The trouble with radicalization

Abstract

Though widely used by academics and policymakers in the context of the “War on Terror”, the concept of radicalisation lacks clarity. As this article will show, radicalization is not a myth, but 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 (“behavioral 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 policymakers to work harder to understand and embrace a concept which – though ambiguous – is likely to dominate research and policy agendas for years to come.