142,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Bildung
- Serie: ISTE Invoiced
- Sprache: Englisch
Faced with the growing and persistent threat of radicalization, both in France and worldwide, it is crucial to explore new approaches to prevention.
Preventing Radicalization proposes an innovative method for understanding and preventing violent radicalization, focusing on the development of individual responsibility through the enhancement of psychosocial skills. It examines the limits of traditional approaches centered on security and justice, and proposes concrete, innovative strategies focused on the search for solutions, notably through educational and awareness-raising programs. This integrated, humanistic approach, which aims to strengthen epistemic, emotional, attentional, relational and axiological skills, represents a significant advance in the primary prevention of violent radicalization processes.
In a context where radicalization continues to threaten the stability of societies, it is imperative to rethink prevention strategies. This book provides the essential keys to understanding this complex threat for all those who wish to tackle it.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 365
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Preface
Introduction
Chapter 1. Radicalization
1.1. Radicalism in general
1.2. Islamic radicalism
Chapter 2. How Can We Explain This Phenomenon?
2.1. The causal approach
2.2. The processual approach
2.3. Limitations of explanatory approaches
2.4. Key findings of this chapter
Chapter 3. How Can We Cope With This Phenomenon?
3.1. Combating violent radicalization
3.2. Preventing violent radicalization
Chapter 4. A Critical Reading of the Main Interventions in the Fight Against Radicalization
4.1. Challenges of the fight against radicalization
4.2. Classification of interventions related to the fight against VR
4.3. Examples of training as part of the fight against radicalization
4.4. To note
Chapter 5. Radicalization Versus Responsibility
5.1. Radicalization and psychological closure
5.2. Responsibility and psychological openness
5.3. Ways to develop responsibility
5.4. Synthesis
Prospects and Conclusion
References
Index
Other titles from iSTE in Innovations in Learning Sciences
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 4
Table 4.1.
“Normal” psychological variables con...
Table 4.2.
Occurrence of words suggesting strong negative emo...
Chapter 5
Table 5.1.
The five basic emotional skills. Reproduced from C...
Table 5.2.
Epistemic skills. Reproduced from “Table 3....
Table 5.3.
The content of attentional skills for responsibili...
Table 5.4.
Relational skills for responsibility. Reproduced f...
Table 5.5.
Axiological skills promoting responsibility. Repro...
Table 5.6.
Interdisciplinary skills promoting the development...
Table 5.7.
Closed mind (CM) (VR) versus open mind (OM) (respo...
List of Figures
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1.
Sites squatted by zadists in France. Reproduced...
Figure 1.2.
Individuals reported as being radicalized. Reprod...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1.
The EU’s counter-terrorism strategy. Repro...
Figure 3.2.
Top 20 sources of foreign fighters in Syria and...
Figure 3.3.
Summary of the action plan for the prevention of...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1.
Identification and management of radicalization...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1.
Critical thinking and reflective thinking. Reprod...
Figure 5.2.
Schematic representation of the multivariate appr...
Figure 5.3.
Skills for educating for responsibility (reproduc...
Guide
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Preface
Introduction
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Prospects and Conclusion
References
Index
Other titles from iSTE in Innovations in Learning Sciences
Pages
iii
iv
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
Education Set
coordinated byAngela Barthes andAnne-Laure Le Guern
Volume 17
Preventing Radicalization
Education for Responsibility, a Means of Primary Prevention of Violent Radicalization
Mohammed El Ourmi
First published 2025 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUKwww.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USAwww.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2025The rights of Mohammed El Ourmi to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025930862
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78630-997-6
Preface
In a world where violent radicalization is a growing concern, the need to understand and prevent this phenomenon has become more present than ever. This book is part of this process, proposing an innovative approach focused on the primary prevention of violent radicalization. Far from simplistic clichés and hasty judgments, this book is a rigorous and nuanced exploration of the mechanisms that lead to violent radicalization. By adopting a processual approach, we seek to understand the different stages an individual may go through before tipping over into extreme violence.
Radicalization and violent extremism represent major challenges for our societies, and primary prevention is a crucial response. Indeed, we are also focusing on measures aimed at intervening upstream of the radicalization process to prevent it from descending into violence. By identifying risk factors and proposing appropriate prevention strategies, we hope to contribute to building a more resilient and inclusive society. This book explores the different dimensions of prevention, highlighting best practices and innovative approaches. Our aim is to make a significant contribution to understanding and combating this complex phenomenon.
