actual explanatory power regarding the root causes of terrorism. In Europe, it was brought into the academic discussion after the bomb attacks in Madrid (2004) and London (2005) by policymakers who coined the term ‘violent radicalisation’. It has become a political shibboleth despite its lack of precision.
Schmid, A. P. “Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review”, The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague 4, no. 2 (2013). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19165/2013.1.02
Historically, the term ‘radical’ has referred to a wide range of positions, including the political position of supporting democracy in opposition to monarchy. Sometimes, in informal conversations, business meetings, art reviews, and so on, ‘radical’ can be used as a term of praise, to denote fresh, innovative thinking that challenges established norms. However, the term ‘radicalisation’ today tends to point in the opposite direction, referring to the embrace of an anti-liberal, anti-democratic agenda. And when that general negativity is aligned with a particular religious group, demonisation such as Islamophobia can result. There are compelling reasons, in other words, to rethink the meaning and usage of the term.
In terms of the relationship between radicalisation and violence, scholars3 have argued that ‘not all radicalisation is necessarily negative, nor does radicalisation necessarily lead to violence’. This challenges the impression given by, for example, the UK government’s Prevent programme, ‘a national safeguarding programme that supports people who are at risk of becoming involved with terrorism through radicalisation’ which assumes a direct line of connection between radicalisation and acts of violence. Other states, like Canada have clarified that radicalisation ‘is by no means a problem in itself’, and that radical thinking only becomes a threat to national security ‘when Canadian citizens, residents or groups promote or engage in violence as a means of furthering their radical political, ideological or religious views’. Compared with the British approach, the Canadian government better discusses the conditions under which radicalisation is problematic for national security.
All in all, the concept of radicalisation is very contested by scholars and international organizations. There are several point of consensus. Firstly, we could say that radicalisation does not have any direct relationship with any particular political ideology or religious identity. Secondly, radicalisation is not a static position but a process. Thirdly, it needs to be stressed that radicalisation does not equate to extremism, violent extremism, terrorism or any other activities that threaten national security strategies, although in some cases radicalised people can become extremists, violent extremists or terrorists. Fourthly, most importantly, the term ‘radical’ itself merely indicates an opposition to the status quo, which should not be attributed any inherent positive or negative values.
Extremism
Having examined the terms ‘radical’ and ‘radicalisation’, I will now analyse the concept of extremism in International Relations scholarship. British authorities define ‘extremism’ as ‘vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.’ They continue: ‘We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas’, which is similar to their aforementioned definitions of radicalisation. On the other hand, some scholars4 provide a more precise definition, as they suggest that extremism should be defined as ‘the belief that an in-group’s success or survival can never be separated from the need for hostile action against an out-group. Extremist ideology defines who is part of the in-group.’ Analyzing this definition, we can see that it contains three main points. The first is that extremism makes a clear distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Secondly, its attitude towards other political opinions, or discourses which which the extremists disagree, includes hostility. That said, the concept of extremism itself is not necessarily linked to the use of direct violence, with ‘hostility’ potentially comprising a range of non-violent actions. The term ‘violent extremism’ is sometimes used to specify extremists who use violence to achieve their extremist objective.
Terrorism
The last concept to clarify, which is probably also the most widely used, is ‘terrorism’. The definition of terrorism is also highly contested. It has been defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as ‘violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations.’ The emphasis on external influences rather than home-grown terrorism is striking – and problematic, since many terrorist acts are perpetrated by people or groups from within the country that they target. The United Nations General Assembly has defined terrorism as ‘acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes [which] are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.’ Here, the definition rests less on identifying particular people as terrorists and more on the impacts of their actions. The European Union provides a simpler definition of terrorism as ‘criminal offences that may damage lives and property,’ which of course overlaps with all sorts of other crimes.
Comparing these three definitions, a commonality may be seen in those of the UN and the FBI in that they focus primarily on political motives and impacts, with an emphasis on implications for the state rather than for individuals. This aligns with a more developed view, summarised by P.A. Schmid in The Revised Academic Consensus on Terrorism, that terrorism should be thought of in terms of ‘a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other hand, a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties.’ The difference between ‘violent extremism’ and ‘terrorism’ is debatable, but one thing which definitions of terrorism seem to highlight is the scale of harm that it can cause civilians and state, particularly the state.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this blog has focussed on distinguishing between different terms, addressing the question of whether radicalisation equates to extremism. In many cases, for various reasons, governments and supranational organisations have tended to oversimplify the definitions of some terms, which not only causes difficulties in understanding but also creates confusion in distinguishing similar concepts. More concerningly, some over-simplified definitions of radicalisation and extremism can result in the stigmatisation of religious practices or particular political discourses and the criminalisation of people who have not committed violent acts. It should be noted that radicalisation and extremism do not necessarily have a direct relationship with violence.
By bringing the academic consensus into the discussion, this blog provides a more complex perspective on how these concepts should be understood. Briefly, radicalisation can, but does not necessarily, lead to non-violent extremism. In some cases, radicalised individuals can subscribe to extremism, which can, but does not necessarily, become violent extremism. The difference between violent extremism and terrorism is that terrorism produces a result which not only harms the government, but also harms individuals. This blog has employed a human-centred approach, which focuses both on impact of post-conflict peacebuilding on humans, and on why humans became radicalised, extremists, violent extremists or even terrorists.