D.Rad Berlin Closing Conference

Radicalisation versus Representation – how radical actors seek to boost their support by normalising their community-level presence

Convenors: Mihai Varga and Volodymyr Ishchenko

Affiliation: Freie Universität Berlin

Contact: mihai.varga@fu-berlin.de | volodymyr.ishchenko@fu-berlin.de

In D.rad we approach radicalisation as the increasing rejection of established law, order, and politics and the active pursuit of alternatives, in the form of politically-driven violence or justification of violence, while de-radicalisation means processes countering such rejection at individual (micro), organizational (meso), or societal (macro) levels resulting in a shift from violent to nonviolent strategies and tactics; de-radicalization might or might not be an outcome of de-radicalization programs. Individuals and organisations radicalise by moving along a continuum from alleged Injustices to voicing Grievances, to experiencing Alienation and ultimately Polarisation (IGAP) and acceptance of violence. Various processes operate at each of these stages, making it more or less likely that individuals radicalise; importantly, the crisis of political representation talked about in Europe since the mid-1990s (Jay Hayward, Peter Mair) facilitates radicalisation as it limits how people can voice their grievances through established or traditional political parties. Building on the intersection between societal processes and radicalisation stages, this panel accepts contributions discussing prominent cases of radicalisation in national and transnational European context.

We welcome contributions that study radicalisation and de-radicalisation in relationship to concepts such as crisis of representation (the 21-st century disconnect between citizens and political parties); normalisation of radicalised forces, meaning that these exist not (or hardly) only in the underground but also establish legal, non-violent street presence catering to local community needs; and the NGO-isation of de-radicalisation, meaning that governments transfer important secondary and tertiary de-radicalisation tasks to non-governmental organisations facing severe work limitations (temporary funding, project-based operations causing organisational strain as NGOs need to reapply for funding regularly) etc. 

——————————

Interdependencies in Processes of Radicalization

Convenors: Steven Sawyer and Roman Zinigrad

Affiliation: American University Paris

Contact: ssawyer@aup.edu |  rzinigrad@aup.edu 

Determining the processes that lead to radical violence plays a central role in developing deradicalisation strategies. Leading scholars of radicalisation have emphasised the importance of grounding analysis of radicalisation in multiple scales, in order to avoid cruder, linear models of causality that fail to capture the complexity of paths of radicalisation (Kundnani, 2012; Schmid, 2013; Crenshaw, 1981). While micro perspectives on radicalisation focus on what causes one individual rather than another to commit acts of terrorism, such as alienation, marginalisation, discrimination, humiliation, stigmatisation, etc, researchers have argued that a focus solely on individual grievances without examining their wider social context is reductive because it suggests the existence of “rebels without a cause” (Sedgwick, 2010). Similarly, analyses of meso factors have demonstrated the importance of situating radicalisation processes in their social surroundings (Conti, 2019). Such socialisation can include networks, groups and community contexts, both off and online. Finally, macro questions focus on how the state and other large-scale institutions relate to various other actors including social and political minorities; geopolitical relationships with other states; and social movement actors (Hecker, 2022).

This interdisciplinary panel seeks to build on this work and follow the call by Pisoiu et al. that “more research is needed that seriously considers the fact that we are dealing with a process and with interdependencies involving individuals, groups and societies” (Pisoiu et al., 2020, p. 8). We invite papers that explore the variety of dimensions of individual motivation for committing a radical act of violence. We seek discussions that reconstruct how multiple scales – such as, individual biographies, family and social networks and macro factors such as legal contexts and state policy – collide in a given event of radicalization. The panel, therefore, seeks to shed light on radicalisation as reliant on a series of interdependencies rather than as either an isolated act or a standalone individual trajectory.

Challenges in Countering Radicalization: Detecting Trends, Resolving Drivers and Reintegrating. Does the law matter?

Convenors: Maria Moulin-Stozek and Veronica Federico

Affiliation: Jan Dlugosza University, University of Florence

Contact: moulinstozek@gmail.com | veronica.federico@unifi.it 

Preventing radicalisation plays a vital role in ensuring an open and tolerant society, and legal systems may have a role to play. Presentations in this panel will discuss the role of the law in countering radicalisation through both preventing and repressing measures, embodying the idea that radicalisation is grounded in perceived injustice, which leads to grievance, alienation and polarisation. While radicalisation does not always have to take the form of perpetration of extreme violent acts, it usually involves rejecting established laws and government. The alienation and lack of agency in legal and political structures contributes creating an ‘us v. them’ identity pattern that can be addressed via rule of law and fundamental freedoms such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and non-discrimination. Yet, if these freedoms are being limited, radicalisation acts might no longer be perpetrated just by an individual or a group against a state, but the state itself may lead individuals and groups to violence.