The first chapter presents an overview of the different forms of radicalization, analyzing their causes and manifestations. It explores the individual, social and environmental factors that can contribute to involvement in extremist groups. The second chapter focuses on the processes of radicalization, describing the stages that lead an individual to adopt a violent ideology. The third chapter explores different strategies for preventing violent radicalization, drawing on concrete examples of initiatives implemented in different countries. It stresses the importance of a multidimensional approach that tackles the individual, social and environmental factors behind the phenomenon. The fourth chapter presents the challenges and prospects of research into violent radicalization. It highlights the need for further research to better understand the phenomenon and develop more effective interventions. The fifth chapter argues, on a theoretical level, the antagonistic relationship between radicalization and the development of responsibility.
This book is aimed at a wide readership, including researchers, education and security professionals, politicians and the general public. It aims to contribute to the fight against violent radicalization by offering an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon and proposing concrete avenues for preventive action; this constitutes a major challenge for society that requires collective mobilization. We hope that this work will be useful to anyone concerned by these vital issues for our common future.
May it contribute to building a more peaceful and tolerant world.
March 2025
Introduction
January and November 2015 will forever be sadly marked as a bloody year in the history of France: the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, the carnage of November 13, with the death of 130 people and hundreds injured. The terrorism did not only affect France, a few months later a suburb of Brussels became infamous. A district suspected of being in the grip of Islamist radicalism, where a small network took action, perpetrating the latest attacks. No country is immune to Islamist terrorism, and even countries where the Islamic faith is dominant, such as Tunisia and Turkey, are directly affected. The terrorist attacks in Catalonia, Spain and the shocked public opinion, both Spanish and European, have produced the same scenes as the terrorist attacks in Paris, Nice, Brussels, London and Madrid, and a renewed debate on the Muslim community and the question of religious extremism. The protagonists of these tragic events are young fanatics (Khosrokhavar 2014) who surrender their lives as a kind of rite of passage into “real life”. Are they not already there? The majority were immigrants, certainly, but most were born in Europe, and like all children their age, they have attended the same schools that inculcate the same values common to everyone; and yet, at some point, they have tipped over into radical Islamism. Is it a failure of the education system? How can we explain the fact that these young people, most of whom are between the ages of 14 and 301, leave their families, their countries and their lives to become the “little soldiers of jihad”2, “apprentice jihadists”3, the “lost children of jihad”4 or the “new madmen of Allah”5? In the face of the many questions that attempt to shed light on this misunderstanding, the Internet is emerging as an explanatory factor for these extremist drifts, to the point that on November 18, 2016, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls launched a new government scheme to counter radical Islamists on their preferred terrain: the Internet and social networks6. In addition, many authors have focused on the question of the importance of digital technology in youth recruitment processes, particularly in the jihadist cause. Guidère (2016) considers that “the Internet has become the preferred propaganda tool of terrorist organizations and the main place for the radicalization of young people” (Guidère 2016, p. 123). Le Breton (2016), for his part, asserts that the Internet is the primary source of radicalization among young people and that their adherence is strictly individual, thus denying the influence that can be operated by the group. However, we will explain a little further on, underlining that the violent commitment of young people is first and foremost a collective affair (Bonelli 2011; Bonelli and Carrié 2018a, 2018b) and that the digital space, although it occupies a predominant place in the trajectories of these young people, is more a tool for reinforcing beliefs than a trigger for radicalization (Ducol 2013, 2015a).
The resurgence of attacks claimed by Daesh and, more generally, the rise of violent extremism (nationalist or xenophobic, for example) call for a democratic response. All components of society are concerned and must mobilize and, above all, complement each other in a spirit of solidarity. In such circumstances, however, the spotlight turns to school for its role in prevention. Indeed, an effective prevention policy can deradicalize young people in the grip of extremism. Particularly after a recent report to the French Senate asserting that “deradicalization, per se, does not exist”7. Since September 2014, the French National Education system has reported more than 1,474 potentially radicalized young people to the prefectures. An unknown number of middle and high school students from all walks of life have left to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria8. Yet it is schools that have been entrusted with the mission of educating, socializing and shaping the citizens who are the guarantors of the continuation of peace, in a society that has become pluralist as a result of migratory flows that have altered the increasingly heterogeneous demographic composition (cultural, ethnic and religious diversity) (Hébert 2002; Ouellet 2002; Bertheleu 2007).
