Radicalism: The asymmetric stances of radicals versus conventionals.

Abstract

We study the conditions of propagation of an initial emergent practice qualified as extremist within a population adept at a practice perceived as moderate, whether political, societal, or religious. The extremist practice is carried by an initial ultraminority of radicals (R) dispersed among conventionals (C) who are the overwhelming majority in the community. Both R and C are followers, that is, agents who, while having arguments to legitimize their current practice, are likely to switch to the other practice if given more arguments during a debate. The issue being controversial, most C tend to avoid social confrontation with R about it. They maintain a neutral indifference, assuming it is none of their business. On the contrary, R aim to convince C through an expansion strategy to spread their practice as part of a collective agenda. However, aware of being followers, they implement an appropriate strategy to maximize their expansion and determine when to force a debate with C. The effect of this asymmetry between initiating or avoiding an update debate among followers is calculated using a weighted version of the Galam model of opinion dynamics. An underlying complex landscape is obtained as a function of the respective probabilities to engage in a local discussion by R and C. It discloses zones where R inexorably expand and zones where they get extinct. The results highlight the instrumental character of the above asymmetry in providing a decisive advantage to R against C. It also points to a barrier in R initial support to reach the extension zone. In parallel, the landscape reveals a path for C to counter R expansion, pushing them back into their extinction zone. It relies on the asymmetry of C being initially a large majority which puts the required involvement of C at a rather low level.