Categories
VORTEX Newsletter #3
Author: Laura Stritzke
In discussions about preventing extremism, there is a recurring debate between focusing on security measures and providing support. On one side, security agencies like the police intervene to stop criminal activities and prevent potential attacks by arresting offenders for example. On the other side, civil society organizations are rather concerned with the well-being of individuals and aim to promote paths that steer away from extremism. While it is difficult to fully entangle social and security concerns, navigating this balance presents challenges for both prevention strategies and their public perception. Trust in civil society initiatives can be undermined if people fear their information might be shared with the authorities. Discussions often center on different aspects of the tension between security and support at political, organizational, or practitioner level. Although, the tensions become manifest on all these levels, the negotiations taking place do differ. However, the extent to which these levels differ has been addressed much less to date. What is debated politically does not always translate directly to how prevention work is carried out on the ground. This can be attributed to the discretion practitioners have, highlighting not only mentioned top-down influence of policies but also the importance of bottom-up processes.
Starting at the macro level, the focus lies on the direction of policies to prevent extremism. In this regard, the securitization of preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) is often discussed (Baker-Beall et al., 2014; Ragazzi, 2017; Sivenbring & Malmros, 2019; Walkenhorst & Ruf, 2018). “While social and security policies have always overlapped in complex ways, recent developments in counter-terrorism policy suggest that Western European states […] are accelerating what can be termed the “securitization of social policy” – namely the increased submission of social policy actors and their practices to the logics of security and social control” (Ragazzi, 2017, p. 1). Notions of securitization within P/CVE discussions often imply a link between policy discourse and professional practices, potentially resulting in efforts being perceived as subordinate to societal security concerns. This suggested link will be explored further in the following.
In addressing radicalization as a complex phenomenon, there is often a request for the involvement of various actors (Christensen et al., 2023). Thus, at the meso level, different institutions are engaged in extremism prevention to varying degrees across many countries. These institutions are distinguished by references to hard and soft approaches, security and non-security actors, as well as societal security and support logics (Christensen et al., 2023; Hardy, 2023; Ragazzi & de Jongh, 2019). Typically, institutions associated with prevention efforts are ascribed to either the ‘support’ or the ‘security logic’ paradigms (Malmros & Sivenbring, 2023; Sivenbring & Malmros, 2019). These logics describe how respective actors engage in preventing extremism. Civil-society actors such as teachers, social workers, and youth workers commonly provide support to foster the well-being or emancipation of individuals. Police and security agencies on the other hand are concerned with the security and safety of citizens and thus aim at stopping criminal behavior via prosecution.
Despite the differences of these actors, they have also shared responsibilities in some regards. To which degree this is established is however very much country dependent. For example, collaboration between state actors and civil society has been more popular in the Nordic countries. These cases have shown that multiagency collaborations require cross-professional trust as well as convergence of approaches and logics to some extent (Gøtzsche-Astrup et al., 2023). Such cooperation has been associated with ambivalences in the self-understanding and role clarity of practitioners raising “ethical and professional dilemmas, especially regarding work transparency and client confidentiality, indicating an outside influence of security onto prevention work” (Haugstvedt & Tuastad, 2023, p. 677). The effects are not limited to the practitioners themselves, but also have consequences for the impact on (potential) target groups, which may put trust at stake (s. also Ragazzi & de Jongh, 2019).
Despite the relevance of these logics in delineating different approaches, the theory of street-level bureaucracy emphasizes the significance of practitioners in shaping prevention practice (Lipsky, 2010). Understanding how institutional logics influence individual actions remains a subject of interest, particularly in P/CVE implementation. It is commonly assumed that institutional logics provide a normative reference that guides social behavior in specific social contexts (Sivenbring & Malmros, 2019, p. 38). However, professionals have also been able to find common ground in multi-agency collaborations. Although concerns about securitization of P/CVE have often been voiced at the political level, multi-agency cooperation in the Nordic countries has shown a shared recognition of supportive approaches (Figlestahler & Schau, 2020; Gøtzsche-Astrup et al., 2023). The dominance of societal security matters in many policy texts may therefore not be directly reflected in the actions of the corresponding agencies (Thomas, 2017). Nevertheless, the margin of discretion may also be used in a way that contributes to social control and promotes bottom-up securitization processes. In these cases, greater emphasis is placed on control and monitoring in prevention efforts, which tends to result in increased general suspicion of potential threats (Ragazzi & de Jongh, 2019; Walkenhorst & Ruf, 2018).