Consequently, today’s schools are mandated to take all of these variables into consideration in the training of future citizens, capable of preserving and maintaining social cohesion. National education policy in the fight against violent radicalization (VR) is therefore based on preventive action to prevent people from falling into extremist networks and taking violent action. With this in mind, and as part of the actions coordinated by the French Department of Homeland Security, Mrs Najat-Vallaud Belkacem, Minister of National Education, Higher Education and Research, launched, in April 2014, the National Prevention Plan against Radicalization and Terrorist Networks in French Schools, based specifically on the development of critical thinking through information and media literacy9. The latter falls within the framework of “educating for” (Barthes et al. 2017), which presents itself as a possible alternative in the face of the school crisis mainly linked to the questioning of the legitimacy of school knowledge (Alpe and Barthes 2013).
In this book, we will focus on the VR linked to radical Islamism, as these are forms of radicalization on which contemporary scientific literature seems to be most abundant. We assume, however, that our conclusions apply equally to all other types of VR, because, whatever the definition, there is always the existence of the idea of a movement that points towards an “extreme”, under the sway of a radical ideology. However, the real problem lies not in a conceptual debate, but rather in the worrying rise in the number of radicalized young people. Radicalization is now affecting more young people from middle-class backgrounds, mostly converted teenagers who had no real hatred of society, whereas for a long time, the majority of cases were young people from the suburbs, mostly of Muslim origin, who were rediscovering religion and were marked by feelings of precariousness, humiliation and exclusion, which fed their hatred of society, thus leaving fertile ground for Islamists (Khosrokhavar 2014).
In order to bring a creative element to research in the field of counter-radicalization, our aim with this present work is to make radicalization prevention a new form of content in conventional prevention policies. Indeed, we suggest a reconsideration of the common ways of preventing VR centered on aspects of security, justice and rationality, complementing them with approaches that promote implicitly epistemic, emotional, attentional, relational and axiological skills, thus enabling the creation of a responsible subject endowed with free will (Fabre 2014). We will argue, in light of the literature, that responsibility is the cornerstone of the ethical system that underpins education for the development of responsible societies, presupposing consciousness (Becker 1992), also presupposing freedom (ibid.), calling for reflexivity: it is the coherence between being and acting that is at stake (Henriot 1995), applying not only to the sphere of identity and that of otherness, but also to the sphere of the environment (Sauvé 2007; Hagège 2015, 2018), and, finally, responsibility is the bearer of an integrative framework for the various dimensions of contemporary education that concern current social and environmental issues (ibid.). Thus, we suppose that educating for responsibility can pave the way for preventing VR.
This book is structured into five chapters, each exploring a fundamental aspect of radicalization and possible responses to counter it. The first chapter, “Radicalization: What Is It?” provides a detailed introduction to various forms of radicalism, distinguishing between nationalist, ideological, esoteric, and religious movements, as well as emerging forms of radicalization. The second chapter examines the root causes of this phenomenon through causal and procedural approaches, addressing factors such as identity quests, value conflicts and the impact of social networks. In the third chapter, strategies to address radicalization are analyzed, focusing on prevention models in Germany, the United Kingdom, Morocco and France. The fourth chapter offers a critical examination of key interventions, highlighting their issues, limitations and lessons learned. Finally, the fifth chapter raises the question of responsibility in response to radicalization, exploring how it can counter psychological rigidity and provide pathways toward a more resilient society in the face of this complex challenge.
Notes
1
See:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2014/06/20/01016-20140620ARTFIG00248-ces-francaises-qui-partent-faire-le-djihad-en-syrie.php
[Accessed February 1, 2017].
2
See:
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/proche-moyen-orient/djihadisme-nos-petits-soldats-d-allah_1497087.html
[Accessed February 2, 2017].
3
See:
http://www.lemonde.fr/police-justice/article/2016/03/23/quatre-apprentis-djihadistes-francais-condamnes-pour-avoir-tente-de-rejoindre-la-syrie_4888897_1653578.html
[Accessed February 2, 2017].
4
See:
http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/les-enfants-perdus-du-djihad-08-10-2014-1870521_23.php
[Accessed February 3, 2017].
5
See:
http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/les-fous-d-allah-sont-ils-malades-1-6-13-06-2016-2046388_23.php
[Accessed February 3, 2017].
6
See:
http://www.gouvernement.fr/toujourslechoix-une-campagne-Web-pour-lutter-contre-la-radicalisation
[Accessed March 12, 2017].
