Abstract

This contribution problematizes the circumstance that the concept of radicalization has been decoupled from its morphemic roots: the meaning of being radical. In discourse on political violence it is mostly understood as an increase in (violent) extremism, and as such it has a feedback effect on what is understood by being radical or radicalism. Conflating these terms increasingly with extremism, a semantic confusion has been created that makes the analysis of processes towards political violence indifferent and prone to fallacies. Based on an outline of problems inherent to dominant interpretations of radicalization and following an historically informed understanding of radicalism, it is thus argued that extremism and radicalism should be conceptualized as contrary rationalities. From this perspective, extremism is a rationality that features a strong reduction in complexity and is extreme insofar as it reads social problems as epitomized by dichotomous groups of people. Radicalism, in turn, assumes a complexity of society and is radical insofar as it puts its problems down to structural roots. Accordingly, there should also be a distinction between an increase in extremism (extremization) and an increase in radicalism (radicalization), while the process towards violence should be understood as militantization: a process that can derive from both rationalities, but differs in its derivation and expressions. Which benefits for research on political violence may be derived from putting the concept of radicalization down to its morphemic roots – a conceptual radicalization, so to say – will be discussed conclusively.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call