Polarisation and radicalisation

depending on various factors both inside and outside the mountain. Brandsma argues that conflict is an escalation of polarisation. A brewing conflict can be prevented by refusing to fuel the polarisation, e.g. refusing to frame an issue or incident with ‘us-and-them’ language and instead listening to all parties to create a frame that weaves together diverse experiences and underlying social concerns and desires. A conflict in full swing requires intervention to create safety. Similar to polarisation and conflict, extremisms are the norm rather than the exception. We can define extremism as “an attitudinal position at either end of any ideological dimension (political, religious, ethical, moral, philosophical, ecological, etc.)”11 Anyone can, and many do in every society, have an attitudinal position at one pole of an ideological dimension: for example, ‘my political party is the best’, ‘all religions are bad’, ‘my religion is the one true religion’, ‘technological solutions to social problems are the best’, etc. Whether or not an extreme attitudinal position fuels polarisation and erupts in conflict can depend on the extent to which one recognises one’s viewpoint as related to those who are elsewhere on the ideological scope. If we see ourselves on the same dimension as others, then we can find some common ground, some shared interests, and recognise some expression of shared humanity. In contrast, if we deny being on the same dimension, then we deny the existence of a community or civic space in which to participate. Recognising or denying that different and even opposing views are located on the same dimension seems to be an indicator for the absence of radicalisation and violent extremism.

Polarisation and radicalisation

It is crucially important to highlight the difference between polarisation and radicalisation. Radicalisation can be defined as “the process where individuals or factions of these polarised groups grow further towards the acceptance and use of violent extremism and ultimately terrorism.”12 Consequently, polarisation can potentially lead to radicalisation in certain circumstances.

11- Suedfeld, P., Cross, R. W., & Logan, C. (2013). 12- Radicalisation Awareness Network, Tackling the challenges to prevention policies in an increasingly polarised society, November 2016, p.3.

It is also possible to find radicalised groups in non-polarised societies and to find polarisation without radicalisation. Radicalisation and extremism have become the most common terms used to refer to the dynamics by which individuals, groups and mass opinion are mobilised to support or participate in political violence. The term ‘cognitive extremism’ refers to concepts that presuppose supremacy of a certain belief or ideology that is fundamentally opposed to the values and principles of liberal, democratic societies. Behavioural or violent extremism “refers to the means and methods of extremist individuals to achieve their goals by ignoring the lives, rights and fundamental freedoms of others.”13 While the dynamics of violence can involve radical or extremist ideas and beliefs, the link between extremist ideas, radical beliefs and violent extremist behaviours is not linear, automatic, or one-way.14 At this point it must be emphasised that this refers to anti-democratic radicalisation processes and polarisations that threaten democracy. Historically, the term radicalisation has long been used to refer to democratic and emancipatory movements directed against authoritarian rule. In this way, rulers classified democratic movements as terrorist and branded them as dangerous. This can still be observed today in various parts of the world. The concept of a ‘radical democracy’ is still aimed at enhancing and advancing democratic progress within society, but in a non-violent and participatory way. In times of democratic regression and de-democratisation in many countries, a differentiated view of radicalisation processes, and also of how the terms radical, extreme or terrorist are used, is particularly important.15 A challenge in this context is that even in a number of EU member states, anti-democratic extremist parties are in

13- Efus (2017), Prevention of radicalisation leading to violent extremism. Methodological guide for the development of a local strategy, p.10. 14- The High-Level Commission Expert Group on Radicalisation, set up by the European Commission in 2017 to develop recommendations on how to strengthen EU policies to counter radicalisation and violent extremism, stressed the important link between polarisation and radicalisation. In its final report published in May 2018, the group recognises the relevance of polarisation and extremist ideology for radicalisation processes and highlights the importance of further interrogating and raising awareness to this link (HLCEG-R 2018). 15- Freedom House (2019).

government functions at various political levels. These parties may understand the fight against radicalisation or extremism as the fight against radical emancipatory concerns. In addition, the creation of exclusionary narratives and the establishment of the ‘us-and-them’ terminology (‘othering’) that reinforces the social capital bond created by equals from the same community does not need to be real, it just needs to be perceived as real.16 This distinction highlights the importance of an analysis of the actual situation. The contexts of polarisation can be very different and as a result the strategies for effective prevention can vary significantly. We may refer to, for instance, the conflict in Northern Ireland and the implied polarisation, and compare this to the polarisation of German society around issues of migration and Islam. While the conflict in Northern Ireland is linked to substantial political and territorial issues, and thus to real inequalities, the polarisation of German society around issues of migration and Islam is much less factually based. Yet, irrespective of these contextual differences, the closing of social identities and this configuration of individuals in opposition to each other results in marginalisation and discrimination, and it dehumanises the supposedly antagonist other with fake data, facts and arguments even in the absence of a homogeneous contrary group or opposition. While social identities based on definitions of ‘us and them’ are normal features of social life and communication as they provide identity and security, rigidly closed social identities often prove to be toxic: they not only provide an answer to the question “who am I?”, but can also foster a retreat from wider society and imply a devaluation and dehumanisation of others.17

16- For example, ‘scales’ (i.e. questionnaires) have been developed and validated cross-culturally for measuring perceived income inequalities (subjective GINI) and perceived discrimination, both of which can fuel polarisation. 17- Similarly, a ‘scale’ or questionnaire has been developed and validated cross-culturally to measure the extent to which respondents dehumanise others.