7
French Senate Report No. 438, February 2017, p. 30.
8
See:
http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/le-nombre-de-jeunes-francais-candidats-au-jihad-a-double-en-un-an-08-03-2015-4585627.php
[Accessed June 22, 2016].
9
See:
http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid92084/la-prevention-de-la-radicalisation.html
[Accessed February 12, 2015].
1Radicalization
Since the 2015 Paris attacks, public authorities’ concern for the radicalization of young French people and the media’s focus on this phenomenon have considerably altered the notion of “radicalization”. Whereas this “concept” was almost non-existent in the literature, “it now occupies a central place: 3% of published works on terrorism focused on this notion between 1980 and 1999, 77% deal with it from 2006 onwards” (Crettiez 2016). There are many reasons for the public success of this buzzword1. There are political and sociological reasons – especially after September 11, 2001 – which emphasize the strong determinants of extremist commitment. Epistemological reasons that agree on the difficulty of putting forward major causes of terrorist acts.
However, despite the appeal of the term, it is also the subject of criticism, mainly because of its political implications and some uncertainty about its meaning. The notion of radicalization was initially denounced as an instrument for stigmatizing Muslim communities. Thus, an epistemological criticism is also emerging, highlighting confusion between different phenomena, such as fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism. Moreover, the notion has been criticized for being too broad in scope, encompassing not only violent behavior but also spilling over into wider areas. Another difficulty in the various approaches that have attempted to understand, explain and grasp what we are talking about lies in the fact that radicalization can take on cognitive, behavioral or even both aspects simultaneously (Crettiez and Sèze 2017). “American sociology places particular emphasis on behavioral radicalization, often leaving out forms of ideological extremism which, in the Anglo-American culture of freedom of speech, are not reprehensible. On the other hand, in European sociology, and particularly in French sociology, cognitive radicalization seems to be a prerequisite, often preceding violent radicalization, which it feeds and prepares for. This differentiated vision probably reflects singular historical experiences: the trauma of the great totalitarian narratives has induced in Europe a causal link between any form of extreme thinking and violent acts. On the other hand, this causality is not as systematically accepted on the other side of the Atlantic, where extreme thinking does not necessarily lead to violent action.” (Crettiez 2016, pp. 711–712).
In this chapter, we seek to highlight the complexity of the radicalization approach and the challenge of clearly defining what it is.
1.1. Radicalism in general
The aim of this section is to demystify this notion, as well as all its derivatives, such as radicality, being radical, having a radical attitude and, briefly, the different forms of radicalism throughout history, in an attempt to show that it is an ancient phenomenon that can exist anywhere and affect any field. However, we distinguish the most dangerous forms of radicalism for society: forms that appeal to hatred and intolerance to sow terror and jeopardize living together and peace.
1.1.1. Radicality
“Radical” etymologically refers to what is relative to the root (radix in Latin). By extension, it refers to the essence or foundation of the entity or process approached in a radical way. “This is the meaning given to the term by Karl Marx, for example, when he asserted in his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law that ‘to be radical is to take things by the root’” (Keucheyan 2010, p. 3). On the contrary, every effort is made today to identify “radicality” with the most deadly actions and the most subservient opinions (Mondzain 2017). Indeed, today’s common sense sees any radical politics as dangerous to the democratic consensus, even though the meaning of the word “radical” is still unclear. Thus, it is identified with extremes, or analogies are drawn between fascist or reactionary movements and revolutionary or libertarian groups (Benasayag and Del Rey 2011). In the literature, most publications dealing with “radicality”, especially in the political sphere, place the emphasis on violent forms of action, such as extremism, terrorism or fanaticism, only to reduce them in a new lexicon to refer only to doctrinal convictions and indoctrination strategies (Mondzain 2017). It is also often linked to a necessarily violent, unmoderated and immediate division, to something out of the ordinary, to an exaggeration that must be imposed on everyone and so on. Thus, “radical” has become the horrible word that scares everyone, since it threatens the current social model. “Radicality, on the contrary, calls for the courage of constructive change and the most creative imagination. The confusion between transformative radicality and extremism is the worst venom that the use of words inoculates day after day into consciousness and bodies” (ibid., p. 10).
