Political violence has been one of the most important challenges facing modern societies. The brutality of terrorist attacks and their frequency together with some of the âcollateralâ problems associated with radicalisation and violent extremism, e.g. Islamophobia, âmoral panicâ, right-wing populism [and terrorism] together with other forms of political extremism have brought to the forefront problems previously either compartmentalized in specialized courses on intelligence and security studies or at the very fringes of scholarly interest. Despite the consensus that radicalization and violent extremism represent a major threat to political, economic and social security of contemporary democratic societies, with terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 figuring as some sort of âYear Oneâ on the calendar of the âWar on Terrorâ, the discussion over how to make sense about radicalization and violent extremism has been far from straightforward.
In fact, the process of radicalization and the adjacent issue of violent extremism open up a number of different issues, existing theories, policies and practices of counter-radicalization and deradicalization do not offer a unanimous answer to. A number of questions remain, to a large extent, unanswered, e.g. what criteria apply in order to distinguish non-violent from violent radicalization. What is the relationship between the cognitive and the behavioral dimension of radicalization? Is radicalization problematic only when it turns to violent extremism or is radicalization wrong in itself? Is the process of radicalization problematic irrespective of the method being used or is its negative valence associated exclusively with the use of indoctrination?
These and other questions are a clear sign that existing research and its focus on the etiology of radicalization [looking primarily for a causal explanation of the process of radicalization or the turn to violent extremism] leaves several definitional and conceptual issues either neglected or taken for granted. Radicalization, as Jonathan Githens-Mazer and Robert Lambert, have emphasized âis a research topic plagued by assumption and intuition, unhappily dominated by âconventional wisdomâ rather than systematic scientific and empirically based researchâ (2010: 889).
The voluminous literature on radicalization and violent extremism that began to pile up in disciplines as diverse as psychology (Moghaddam, 2005, 2018), political science (Gambetta and Hertog, 2016), criminology (Richards, 2017), intelligence and security studies (Neumann, 2003; Sageman, 2017; Sedgwick, 2010), sociology (Jensen and Larsen, 2019), cultural studies (Kundnani, 2012, 2015; Silva, 2018), anthropology, critical terrorism studies (Jackson, 2011), education (Gearon, 2015; SardoÄ et al., 2021), social policy (Ragazzi, 2017), and health care (Heath-Kelly and Strausz, 2019) as well as philosophy (Cassam, 2018, 2021; Coady, 2021), is a testament both to the complexity of this phenomenon as well as the urgency by which this topic has been approached by both the academia and policymakers.
At the same time, radicalization and violent extremism are only one part of the puzzle associated with the polarization and fragmentation of contemporary societies as hate speech and fake news [as well as other dystopian narratives (e.g. sensationalism)] are an important factor contributing to social fragmentation and the phenomenon of conflicting diversity. Most importantly perhaps, these [and other] problems also challenge some of the foundational principles of contemporary democratic societies.
Interestingly enough, post-9/11 scholarship on radicalization and violent extremism has been marked by two important characteristics. On the one hand, radicalization and violent extremism became a legitimate object of analysis outside the exclusive domain of security and intelligence âindustryâ in disciplines as diverse as political science, education, cultural studies, criminology, health care, psychology, sociology, anthropology, social policy and philosophy. At the same time, alongside the âstandardâ concepts and ideas dominating âradicalization studiesâ, e.g. violence, terror, fear, security, conflict, extremism, this area of scholarly research gradually started to incorporate concepts previously thought to be outside its gravitational orbit including indoctrination, moral panic, polarization, social distance, conflicting diversity, populism, hate speech, etc.
Nevertheless, the progress being made has not been without its challenges, as âradicalization studiesâ and research on terrorism in general remain plagued by a number of problems. Alongside some of the âstandardâ problems associated with terrorism, e.g. âthe problem of double standardsâ [âone manâs terrorist is another manâs freedom fighterâ], the phenomenon of radicalization and violent extremism raise a set of distinctive problems of their own. In particular, this area of scholarly research encounters a high degree of conceptual negligence. This has led to a major limitation in making sense of data and other evidence made available by empirical research. As Richard English observes, â[w]e face two kinds of terrorist problem. One is practical, the other analytical, and our difficulties in responding to the former have been significantly exacerbated by our failings in regard to the latterâ (English, 2010: ix). This opens the âdisconnection problemâ perhaps best depicted by Marc Sageman. As he emphasizes, âthe intelligence community knows everything about terrorism but understands nothings, and academics understand everything but know nothing about itâ.
On the top of this, both the concept of radicalization and violent extremism remain notoriously obscure and fuzzy. As Rik Coolsaet accentuates, â[f]ifteen years after its official adoption and notwithstanding its widespread usage, radicalization remains a sloppy notion, ill-defined, complex and controversialâ (Coolsaet, 2019: 30). Despite the consensus that radicalization and violent extremism represent a major challenge to political, economic and social security of contemporary societies, the field of âradicalization researchâ, as the authors of the book Counter-Radicalization: Critical Perspectives have emphasized, âhas been marked by a significant degree of conceptual confusionâ (2014: 5). Interestingly enough, conceptual confusion has probably been the single most challenging [theoretical] âcollateral damageâ stemming from the âWar on Terrorâ. As Stephen Nathanson emphasizes, â[c]larity is not everyoneâs goal [âŠ] because confusion can be politically usefulâ (Nathanson, 2010: 20).
