MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO RADICALISATION

The concept of radicalisation has been developed to understand why young men, who were born and raised in Western democratic countries, perform actions of terror in Europe as so-called home-grown terrorists – and also what has driven young people to go to Syria and Iraq to fight for Jihad as so called foreign fighters.

In terms of a clear conceptualisation, there is no commonly agreed definition of radicalization and extremism among researchers and policymakers. Thus, it is not merely a question of real or online-based radicalizers/groomers seducing vulnerable individuals into a process leading to violent extremism. However, there is generally agreement of the fact that no one becomes radicalized over-night, and no one is motivated by a single trigger factor. On the contrary, radicalization is perceived as a process, where individuals gradually develop beliefs and attitudes that depart radically from the mainstream in society. Some individuals transgress the boundary between radical thoughts and violent action. But radical thoughts do not necessarily result in violent behavior. Consequently, some experts distinguish between cognitive and behavioural radicalization.

Furthermore, radicalisation and extremism are relative and context-dependent concepts. This implies that their significance depends on what is considered as “mainstream”, “normal” and “legal” in a given society: “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.

During the last 20 years, researchers and practitioners developed a great variety of models to explain the process of radicalization. Among the best-known models are those developed by Randy Borum and Fathali M. Moghaddam (Borum, R., 2011): “Radicalization into violent extremism II”. Journal of Strategic Security no. 4 ).

Randy Borum aims to combine the common factors in processes of radicalization in a four-stage model.

The model illustrates how the experience of grievances, discrimination and vulnerabilities gradually transform into being caused by external factors, be it persons, groups or society in general. Step by step, the young people direct their aggression at some enemy: ”target attribution: it´s your fault “. The last stage involves hatred and demonization and/or dehumanization of the responsible party, and at this stage some individuals may commit violent acts.

Likewise, Fathali M. Moghaddam´s model is called the “staircase to terrorism“.

In the staircase model, the process of radicalization initiates with experiences of grievances and injustice. Thus, the ground floor of the model may include a lot of individuals. Many young people would agree to the experience of injustice, and they may often sympathize with and even support, those who choose to act and do something about it.

An increasingly small number of individuals proceed to the higher floors of the staircase model. However, only a very few individuals climb to the final floor, where they “sidestep inhibitory mechanisms“ and commit violent acts.

Other models introduce more intermediate steps. However, despite the variations, this type of procedural models generally raises similar, important questions such as: 

The general position among researchers and practitioners today is that there is no single cause for radicalisation, but rather a complex mixture of contextual factors on different levels:

“Radicalisation is a context-bound phenomenon par excellence. Global, sociological and political drivers matter as much as ideological and psychological ones”.

 

The European Commission, Expert Group on Violent Radicalisation (2008): “Radicalisation processes. Leading to Acts of Terrorism”

There is no single model that can integrate all factors and mechanisms. Research has identified a long list of factors leading to radicalization. For example, Magnus Ranstorp (The Root Causes of Violent Extremism” – RAN Issue Paper 04/01) emphasized the following factors:

In other interpretations (Mhtconsult 2010 and 2012), the trigger factors have taken their point of departure in concrete and external signs such as:

• Image-based signs of change: where young people change their image, for instance in their way of dressing, their use of political-ideological or religious symbols etc.
• Behavioural signs of change: where young people change their behavioural appearance in a visible way.
• Attitude-based signs of change: where young people change their views, sympathies and sets of values.
• Relational signs of change: where young people change, discard their existing circle of acquaintances and become associated with new social, political or religious groups.

Even though there is no complete consensus on what is prevention, many of the risk factors are well known. This knowledge is operationalized into concrete preventive precautions and interventions on the basis of working definitions.

As we have seen, there are many backgrounds and very different factors involved in radicalization processes among persons and groups. It is not possible to establish a simple causality and one-dimensional explanation to why persons become radicalized. As shown above, attempts have been made among researchers to establish specific profiles of people, who become radicalized9, or to create lists of signs that professionals have to look for, in order to spot persons at risk, or in a process of radicalization (Borum, R.,2004).

Likewise, models of identifiable phases that persons will go through in radicalization processes have been suggested (Silber, M. D. & A. Bhatt, 2007). However, these attempts at creating lists and models have been criticized on several backgrounds from the point of view that there is a danger of simplifying the varied processes among individuals and groups in different contexts. There is a danger of drawing too general conclusions on a narrow base of evidence, derived from few and selected cases of persons who has committed terror attacks, as well as a risk of producing a counterproductive discrimination and stigmatization because of stereotypical profiles based on certain lifestyles, ethnic backgrounds and religiosity, leading to suspicion of large numbers of people (Velthuis, T. & Staun, J., 2009).

