Suchergebnisse

Though widely used by academics and policy-makers in the context of the 'war on terror', the concept of radicalization lacks clarity. This article shows that while radicalization is not a myth, its meaning is ambiguous and the major controversies and debates that have sprung from it are linked to the same inherent ambiguity. The principal conceptual fault-line is between notions of radicalization that emphasize extremist beliefs ('cognitive radicalization') and those that focus on extremist behavior ('behavioural radicalization'). This ambiguity explains the differences between definitions of radicalization; it has driven the scholarly debate, which has revolved around the relationship between cognition and behavior; and it provides the backdrop for strikingly different policy approaches-loosely labeled 'European' and 'Anglo-Saxon'-which the article delineates and discusses in depth. Rather than denying its validity, the article calls on scholars and policy-makers to work harder to understand and embrace a concept which, though ambiguous, is likely to dominate research and policy agendas for years to come. (International Affairs (Oxford) / SWP)

Radicalization is a process of escalation from nonviolent to increasingly violent repertoires of action that develops through a complex set of interactions unfolding over time. Looking at radicalization mainly through the lenses of a relational approach, this article suggests that social movement studies allow us to bridge structural and agentic explanations in an analysis of the impact of political opportunities and organizational resources, as well as framing, in explaining forms of action and inaction. Available political opportunities influence the reactions of political actors in general to movement demands, thus affecting social movements' strategic choices. Moreover, the availability (or lack) of material and symbolic resources affects the choice of radical repertoire. Finally, organizational resources and contextual opportunities are framed differently by social movement actors, in some cases facilitating radicalization. At the individual level, different paths of radicalization are singled out.

Baudrillard's theories developed dramatically over his intellectual career of forty years, and throughout these years he contributed considerably to the thematic of cultural fetishism. Consistent with his conception of the consumer society, he developed the notion of sign-fetishism, and object-fetishism. These are both steps in the radicalization of Marx's idea of commodity fetishism, drawing on freud's idea of fetishism as a perverse structure. The article notes that Baudrillard provided inventories of fetishism at regular intervals in his writings, and that these remained curiously unchanging. He contrasts the structure of fetishism with that of symbolic exchange, a cultural formation which resolves fetishism. His analysis of 9/11 is shown to be a complex combination of elements of the theory of fetishism (without being named as such) with that of symbolic exchange. Although Baudrillard developed the notion of fetishism to great critical effect, he did not theorize it or apply it systematically.

Asserts that confronting violent & radical Muslim extremism requires breaking the connection between such movements & potential new recruits. At issue is ensuring that US public diplomacy targets the likeliest recruits, ie, disaffected youth & those who influence them. It is argued that winning hearts & minds, an idealistic goal, should not distract from the more immediate & realistic goal of distracting vulnerable population segments from the extremist recruitment process. This can be achieved, it is asserted, by providing locally driven & disseminated alternatives. Challenges include the fact that the US is late to arrive in a field well-represented by al Qaeda & other groups; however, digital technology, particularly the Internet, is seen to offer the US an opportunity to reach at-risk youth. It is contended US citizens must play a role in engaging with other populations, while credible local entities & individuals must be a key part in challenging extremism. How the US government can partner with the private sector to reach at-risk populations is explained. In closing, some thoughts are offered on how to proceed with initiatives & on seeing radicalization as more than simply an Islamist phenomenon. D. Edelman