Today, many sociologists, political scientists, historians and psychologists are developing analyses of “radicality”. However, these analyses do not cover all aspects of radicality, especially in intellectual terms (Keucheyan 2010). Thus, the meaning of the word “radical” is far from straightforward, as this notion requires significant conceptual clarification, which we will try to develop through the following questions: Should we specify the nature of radicality to better understand it? Is it possible to be radical in one area without being radical in another? What is the distinction between a radical person/attitude/statement and one that is not? Why do we choose to adopt a radical attitude or position? How does someone who makes a radical choice pose a problem for the society around them? Is there a link between radicality and violence?
1.1.1.1. Being radical
“In mathematics, a radical is synonymous with the positive square root of a number. In medical practice, free radicals are those oxygen molecules that attack our healthy cells at the root. For botanists, radicals are those elements that start at the root. And for chemists, a radical is a simple body in acids or bases” (Pasquet 2016, p. 4). In the various dictionaries, the word “radical” is presented as a qualifying adjective that refers to that which is relative to the root and can have several extensions such as the first, fundamental principle, which is at the origin of a thing, phenomenon or process approached in a radical way. In other words, “to be radical” means to grasp things by their roots. Equally, “to be radical, or to interrogate the root of things, means to question the given evidence of reality. And this questioning, in its most coherent form, takes the form of the everyday experience of those who reflect on it and take note of it” (Massicotte and Marques 2012, p. 167). Drawing a parallel with the Wahhabi Salafist movement, which is considered one of the most radical, we can see that their Amirs explicitly challenge the Western social model and propose only one possible alternative: their interpretation of Sharia law. Similarly, in their daily lives, they put into practice what they claim through economic initiatives, exclusive solidarity with their community and the proliferation of their teaching models. On the whole, their private and public lives merge, and they live collectively in frustration with a social model that does not suit them and which they blame for their marginalization.
1.1.1.2. Radical statements and attitudes
“Radical discourse assumes that the idea is no longer the object of discussion. Its object is action. It is not so much a question of exchanging ideas, as of imposing a reality, even if this practice means imposing oneself by force of arms” (Pasquet 2016, p. 4). Commonly, and especially since the Charlie Hebdo attacks, radical remarks are defined as any expression that comments favorably on a terrorist act publicly or on social networks, or vilifies the memory of victims. Making such comments is a serious offence of “incitement to terrorism, punishable by imprisonment and website closure”2. There are many examples of this, but the most surprising is the story of an 8-year-old boy who made headlines in France on the eve of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. According to Fabienne Lewandowski, deputy director of public security in Nice, who was interviewed by BFMTV3, the child explicitly expressed his desire to kill all French people and that he would be on the side of the terrorists, who were right to kill those who debased the prophet. In this case, once the police had been alerted by his headmistress and teacher, the child was arrested for incitement to terrorism. Furthermore, an attitude is said to be radical when it does not recognize the words openness, compromise, listening and empathy. It is an attitude of absolute intransigence. Consequently, the consideration of the dominant consensus as the only acceptable foundation in a society suggests that any position that is extreme or breaks with this consensus is a radical position.
1.1.1.3. The question of assessing radicality
“The notion of radicality, as of course that of radicalization, supposes and supports degrees and graduations. It refers to processes or progressions, and here again, engages judgments of proportionality: such a position or such an action will be judged ‘too radical’ or ‘not radical enough’” (Chateauraynaud 2013, p. 2). In other words, the dimension of radicality can vary considerably depending on situations, actors and statements (ibid.). The major interest in the variations, degrees and graduations of radicality, in the ways in which it is posed and evaluated, and in the objects it concerns, “makes it possible to understand or remove many contradictions or paradoxes: thus, in France, the Left Front, supposed to embody critical radicality in politics, is much less so when it comes to nuclear energy” (ibid., p. 2).
Radicality can be assessed according to different criteria and perspectives, but it is important to understand that this assessment is often subjective and context-dependent. Several considerations can thus impact the way radicality can be assessed. In terms of ideas or actions, radicality can be assessed according to the novelty or depth of the ideas proposed, or the scale of the actions taken to promote radical change. Radicality is often assessed in terms of social norms and cultural expectations in a given context. What is considered radical in one society may not be so in another. Indeed, a political idea may be considered radical in a conservative context, but moderate in a progressive one. Equally, a radical political proposal may be considered as such because of its break with established norms or its fundamental challenge to the existing social order. Assessing radicality can also take into account the question of acceptability and social legitimacy. Some radical ideas or actions may be rejected or stigmatized by mainstream society, while others may be considered legitimate or even necessary to promote social change. In terms of effects and consequences, radicality can be assessed according to its impact on society or on a particular field. These effects can be positive if they help to promote values such as social justice, equality or freedom, or negative if they lead to damage or injustice.