Nevertheless, discussions around the securitization of extremism prevention work often assume top-down processes of policy implementation. This process implies translations of policies into institutional structures and ultimately into prevention practice. However, taking a closer look at those who implement the programs suggests a space of discretion that may allow to shape prevention to a significant degree highlighting the relevance of bottom-up processes. Thus, although the tensions between security and support are discussed and negotiated in different ways, there are also interactions between the political, organizational and practitioner level. The extent to which such alignments between security and support are balanced and communicated can significantly impact how the public perceives and trusts prevention efforts, ultimately shaping their effect.
Bibliography:
Baker-Beall, C., Heath-Kelly, C., & Jarvis, L. (Eds.). (2014). Counter-Radicalisation: Critical perspectives (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773094
Christensen, T. W., Lindekilde, L., Sivenbring, J., Bjørgo, T., Magnæs Gjelsvik, I., Solhjell, R., Haugstvedt, H., Malmros, R. A., Kangasniem, M., & Kallio, H. (2023). “Being a Risk” or “Being at Risk”: Factors Shaping Negotiation of Concerns of Radicalization within Multiagency Collaboration in the Nordic Countries. Democracy and Security, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17419166.2023.2220117
Figlestahler, C., & Schau, K. (2020). Zwischen Kooperation und Grenzziehung – Aushandlungen von Sicherheitsbehörden und Akteur*innen Sozialer Arbeit in der Radikalisierungsprävention. Soziale Passagen, 12(2), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12592-020-00356-z
Gøtzsche-Astrup, O., Lindekilde, L., Maria Fjellman, A., Bjørgo, T., Solhjell, R., Haugstvedt, H., Sivenbring, J., Andersson Malmros, R., Kangasniemi, M., Moilanen, T., Magnæs, I., Wilchen Christensen, T., & Mattsson, C. (2023). Trust in interagency collaboration: The role of institutional logics and hybrid professionals. Journal of Professions and Organization, 10(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joac022
Hardy, K. (2023). Rethinking CVE and public health prevention. In J. Busher, L. Malkki, & S. Marsden, The Routledge Handbook on Radicalisation and Countering Radicalisation (1st ed., pp. 355–368). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035848-27
Haugstvedt, H., & Tuastad, S. E. (2023). “It Gets a Bit Messy”: Norwegian Social Workers’ Perspectives on Collaboration with Police and Security Service on Cases of Radicalisation and Violent Extremism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 35(3), 677–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2021.1970541
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed). Russell Sage Foundation.
Malmros, R. A., & Sivenbring, J. (2023). Multi-agency approaches to countering radicalisation. In J. Busher, L. Malkki, & S. Marsden, The Routledge Handbook on Radicalisation and Countering Radicalisation (1st ed., pp. 369–383). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035848-28
Ragazzi, F. (2017). Countering terrorism and radicalisation: Securitising social policy? Critical Social Policy, 37(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018316683472
Ragazzi, F., & de Jongh, L.-A. (2019). COUNTERING RADICALIZATION: HIJACKING TRUST? DILEMMAS OF STREET-LEVEL BUREAUCRATS IN THE NETHERLANDS. In RADICALIZATION IN BELGIUM AND THE NETHERLANDS – CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON VIOLENCE AND SECURITY (pp. 147–167). I.B. Tauris.
Sivenbring, J., & Malmros, R. A. (2019). Mixing Logics: Multiagency Approaches for Countering Violent Extremism. Gothenburg: the Segerstedt Institute.
Thomas, P. (2017). Changing experiences of responsibilisation and contestation within counter-terrorism policies: The British Prevent experience. Policy & Politics, 45(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557317X14943145195580
Walkenhorst, D., & Ruf, M. (2018). „Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser “? Sicherheitspolitisches vs. Pädagogisches Handeln in der Extremismusprävention. Von Drachenfels, Magdalena/Philipp Offermann/Carmen Wunderlich, Radikalisierung Und De-Radikalisierung in Deutschland, Eine Gesamtgesellschaftliche Herausforderung, 1, 101–106.
Categories
VORTEX Newsletter #2
Radicalization, terrorism and extremism are central keywords that can be associated with the projects within the VORTEX network. They are also reflected in the title “Coping with Varieties of Radicalization into Terrorism and Extremism” that makes up the acronym VORTEX. However, these terms are often used interchangeably, leading to a somewhat blurred understanding. While one might expect such terms to be distinctly defined in scientific discourse and prevention practice, even experts exhibit varying interpretations and definitions. Disagreement on the definitions is not restricted to this realm, but can be observed for many other notions and concepts in the social sciences. This lack of consensus is not for want of trying, but rather a reflection of the inherent complexity of these issues. Nevertheless, discussions about such core concepts are essential as they shape and reproduce political, practical as well as empirical approaches.
