Radicalization and Deradicalization

Bethany Leap, Joseph Young
{"title":"Radicalization and Deradicalization","authors":"Bethany Leap, Joseph Young","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is radicalization, and what drives individuals to become radicalized? Many individuals who hold radical beliefs will never become violent, yet others are compelled to enforce their ideology through violence. Drawing from existing literature, radicalization is defined as a transformation rooted in grievances, networks, enabling environments, and ideology that brings an individual to hold radical beliefs and support the use of violence. Conversely, deradicalization is defined as both a cognitive departure from radical ideology and a behavioral shift away from radical activities and group membership. Competing theories of radicalization and deradicalization have created a debate about whether or not these phenomena must be experienced in a linear fashion, and several scholars posit that strains caused by society can lead to both cognitive and behavioral forms of radicalization. The evidence supporting these theories is demonstrated in the counter-radicalization policies of several Western countries, which use localized policing and community members to address the social and political issues that breed radicalization.\n Moreover, radicalization and deradicalization are not “one size fits all” phenomena; instead, they are experiences that can differ between ideologies as well as within ideologies. For example, sociopolitical factors specific to one’s nationality can impact the radicalization and deradicalization of individuals and organizations belonging to the same ideology. Despite all this, there are still significant gaps in the study of radicalization and deradicalization that need to be addressed. In academia, two debates must be settled: how should radicalization be defined, and should radicalization be understood as occurring in a linear or nonlinear fashion? In the policy realm, professionals must understand and address the grievances that increase the risk for radicalization to occur through social programs and education initiatives. Finally, policymakers and academics must communicate with each other regarding the research needs for enacting sound policies that will reduce the occurrence of radicalization.","PeriodicalId":166032,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies","volume":"362 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

What is radicalization, and what drives individuals to become radicalized? Many individuals who hold radical beliefs will never become violent, yet others are compelled to enforce their ideology through violence. Drawing from existing literature, radicalization is defined as a transformation rooted in grievances, networks, enabling environments, and ideology that brings an individual to hold radical beliefs and support the use of violence. Conversely, deradicalization is defined as both a cognitive departure from radical ideology and a behavioral shift away from radical activities and group membership. Competing theories of radicalization and deradicalization have created a debate about whether or not these phenomena must be experienced in a linear fashion, and several scholars posit that strains caused by society can lead to both cognitive and behavioral forms of radicalization. The evidence supporting these theories is demonstrated in the counter-radicalization policies of several Western countries, which use localized policing and community members to address the social and political issues that breed radicalization. Moreover, radicalization and deradicalization are not “one size fits all” phenomena; instead, they are experiences that can differ between ideologies as well as within ideologies. For example, sociopolitical factors specific to one’s nationality can impact the radicalization and deradicalization of individuals and organizations belonging to the same ideology. Despite all this, there are still significant gaps in the study of radicalization and deradicalization that need to be addressed. In academia, two debates must be settled: how should radicalization be defined, and should radicalization be understood as occurring in a linear or nonlinear fashion? In the policy realm, professionals must understand and address the grievances that increase the risk for radicalization to occur through social programs and education initiatives. Finally, policymakers and academics must communicate with each other regarding the research needs for enacting sound policies that will reduce the occurrence of radicalization.
激进化和去激进化
什么是激进化,是什么驱使个人变得激进化?许多持有激进信仰的人永远不会变得暴力,但其他人却被迫通过暴力来实施他们的意识形态。根据现有文献,激进化被定义为一种根植于不满、网络、有利环境和意识形态的转变,这种转变使个人持有激进信仰并支持使用暴力。相反,去极端化被定义为对激进意识形态的认知背离,以及对激进活动和团体成员的行为转变。关于激进化和去激进化的相互竞争的理论引发了关于这些现象是否必须以线性方式经历的争论,一些学者认为,社会造成的压力可能导致激进化的认知和行为形式。支持这些理论的证据在几个西方国家的反激进化政策中得到了证明,这些政策使用本地化的警察和社区成员来解决滋生激进化的社会和政治问题。此外,激进化和去激进化并不是“一刀切”的现象;相反,它们是不同意识形态之间以及意识形态内部的不同体验。例如,一个人的国籍所特有的社会政治因素可以影响属于同一意识形态的个人和组织的激进化和非激进化。尽管如此,在激进化和去激进化的研究中仍有重大差距需要解决。在学术界,必须解决两个争论:激进化应该如何定义,激进化应该被理解为以线性还是非线性的方式发生?在政策领域,专业人士必须了解并解决通过社会项目和教育举措增加激进化风险的不满情绪。最后,政策制定者和学者必须就制定减少激进化发生的合理政策的研究需求进行沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信