Although radicality can be assessed, this assessment is often complex and subjective. It depends on many factors, including cultural context, social norms, the effects and consequences of ideas or actions and their degree of acceptability. The value of radicality is not intrinsically good or bad in itself but can be assessed according to its consequences and ethical implications. Some forms of radicality can be considered positive if they help to promote justice, equality or other positive values, while others can be judged negatively if they lead to harmful or violent consequences.
1.1.1.4. Choosing to be radical
In the realm of thought, the choice of radicality (radical thought) is essential, as it is the only form of thought still capable of creating bold concepts that break with the ideological order and anticipating the future by breaking with the antiquated present of a civilization reaching the end of its cycle (Faye 1998). The latest strikes in France by lorry drivers against the ecotax, by Air France employees and student marches and Nuit debout protests against the labor law, perhaps question intellectuals about a possible choice of radicality as a form of action by labor activists, quite frequently resorting to violence. On the one hand, the economic crisis, rising unemployment rates and the increasing wealth of bosses at the expense of workers may influence a choice of radicality as a form of militancy. On the other hand, rioters, who deliberately infiltrate protests to create riots and take advantage of the opportunity to ransack stores, have chosen to resort to violence to do as much damage as possible to the system they see as their main enemy.
But have the young people who sink into the obscurantism of Islamic radicalization, who choose to go off and fight a war that is not their own, and who agree to kill themselves in public, killing hundreds of innocent people in the process, really chosen this path? Are they really aware of this seemingly irrational choice? To understand this choice, we will refer to Bonelli and Carrié’s survey (2018b), according to which we can distinguish four types of radicality. The first is a “soothing radicality”, characterized by families in socio-economic difficulties and who provide a weak framework for their children’s relationships. The young minors who enter into a logic of appeasing radicality are mostly girls, for whom the choice of rigorist Islam is a “way of putting family disorder in order”. The second type is “agonistic radicality”. It concerns boys from working-class neighborhoods whose sociability is structured by the world of gangs. Their choice seems to imply a sense of belonging to a group (“endogroup”) and a rejection of exogroups (Borum 2011) and its members (Myers 2009). The third is “rebellious radicality”. It is made up of young people from the middle classes and in stable situations, whose families closely supervise their movements and their relationships with other young people, leading to conflicts with their parents. Often, their choice is catalyzed by rebellion and conversion, without leading to a collective commitment. On the other hand, young people who fall into the fourth type of radicality, “utopian radicality”, are involved in ideological commitment, aiming to overthrow a social order. This point is developed below.
1.1.2. Radicalism
Radicalization, as we will try to develop in this section, is not a phenomenon that emerges from nowhere or by chance, but rather a consequence of a certain form of directive, which is radicalism. In the case, for example, of so-called “Islamic” radicalization, it is a direct consequence of radical Islam, whose followers present their own interpretation of texts, presumed to be to the letter, as the only absolute, acceptable and valid truth. According to the Larousse dictionary and its definition of the French word for radicalism, “radicalism is an attitude of mind and doctrine of those who want a complete break with the institutional and political past”. This explanation is more appropriate to the political field but, on the other hand, it is more exhaustive, as it does not contain it in a simple political movement, but rather in a form of thought, an outline of social organization, a vision of the world or a state of mind (Nicolet 1974). The institutional past to which the dictionary refers is the shift, marked by the French Revolution, of politics from the realm of empiricism to the realm of morality, and the creation of a new kind of person: the citizen. Like the anarchists, who consider the state form to be useless and are radically opposed to any human hierarchy, they proclaim an absolute break with this form of institution and advocate a kind of free and voluntary cooperation between individuals. Generally speaking, radicalism is the set of political trends that are far removed from the center. In the common sense, it is most often associated with religious radicalism, especially Islamist radicalism.
1.1.2.1. Etymology of the word “radicalism”
The word “radicalism” derives from the Latin radix, meaning “root”. In philosophy and politics, radicalism refers to an approach that seeks to address problems at their source, by questioning the very foundations of established systems. The origin of the word “radicalism” is unquestionably English4. Indeed, “the word originated in England, where, as early as the 1770s, it was applied to supporters of democratization of an oligarchic and corrupt system” (Ball 1994, p. 5). In France, on the other hand, radicalism5 was born of the enormous contribution of the revolution. It made its first appearance in French political vocabulary in 1819, as “political system, radical thought”. Over the years, it evolved from extremism to the middle ground (ibid.).