Divergences regarding appropriate attributions of terms often stem from ideological or political considerations, notably evident in discussions surrounding protest movements. Climate activists and the current farmer protests in Europe provide a contemporary example. Besides the well-known Friday protests by the Fridays For Future movement, various other climate movements and forms of protest have emerged globally, among which the Last Generation in Germany and Austria. Their actions mainly comprise peaceful blockages of roads by gluing their hands to the street to stop automobile locomotion in order to foster actions against climate change. Traffic blockades as a form of climate activism can be observed in various European countries like the Netherlands or Norway. Furthermore, this mode of protest has been employed in other spheres, as seen in the recent farmer protests in France or Germany, where processions of agricultural tractors were utilized to obstruct traffic, advocating for reforms.
Although their means of action could be considered similar, their perception as well as the success of their demands was not. In this regard, the Last Generation’s activism in Germany has been particularly unpopular to the extent that they have been suspected of being a criminal organization. Moreover, they have been referred to as ‘climate terrorists’ or ‘Climate-RAF’. The latter draws a link to the Red Army Fraction which murdered prominent political and business figures from 1970 to 1990 in Germany, thereby suggesting a violent development of the movement. Linking yet peaceful forms of protest to terrorism, radicalization or extremism is often employed to delegitimate actions and consequently depreciate (political) adversaries. At the same time, it also serves to legitimize actions comprising far-reaching countermeasures, giving rise to securitization approaches in countering radicalization.
This is due to the common negative connotation inherent to radicalization, extremism and terrorism alike. Thus, suggesting that these concepts are (implicitly) assumed to be consecutive. Meaning that radicalization is at least implicitly understood as a unidirectional process of radicalization into terrorism or violent extremism. Although the title of the doctoral network could be read in a similar manner, it points to varieties of radicalization as processes of radicalization that are distinct and dynamic in nature. On one hand, radicalization processes do not necessarily stagnate once exhibiting violent behavior but might rather continue by implementing more and more violent actions. This is a factor that warrants consideration in planning prevention programs.
On the other hand, radicalization may occur on an ideological level without ever becoming violent. In such cases, possibilities for intervention in primary prevention are often overlooked. Nevertheless, radicalization cannot be considered as inherently dangerous in these cases. Reflecting on current norms also provides potential for emancipatory transformations. A compelling example is that of the women’s movement beginning in the 18th century. In many parts of the world, women’s access to political participation was limited. It was assumed that representing political opinions was designated exclusively for men. However, these conditions eventually were challenged, making way for equal rights demands by many women’s rights movements. What was considered radical at the time, has developed into a norm of democratic societies – women’s right to vote. Thus, radicalization must bear ambivalences that contradict a definite negative connotation.
Nevertheless, underlying assumptions regarding radicalization are crucial not only in how the term is understood but also in how it is employed. Since the above-mentioned differentiations are often undermined also in research practice, some scholars have reservations engaging with the term ‘radicalization’. Concerns about contributing and lending legitimacy to societal securitization have been voiced. Therefore, raising the question of how to proceed with such a contested term that shows lack of conceptual clarity and consistency. This blog post argues for a broad conceptualization of radicalization that provides the opportunity to acknowledge its inherent ambivalences as well as manifold processes, including and recognizing violent as well as non-violent processes. This critical, context-related approach is also a common thread that connects research endeavors within VORTEX to foster a balanced approach that safeguards civil liberties while addressing genuine threats. Nevertheless, it does not come without challenges, but acknowledes the concept in its full scope, which is vital for prevention efforts, political strategies as well as research practice.
Bibliography
Abay Gaspar, H., Daase, C., Deitelhoff, N., Junk, J., & Sold, M. (2018). Was ist Radikalisierung? – Präzisierungen eines umstrittenen Begriffs. Leibniz-Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung (HSFK).
Coolsaet, R. (2019). Radicalization: The origins and limits of a contested concept. In Radicalisation in Belgium and the Netherlands: Critical perspectives on violence and security (S. 29–51). IB Tauris.
Malthaner, S. (2017). Radicalization: The Evolution of an Analytical Paradigm. European Journal of Sociology, 58(3), 369–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975617000182
Categories
VORTEX Newsletter #1
