| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
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.
|