1.1.2.2. Possible link between radicalism and violence
Generally speaking, each form of radicalism has more or less specific causes. There is no particular link, apart from the desire to radically change the past, i.e. to establish a model that is the opposite of the current one. In the case of nationalism in Africa and the Maghreb, in particular, it grew out of a desire to challenge colonial domination and engage in resistance so that nations could gain their independence. In Europe too, recent years have seen a resurgence of the radical right and nationalists on the political scene, with electoral victories such as Podemos in Spain and Tsípras in Greece, and also the Rassemblement National in France, which found itself the big winner in the European elections of 2014 and, above all, in the first round of the regional elections in 2015. Admittedly, this rise may be due to the failure of governments to manage local authorities and their inability to reverse the unemployment curve, but it is above all due to the radical rhetoric advocating the closure of borders, leaving the eurozone, driving immigrants out of the country and the rejection of marriage for all. This is often interpreted as a threat or symbolic violence against these minorities.
On the other hand, the term “radicalism” for many people, characterizes the projection of a violent movement. Is it true that radical groups always resort to violence? Today, most industrialized countries have been confronted on a regular basis with the economic, political, social and cultural demands of various groups using violence as a means of action. Examples include clashes with law enforcement agencies, as well as several attempts to squat in public and private places. Indeed, “for some years now, radical groups have been calling for the use of violence in demonstrations. Anti-system radicality is assumed, direct action becomes an end in itself, and violence takes the place of political discourse” (Boutih 2015, p. 23). The protagonists act in a number of fields, including sport, social movements, politics and religion. The manifestation of violence can be verbal, physical and symbolic. As a result, it can be described as a “crime against individuals” (Bessette 1982), viewed from a more immaterial perspective by focusing on social relationships (Galtung 1969), or hidden behind symbolic relationships (Bourdieu 1992). Nevertheless, new forms of violence characterized by brutality, linked to acts described as terrorist in recent years, have also brought the link with radicalism to the forefront of the media and political scene as a kind of self-evident fact. It is now possible to speak of violence as a movement of thought. Yet the terms “violent” and “radical” can neither be confused nor reduced solely to the question of acts and discourses linked to terrorist movements (Galloro 2017). Etymologically, “to be violent” derives from the same Latin radical as violar, which gave rise to the word “violate”, in the sense that treatment with violence leads to “desecrating” or “outraging”. The word “radical”, meanwhile, contains the idea of a desire to return to the “roots” with or without violence, as Marx already emphasized in his critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right: “To be radical is to take things by the root” (Marx 1971, cited in Galloro 2017). What we can remember is that we need to distinguish the process of radicalization starting from the violent part of radicality and the radicalization of violence, in order to understand whether we are dealing with radicality as the result of radicalization that has turned to violence, or rather with violence that has undergone a process of radicalization (ibid.). However, with the exception of minority movements such as 20th-century nationalism and jihadism, which sow terror as a means of establishing their political models, radicality is not necessarily linked to violence. There are many radical movements, organizations and groups which, while questioning certain societal values and basic democratic principles, do not tolerate the use of violence in any form.
1.1.3. Some examples of the main forms of radicality
There are multiple forms of radicalism, without these forms being caused by each other (Schmid 2013). Indeed, radicalization can depend on the object or motive, the socio-political context or the nature of the actors. We have chosen to start with nationalism, because it is the most deadly form in history, causing two great wars, the second of which was apocalyptic; then the other forms, such as ideological radicalism, nihilism, esotericism, ecologism, veganism and zadism.