Two main interpretations are available here, i.e. [i] the optimistic and [ii] the skeptical one. The optimistic interpretation claims that conceptual confusion is primarily the outcome of the complex nature of radicalization and violent extremism and the limitations inbred in research on radicalized individuals as members of âhard-to-reachâ groups (Larsen, 2019). In contrast, the skeptical interpretation maintains that conceptual confusion is basically the outcome of some sort of âdefinitional deficiencyâ (Jackson, 2011). As Arun Kundnani emphasizes, âconfusion is an outcome of the institutional uses to which the term has been put. In these settings, the function of the term is to conceal as much as to reveal; to obscure as much as to elucidateâ.
This resistance to interpretation has inhibited considerably the elucidation of issues associated with research on political violence. Interestingly enough, while radicalization and violent extremism have become one of the âgreat buzzwordsâ of the intelligence and security âindustryâ, pleas for their abandonment [alongside the rejection of the idea of terrorism] as a useful analytical category have started to emerge. At the same time, conventional formats of academic publishing, e.g. a research monograph or a journal article, lack the flexibility alternative formats of showcasing scholarly research may provide.
Contents of this volume
Interviews collected in this volume bring together leading scholars from their respective disciplines and areas of research discussing some of the most pressing issues associated with radicalization, violent extremism and terrorism in general. Alongside customary refinements of arguments and positions usually embedded in academic conversations, these interviews provide an insight into the âbehind the scenesâ of scholarly research in a field whose object of analysis might best be depicted as a âriddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigmaâ. The overall aim in carrying out these interviews and conversations has been to move beyond the âconventional wisdomâ over radicalization and violent extremism best represented by many of its well-known slogans [e.g. âone manâs terrorist is another manâs freedom fighterâ], metaphors [e.g. âhearts & mindsâ], aphorisms [e.g. the known and unknown unknowns in relation to 9/11] alongside various other thought-terminating clichĂ©s [e.g. âwhat goes on before the bomb goes offâ].
Books bringing together interviews with researchers and academics have for a long time been a somewhat neglected type of academic engagement relegated (at best) to the âlost & foundâ department of scholarly publishing. Interestingly enough, while not a âstandardâ volume in academic publishing, they have an impressive pedigree. For example, Bryan Mageeâs Modern British Philosophy (1971) and Talking Philosophy (1978), a collection of interviews with some of the most renowned academics and luminaries of the 20th century, are considered a âstandardâ of scholarly excellence. Moreover, the âinterview formatâ has also found its way into âmainstreamâ political theory as two leading contemporary scholars published a book-length conversation, i.e. Michael Walzerâs Justice is a Steady Work: A Conversation on Political Theory (2020) and Nancy Fraserâs Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory (2018). Ultimately, Nigel Warburton and David Edmondsâ Philosophy Bites, a multi-volume collection of interviews includes some of the finest dialogues with leading contemporary philosophers (2010, 2012, 2014; Finn, 2021). Equally interesting has been a set of interviews on the phenomenon of globalization published in a journal special issue of Globalizations (James and Steger, 2014).
Each of the interviews published in this volume addresses various research problems and challenges associated with radicalization and violent extremism. While post-9/11 scholarship on political violence brought to the forefront issues previously compartmentalized in specialized courses on intelligence and security studies, several conceptual, empirical and policy-oriented issues have been left either ignored or taken for granted. These interviews therefore aim to compensate â at least in part â for a sort of negligence research on political violence has been grappling with. At the same time, a personal dimension is also emanating from these dialogues bearing important implications for future research as several of the interviewees unveil different trajectories that led them to develop a scholarly interest in issues associated with political violence.
Topics tackled in these interviews and conversations include (but do not remain limited to) issues as diverse as the genealogy of radicalization and violent extremism, the rhetoric of emergency politics (âthe language of fearâ), the ethics of securitization, mutual radicalization, the challenges arising out of the relationship between cognitive and behavioral radicalization, Islamism bias in âradicalization studiesâ, the disconnection gap between theory and practice in research on political violence, the ethics of espionage [as an integral element of the âWar on Terrorâ], the epistemic dimension of radicalization, knowledge production in terrorism research, the different conceptions of violent extremism and the problems they raise, limitations of conceptualizing radicalization and violent extremism by applying causality pathways (e.g. the âstaircase to terrorismâ model), application of the just war conceptual framework to radicalization and violent extremism, the ethics of exceptional means when addressing security-related issues, etc.
The introductory interview with C.A.J. Coady sets the discussion over radicalization and violent extremism in a wider context of the study of violence and associated phenomena including terrorism, war, pacifism etc. The initial part of the interview examines different definitions of violence and the various problems each of these definitions raises. At the same time, he identifies the many concepts that have been used to provide a sort of essence for the different forms of violence. In particular, based on his previous research on violence (e.g. Coady, 1985, 2007 [Chapter 2]), he distinguishes between force and violence. The central part of this interview is devoted to the explication of his reflections on terrorism and the concept of radicalization itself. Moreover, he also identifies the most pressing contemporary challenges facing scholars working on issues related to violent extremism and political violence in general. As one of the leading authors from the analytic philosophical tradition, his reflections on the different concepts and ideas associated with violence, e.g. abuse, force etc. provide a much-needed cl...