Youth ‘at risk’: A critical discourse analysis of the European Commission’s Radicalisation Awareness Network Collection of approaches and practices used in education

Abstract

The present article focuses on how the so-called War on terror discourse has merged into the educational system and brought about a securitization of education. As a part of efforts to prevent young people from becoming radicalized into terrorism, the educational system is expected to be able to detect individuals 'at risk' and deploy methods to prevent radicalization from happening. Through the critical discourse analysis of a collection of educational practices, sampled by the European Union working group Radicalisation Awareness Network, we have been able to generate knowledge about how the War on terror discourse tends to individualize and decontextualize tensions in society that may ultimately cause terrorism. With this individualized and decontextualized approach to preventing radicalization, it appears more important to control students rather than to develop their ability to analyse complex conflicts in society.

Counter-radicalization policies and policing in education: making a case for human security in Europe

“…Meanwhile, scholars have argued that the policy requiring schools/ teachers to spot radicals, based on certain signs/indicators, would naturally make students entertain fears and hide their emotions and critical views. Hence, it constitutes a threat to their fundamental human rights, particularly their freedom of expression (Sukarieh and Tannock, 2015;O'Donnell, 2016;Mattsson et al, 2016;Thomas, 2016;Taylor and Soni, 2017;Ragazzi, 2017;Mattsson, 2019). The situation is made worse by the fact that some of the so-called signs/indicators (to spot radicals) are vague: "mundane behavioural changes in lifestyle and critical attitudes towards authorities and the values of mainstream society" (Ragazzi, 2017, 10, cf.…”

“…Following the 2015 attacks in Paris, there have been widespread concerns that individuals fighting with Islamist militants in the Middle East have become “radicalized” and could return to commit atrocities in Europe (cf. Mythen et al, 2017 , 181; Mattsson et al, 2016 , 256). The concerns seem understandable, as the four Islamic terrorists that perpetrated the 2005 London attacks/bombings were British citizens, brought up in England.…”

“…The policy expands the scope of counter-terrorism beyond the remit of traditional law enforcement agencies to non-security sectors such as education. In this instance, schools/teachers are expected to perform security-related functions ( Ragazzi, 2017 , 15–16; Davies, 2014 , 149–150; Taylor and Soni, 2017 , 242; Mattsson et al, 2016 ; Macaluso, 2016 , 1). Meanwhile, the educational counter-radicalization policy in individual countries is not necessarily the same.…”

Using information science to enhance educational preventing violent extremism programs

“…It is the TOC models of these local EPVE programs that we consider later on, examined through the lens of information science. EPVE programs (in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions) have a mixture of provenances: adaptations or extensions of training and education used for bullying, addiction, low self-confidence, and online safety; and others better conceptualized as citizenship education, focusing on democracy, conflict, and identity (see Mattson, Hammaren, & Odenbring, 2016). In the United Kingdom, the latter have previously addressed violent extremism where political violence and side-taking (notably in Northern Ireland and the far-right in England) has been a concern.…”

Campus conspiracies: security and intelligence engagement with universities from Kent State to counter-terrorism

“…The cultivation of 'fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs' is described as the way forward, Agnew reiterating here the position of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Mattsson, Hammaren, and Odenbring (2016) represent a typical stigmatising interpretation of such initiatives, their paper 'Youth 'at risk': A critical discourse analysis of the European Commission's Radicalisation Awareness Network Collection of approaches and practices used in education', with the claim that 'the so-called War on terror discourse has merged into the educational system and brought about a securitisation of education' (Mattsson, Hammaren, and Odenbring 2016).…”