‘Radicalisation: the journey of a concept’, revisited

Abstract

Over the past decade, radicalisation has emerged as perhaps the most pervasive framework for understanding micro-level transitions towards violence. However, the concept has not only become a dominant policing framework, but also an overarching governmental strategy encompassing surveillance, security, risk and community engagement. The emergence of this strategy has been accompanied by a whole host of analysts, advisers and scholars, who claim to possess ‘expert’ knowledge of individual transitions towards political violence. Revisiting ‘Radicalisation: the journey of a concept’, Arun Kundnani’s 2012 typology of such ‘expertise’ ( Race & Class, doi 10.1177/0306396812454984), the author comparatively examines scholarly developments in relation to ‘radicalisation’ and juxtaposes new knowledge claims with official government counter-radicalisation strategies and funding programmes in the UK, US and Canada to highlight how some of the most problematic knowledge claims continue to influence social policy as we move forward in the global ‘war on terror’.

British terrorism preemption: Subjectivity and disjuncture in Channel “de‐radicalization” interventions

“…This makes accessing interviewees extremely difficult, especially Channel mentors—who are often imams or who have some other responsibility over their communities and do not want to appear as government “stooges” (Interviewee 10, Channel mentor). This piece builds on the many critiques of the hegemonic “radicalization” discourse, which highlight a lack of scientific rigor underpinning key concepts, and the discursive construction of pre‐crime risk (Ahmad & Monaghan, 2019; Baker‐Beall, Heath‐Kelly, & Jarvis, 2014; Githens‐Mazer & Lambert, 2010; Heath‐Kelly, 2013; Kundnani, 2009; Martin, 2014, 2018; Silva, 2018). While the definitional ambiguity surrounding terrorism preemption has been widely documented (Elshimi, 2017; Elshimi, 2017; Lowe, 2017; Richards, 2011; Sedgwick, 2010), little empirical work has been undertaken to explore how contested terms like “radicalization,” “extremism,” and “de‐radicalization” are navigated in practice through Prevent's operation.…”

De-Radicalisation and Humanitarianism in Indonesia

“…Schuurman and Taylor (2018) contend that critics have deemed radicalisation subjective, lacking in an agreed definition, linear and deterministic. Silva (2018) argues that governments ignore critical research favouring research that is in line with their political and ideological agendas. Nasser-Eddine et al 2011and Neumann (2013) correctly highlight that radicalisation experts only agree that radicalisation is a process.…”

“…The other part of de-radicalisation is disengagement, which is concerned with getting radicalised individuals to psychologically and physically disengage from the use of violence and terrorist groups (Silva 2018). Like radicalisation, disengagement may unfold differently for different radicalised individuals.…”

Countering or contributing to radicalisation and violent extremism in Kenya? A critical case study

“…The social construction of radicalisation and violent extremism, which mainly focuses on theology and social networks, has been severely criticised by academics linked to critical terrorism studies, as this approach appears to be blind to other relevant conceptions, such as economic and social marginalisation as well as the phenomenon of othering (Kundnani and Hayes 2018;Silva 2018). As this article will show, the application of the theological and social-psychological radicalisation model has been and is still used globally and can have negative real-world consequences.…”