Paper presenters
- Lars Gule: Right-wing radical – an empty category
- Wahlström, Wennerhaug and Jämte: How ‘Violence affirming extremism’ became a social problem in Sweden
- Robin Andersson Malmros: The materialization of radicalization: Scandinavian municipalities translating an ambiguous idea
- Randi Solhjell: Understanding hate crime and vioent extremism
- Thale Stalenget: Radicalisation – an imprecise term
Abstracts
Right-wing radical – an empty category
Lars Gule, OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University
For some time the concept ‘right-wing radical’ has been used as a counterpoint to ‘radical’ or rather ‘left-wing radical’. This has created a nice symmetrical categorisation based on the classical left–right political axis where we have “moderate” or “centrist” positions in the middle of the political spectrum and then populists, radicals and – of lately – extremists on each side.
In this paper, it is argued that this is a false symmetry and that it is hard to envisage a right-wing radical position given the etymology of the word “radical” as well as the historical meanings the word and concept has had since its first use in political contexts more than two hundred years ago. In general, terminology that is more accurate will allow for more precise thinking about the mechanisms of the so-called radicalisation.
This critique of the notion of ‘right-wing radical’ is informed by clearer definitions of extremism. Furthermore, it adds to the critique of the concept of ‘radicalisation’ as a seemingly neutral concept regarding the political left-right axis. A more precise concept of normative extremism, i.e. strong opposition to human rights and democratic principles, is the basis for the critique of the notion of right-wing radical. This approach reveals that the so-called right-wing radical positions are better termed right-wing extremism.
All in all, the paper also illustrates the limits of the left-right axis in serious academic analysis of normative political positions but shows how – within limits – this metaphor still can have some analytical value.
The Materialization of Radicalization
Robin Andersson Malmros, University of Gothenburg
Radicalization is a much debated idea. Critics points to its ambiguity and the flaws in the research underpinning it, while its supporters emphasize its value for studying the process leading to ideological violence.
Despite this debate, the idea of radicalization has become popular and globally adopted in CVE/PVE-strategies and policies on different governance levels. Departing from sociological institutionalism, particularly the translation metaphor, this paper sets out to explore how the idea of radicalization has been materialized in 60 Scandinavian municipal policy plans.
Using a content analysis, the paper outlines the textual manifestations and visualizations of radicalization in the policy plans. Early findings identify a considerable variance of how radicalization is defined, described and what factors that are being considered as the driving forces behind radicalization. The policy plans also contain a wide range of models, theories and ideas about radicalization originating from a mix of academic, international, national and local sources, which in some cases are contradictive in relation to each other.
The paper identifies a multi-layered process of imitation and editing as the main driving force in the translation from idea to policy plan, a finding well worth considering for future implementation of local CVE/PVE-strategies by municipalities.
How ‘Violence affirming extremism’ became a social problem in Sweden
Wahlström Wennerhag og Jämte, University of Gothenburg (et.al.)
During a short time span, ‘violent extremism’ has internationally become an established and highly prioritized social problem, which authorities on different levels spend substantial resources in countering.
While there is extensive ongoing international diffusion and coordination, there are also national specificities in terms of meanings conferred to this social problem as well as to the processes of its establishment as a social problem. In this paper we analyse the trajectory of the Swedish analogue ‘violence affirming extremism’ (Sw. ‘våldsbejakande extremism’) in the public sphere, in national policy as well as in local municipal practices.
The analysis draws on newspaper data, parliamentary debates, official reports and interviews with police and municipal civil servants. From a social constructionist standpoint, we outline the interplay between different claims-makers and the conflicts over the diagnostic, prognostic and motivational frame, and ultimately the ownership of the social problem.
Understanding hate crime and violent extremism
Randi Solhjell, The Norwegian Police University College
Both ‘hate crime’ and ‘violent extremism’ are terms frequently used in the media, by politicians, policymakers and practitioners such as the police. Hate crime is often defined based on the motive of the crime, namely that it is a targeted act towards one or more person(s) or something associated with this group of people due to protected characteristics of the group.
Violent extremism is often defined on the basis of the violent act to achieve political, religious or ideological aims, usually in sharp contrast to “societal norms” and democratic values (Bjørgo & Gjelsvik 2015, p. 14). However, the similarities and differences between hate crime and violent extremism are not always straight forward and need to be examined carefully.
In this paper, I offer a more systematic categorization of these terms in a Nordic context in order to understand measures to prevent and react to these practices.
Radicalisation – an imprecise term
Thale Stalenget, University of Oslo
There is a need for more precise terminology in extremism research. The concepts of extremism and radicalisation require clarification. The concept ‘radicalisation’ has been controversial and problematic from as it was introduced after the attack on the United States in 2001, both in political and academic contexts.
The term and concept aim to capture the process where a person or group develop increasing willingness to use violence to achieve political or religious goals. This implies an understanding that there is a synonymy between the outcome of the radicalisation process – i.e. becoming radical – and the willingness to use violence. This is seen in the expression “radical Islamists”, referring to Muslims who have been so-called radicalised.
However, this logical understanding of the connection between the process of radicalisation and its outcome, is then rejected by both researchers and politicians who claim that there is nothing wrong in being radical. Thus, the connection between the term radicalisation and the process it supposedly refers to, is inconsistent or even spurious.
The terms “radical” and “radicalisation” have an interesting etymology and a long-standing meaning of fundamental changes or reforms in a progressive direction, and not changes that necessarily implies the use of violence. Thus, the process(es) of moving into extreme positions, including violent extremism, should be named by another term. In this paper the suggested term will be a self-explanatory neologism, “extremisation”. In general, accurate terminology will allow for more precise thinking about the mechanisms behind the so-called radicalisation processes.