We invite legal, comparative, theoretical, or case-study contributions from law and related disciplines to discuss the following or similar questions: What is the role of fundamental freedoms and the rule of law in countering radicalisation? How do state legal frameworks address critical aspects of radicalisation? How effective are existing legal frameworks as well as state practices and policies on macro-, meso-, and micro-levels?

Mainstreaming of radicalisation and counter-narratives to radicalisation on media platforms 

Convenor: Ozge Ozduzen

Affiliation: University of Sheffield

Contact: o.ozduzen@sheffield.ac.uk 

In the DRad project, we study contemporary radicalised media cultures concentrating on the mainstreaming of radicalisation through social media platforms. This includes the roles that new media outlets (and legacy media) play in – at times indirectly – depicting and triggering injustice claims, alienation, polarisation, and various grievances (what we call the I-GAP spectrum). We examine the online agents of extremism and the ways in which citizens and members of civil society tackle and resist social and political problems related to radicalisation. By looking at the patterns of visual and textual political communication and everyday talk on social media platforms, we therefore aim to understand how racialisation as well as counter-radicalisation are expressed and narrated online and what these expressions and narratives imply on both an individual and community level. 

First, we welcome contributions from studies concentrating on the online performances of actors of radicalisation as well as the textual and visual affordances pertinent to social media platforms that (directly or indirectly) may radicalise its audiences and onlookers, help reproduce existing power structures and social inequalities in wider society, and reinforce legacy media norms. Second, we welcome contributions from studies focusing on how de-radicalisation agents (e.g., charities, unions etc.) and ordinary citizens (e.g., activists, influencers etc.) engage in social media platforms to tackle and/or counter different types of radicalisation.

Building on an interdisciplinary terrain consisting of cultural studies, media studies, political and cultural sociology and politics, we thus welcome contributions to the following research questions:

1. How do actors of radicalisation exploit online platforms to enhance their appeal to publics? 
2. How do new media platforms, tools, and apps instrumentalise radicalisation? 
3. How do actors of de-radicalisation engage in the same online platforms to counter radicalised groups, ideas, narratives and identities?

The spatial aspects of inclusion, exclusion and (de)radicalisation

Convenors: Ursula Reeger, Emilia Palonen, Miriam Haselbacher and Kanerva Kuokkanen

Affiliation: Austrian Academy of Sciences, University of Helsinki

Contact: ursula.reeger@oeaw.ac.at | emilia.palonen@helsinki.fi | miriam.haselbacher@oeaw.ac.at | kanerva.kuokkanen@helsinki.fi 

The spatial dimension of the public sphere is central in understanding the ‘social glue’ of cohesive societies. It is in public spaces where people of different backgrounds meet with varying interests that must be mediated. Public spaces are not neutral spaces as they are characterised by different power dynamics and influenced by the actors occupying them. Encounters between people in public space may foster social cohesion and people’s sense of belonging to a community but they can also contribute to reinforcing boundaries. Several current developments, such as spatial segregation, gentrification, political polarisation, multiple crises and the rise of commercial and private spaces have impacted the distribution of and the access to public spaces. The design and the accessibility of public space thereby has an impact on how different user groups do or do not interact and can thus contribute to the inclusion/exclusion of groups of people. This is also connected to (de)radicalisation processes as exclusionary processes in public spaces may reinforce a pattern where people mainly interact within their reference group. Such processes can foster feelings of injustice, grievance, alienation and polarisation, thus amplifying radicalisation processes. Nevertheless, public spaces may also have inclusionary effects, strengthening a sense of belonging and creating spaces for marginalized people. These processes are often influenced by a variety of actors, initiatives and projects that work on or in public spaces. Cities across Europe and beyond have tackled these issues quite differently: While some seem to neglect public spaces, which is also connected to the question of funding, others have a highly differentiated governmental and administrative apparatus that steers interventions. Hence, the local level is also an arena where various actors interact and where socio-political negotiation processes and political projects of belonging come to the fore. 

The panel aims to critically assess the relationship between public space and processes of inclusion, exclusion and (de)radicalisation, as well as the actors and measures tackling these questions.

We are interested in contributions that either empirically and/or theoretically look at these issues, whereby we welcome both single case studies as well as comparative papers from various contexts.