1.1.3.1. National radicalism or nationalism
“Nationalism is defined by the active allegiance that a given group lends to a nation (whether instituted: a nation-state, or desired in the name of separatism or independence, etc.). The group’s allegiance is demonstrated by the symbols in which its members recognize themselves, the collective interests they defend and the cultural traits they share. The political, economic and cultural criteria covered by this definition may not all be met in full. It is not necessary, for example, for members of the group in question to speak the same language or practice the same religion. But a minimum number of coinciding factors are required, the most important of which is the fact of identifying collectively with a political reality (the nation-state) or a national project in a manifest way, and not with others – or even in reaction to other nationalisms. In this, nationalism is an ideology” (Jaffrelot 2016, p. 277). Nationalism as a political system was born in the 19th century (ibid.), with the emergence of the new man, the citizen who is part of a unified whole called “the nation”, defined by the set of principles (culture, religion, tradition) that constitute it. It is also a national sentiment that is widespread among a country’s population and can be confused with patriotism, which is concerned with defending the integrity of national soil in the event of war. In the early 1870s, there were two opposing conceptions of the nation. One based on culture, the other on the state. The first was the organic conception of the nation, based on the concept of Volksgeist6, i.e. national genius, which radicalized the theory put forward by Montesquieu in The Spirit of Law. According to this concept, “every nation on earth, from the most elite to the humblest, has a unique and irreplaceable way of being” (Finkielkraut 1989, p. 14). This explains the voluntary and fierce commitment of nations to defending their moral, intellectual, artistic, political and religious heritage. The second conception is that defended by Renan (1997)7, which assumes the voluntary and conscious adherence of peoples to a common destiny and ideal, as well as the consent and desire to live together. In 1983, another conception of nationalism appeared, with the English anthropologist Ernest Gellner stipulating that the modern nation-state was the product of the state and the school, ensuring, through mass schooling, the cultural homogenization of the population around a common culture. However, nationalism has shown its racial and warlike drifts, during World Wars I and II and in the Balkans, in the course of actual genocides. The same is true of the perpetual conflicts in Africa.
1.1.3.2. Political radicalism
In France, it took the whole of the 19th century and fierce determination on the part of radicals and republicans for a majority of French people to have a certain idea of France (Ball 1994). “It was under the July Monarchy that the word radical first appeared in connection with the word republican” (Nicolet 1974, p. 13). Indeed, radicalism in France has always had a republican tendency. Indeed, its birth was due to the enormous contribution of the French Revolution. But this experience of the second Republic, or the illusion of fraternal democracy (Ball 1994), was doomed to failure with the rise of the imperial dictatorship to power. “In December, universal suffrage brought Louis Napoléon Bonaparte to the presidency, and with the help of the monarchists of the Party of Order (victorious in the legislative elections of May 1849), he set about weakening and hunting down the republicans of the previous day” (Nicolet 1974, p. 7). Exiled, deported and hunted down, the great republican and radical ancestors did not give up their fight; they continued to militate in silence until the emergence of a new generation (Victor Hugo, Louis Blanc, Edgar Quinet, Ledru-Rollin) who took over from 1860 onwards. This generation put an end to the sentimental prophetism and spiritualism of the “forty-eighters”8 while remaining more attentive to the intellectual and scientific foundations of the republican idea and proclaimed a new radicalism. “In certain respects, positive theorists succeeded the romantic prophets” (Nicolet 1974, p. 17). Nevertheless, the word “radical” remained a qualifier that maintained Republican opposition to the Empire. Indeed, in 1869, Jules Simon stated that “the title radical means only man of principles […] the radicalism in question here and radicalism in the sense of freedom” (Ball 1994). At the end of the Empire, the true leader of radicalism was Léon Gambetta, whose mythical document, the “Belleville program”, was the first political manifestation of radicalism, and which was moreover a reference in the radical tradition, even though the word “republic” was implied by the expression of “radical democracy” (ibid.).
Moreover, in the history of the third Republic, radicalism stood out during two periods: the first was from 1880 to 1898, when radicalism supported the ministries of Republican concentration. The second was after 1898, when radicalism began to unite all the republican forces in the face of the new direction taken by the Right (nationalism, anti-Semitism), to the point of becoming the main republican party and gaining power (ibid.). However, nationalism was unable to continue its rise to prominence for several reasons: forced labor in the colonies during the 1950s, which resembled the methods of slavery and the trend at that time in all western countries of a people united around common values, such as patriotism. It did not have the character of universality, since it only applied to a group defined as a nation, very often against other groups of nations9. However, the radicals’ stance against measures constituting the fourth Republic, and their unpopularity among Gaullists, interior Resistance fighters and even supporters of the Vichy government, characterized the crisis of radicalism between 1944 and 1973 (Nicolet 1974).
1.1.3.3. Ideological radicalism
Ideological radicalism is a form of radicality in the field of theory and thought, along with several related notions, such as radical thinking and extreme thinking, which, incidentally, have had little in-depth analysis (Keucheyan 2010
