Author:

Keywords:

radicalisation, youth, vulnerable youth, policy analysis, action research, framing analysis, counter-productive effects, radicalisation machine

Abstract:

From the state of the art on ―radicalisation‖, the only thing we can say with a relative degree of certainty is that the life-paths of known terrorists and the life-worlds of people at risk of ―radicalising‖ differ to such an extent that no single explanatory model suffices. The fight against contemporary terrorism and jihadism has become a ―wicked problem‖ for which no other solution exists than a radical re-framing of the phenomenon itself (De Graaff, 2017:23). This objective is what the CONRAD project aims to achieve: to develop alternative discourses and approaches for thinking of or talking about ―radicalisation.‖ From literature study, policy analysis, framing analysis and field research in Brussels and Verviers between 2017 and 2019, this report concludes that the term ―radicalisation‖ is problematic both in the public debate and as a scientific tool; it is unclear what it refers to. Furthermore, this report shows that this terminological unclarity has caused policy-makers to deploy myriad programmes with legion priorities. The interplay of policy-makers, media, civil society, security actors and researchers on the topic of ―radicalisation‖ is experienced by vulnerable and stigmatised groups as a ―radicalisation machine‖. The counter-radicalisation policies and initiatives may have counterproductive effects.