Terrorism and Political Violence · 2010 · 490 citations · 0 references
Social SciencesInternational RelationsPolitical ScienceForeign Policy AnalysisInternational SecuritySecurity StudiesEuropean Foreign PolicyEuropean IntegrationEuropean Security StudiesConfusionConsensusPolicy Context
The term “radicalization” is widely used but lacks a shared definition, and it is applied differently across security, integration, and foreign‑policy contexts, each driven by distinct agendas. The authors propose abandoning the use of “radicalization” as an absolute concept. The review finds no consensus on the term, that it is used differently in three contexts, and that this multiplicity creates serious confusion.
The ubiquity of use of the term "radicalization" suggests a consensus about its meaning, but this article shows through a review of a variety of definitions that no such consensus exists. The article then argues that use of the term is problematic not just for these reasons, but because it is used in three different contexts: the security context, the integration context, and the foreign-policy context. It is argued that each of these contexts has a different agenda, impacted in the case of the integration agenda by the rise of European "neo-nationalism," and so each uses the term "radical" to mean something different. The use of one term to denote at least three different concepts risks serious confusion. The proposed solution is to abandon the attempt to use "radicalization" as an absolute concept.