In conclusion, it is not reliable to produce a clear-cut list of signs for professionals to use as a screening device. However, a variety of researchers and policymakers point out that professionals in schools play an important role in anticipating and preventing radicalization and extremism (Rambøll, 2016; Asterisk 2016; Soei, A., 2018).

According to researchers and policymakers internationally, the challenge of preventing extremism and radicalization among youth has to be approached through engaging children and youth in their societies and communities, ensuring their possibilities and wish to participate to renew democracy. The school is a formative institution and plays an important role in the continual formation of a vibrant and engaging democratic society. Crucial for this development is the schools succeeding to establish the frames for the students’ sense of inclusion and belonging, their trust in being part of the classroom community and the wider society with rights and possibilities to participate, and their development of a critical and questioning sense. As such, it is a school concern if students feel a lack of confidence in the class and the surrounding society, experience discrimination and stigmatization, or if students express negative prejudices about groups of people and perhaps show a legitimation of violence towards parts of the population. These are signs of worry, which the school has a responsibility, as well as a possibility to address.

The question then is how professionals in the school context can work with these important and challenging issues?

A meta-study of 34 studies about interventions in the school context aimed at the prevention of radicalisation, point to five decisive aspects which can activate a positive effect, leading to the prevention of radicalisation (Rambøll, 2016).

The meta-study confirms what other research points to, the fact that capacity building and CPD of teachers and other school staff can have effects on the prevention of radicalization (Bonell, Joe, Phil Copestake a.o., 2011). Capacity building primarily works to prevent radicalization when it aims at qualifying the teachers’ ability to support and facilitate reflective debates and dialogue in the classroom in such a way that all the students get room for expressing their viewpoints, in an environment where disagreement and pluralism is seen as a constructive and basic condition in a community (Rambøll, op.cit. Laird Iversen, L., 2014). The teacher must facilitate a context where it is considered fruitful and legitimate to reflect on norms and ideas as well as ideals and lifeforms that are otherwise taken for granted. The teacher must work towards establishing a constructive ‘community of disagreement’ in class, to manage divisions and polarization, and to establish a safe space where it is considered constructive to question our everyday prejudices, in order to strive to get behind categories and stereotypes, and build trust and belonging in the class-room as well as in a wider community characterized by pluralism.

This approach and way of thinking is supported by an understanding of democracy as essentially plural and conflictual, and of democratic interaction characterized by disagreement, ongoing struggle for ideas and compromise, as opposed to an aim of reaching consensus (Mouffe, Chantal, 2004). Unity based on same-ness and stable consensus would be a contradiction in a democracy and a sign of a democratic crisis. Accordingly, democratic civic engagement is viewed, not as something where you first have to learn certain codes or master certain competences, before you gain access and are allowed to participate as a democratic citizen (Biesta, Gerd, 2013). This would be countering the idea of democracy and equality as human beings and citizens. You are included as a member from the start, and democracy has to be shaped and reshaped by young and new citizens as well as by others, as people engage with their visions and ways of democratic participation. The schools’ role in this process is to create the fertile context for this democratic critical societal engagement and belonging to develop among the youth.

If the school has a vital role to play in the prevention of extremism, some researchers on the contrary point out that schools and teachers actually can participate in the construction of radicalization and oppositional positions among pupils (Gilliam, L., 2010).

The school is based on certain cultural codes, ways of speaking, literature and often a dominant religious identity, that is connected to the middle-class majority population (Bourdieau & Passeron, 1990).

The knowledge that is valued at school and defined as the standard that achievement is measured in relation to, is connected to this part of the population.

Children from ethnic minorities and/or other socio-economic backgrounds than the dominant ones meet this cultural hegemony in school, and experience exclusion and cultural marginalization. The children sense that the majority culture is so dominant, that they feel markedly different if they don´t fit within the expectations to the “normal” child. The feeling of being different, not recognized, identified with a questioned religion and ethnicity, and unable to live up to the specific norms and criteria, can lead to the creation of a counter identification. Sometimes an anti-school culture, and sometimes a search for other communities to gain recognition. It can lead to a vicious circle of alienation from the school where you feel you can’t succeed and participate, oppositional behavior, further exclusion, etc.

This research points to the risk of the school being part of a construction of marginality, which can lead to the creation of a counterculture, where youth build an identity around being different from what they can´t be part of at school. Contrary to this, if the school and teachers are conscious about these mechanisms, their important role as a micro society, and gain capacities and motivation to work towards inclusion, belonging and trust as participating citizens among children and youth across diversities, they can have a tremendous effect, including the anticipation and prevention of radicalization and extremism.