The word radicalisation is currently used primarily to explain parts of what happens before the “bomb goes off”: the processes that lead individuals and groups to carry out terror. There is broad consensus that radicalisation must be prevented and fought. However, there is a lack of accord over exactly what radicalisation is and the role it plays as a source of terror. The main distinction is between those who link radicalisation to a willingness to use violence and those who interpret it in a more general fashion as a shift towards more extreme movements and ideologies.

Extremism, radicalisation and participation

There is no simple correlation between taking an extremist view of the world – of reality – on the one hand and the ability to perform acts of violence on the other. Organisations that use terror as a means to an end usually legitimise their actions with ideology. Yet organisations often resort to violent action after a process in which they have failed to win support for their views through other channels.

Some terrorists have not been ideologically radicalised. Some ideologically radicalised people live in harmony with democratic society.

There are also numerous examples of people who carry out acts of terror without having gone through ideological radicalisation. Similarly, there are many people with fringe or extreme views who do not engage in violence, instead living their lives in harmony with democratic society.

It is therefore useful to distinguish between radicalisation on the one hand and participation on the other. Radicalisation is the process that leads individuals to gradually change their attitude towards and view of the society in which they live and seek out extreme thoughts, ideas and opinions. The process can cause them to support, justify or legitimise other people’s use of violence (non-violent extremism) or to participate themselves and be willing to use violence in order to effect change in society (violent extremism).

Radicalisation is the process that leads an individual to gradually change their views and attitudes towards society and seek out extreme thoughts, ideas and opinions.

Both non-violent and violent extremism can be defined as immoderate thoughts, opinions, ideas and actions often linked to totalitarian ideologies. The words radical and extremist are often used interchangeably. One distinction between the two is that radical can also have a positive and honourable meaning. Across large parts of the political left, the word radical has a positive resonance, referencing a politics that takes seriously the need to change power structures in society. In a religious context, to many people the word holds a positive desire to return to the original message of the religion.

The word “radical”

The word “radical” has served different purposes over the course of history, from describing the root (the natural, the inherent) of something to becoming a reference to anything that deviates from the accepted norms of society (Mandel 2009).

Radical is derived from the Latin word radix, meaning “root”.

Radical is derived from the Latin word radix, meaning “root”. Its linguistic meaning thus points to something fundamental. This meaning can be found at OxfordDictionaries.com, which describes the word radical as “relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something”.

In the 19th century the understanding of the term was broadened to include things that could result in changes to the root of something (Mandel 2009: 104). The definition was further expanded in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when radical came to be used as a reference to comprehensive, major political change – reforms that go to the root of something.

Radical also became a reference to those who represent or support the extreme faction of a political party. Extreme/extremism comes from the Latin word extremus, which translates as “outermost” and/or “utmost” (Gule 2012: 15).

In extreme sports, the word radical can represent something positive, albeit also risky or on the edge.

In 60s and 70s slang the word was used to describe something that was “fantastic, outstanding, far out” (Mandel 2009: 105). This meaning originated in the surfing community and remains in widespread use in various extreme sports. Here, the word radical represents something positive, albeit also risky or on the edge.

The different definitions of the word can also help give radicals a positive and honourable understanding of the term and therefore also of their ideas and actions. For instance, to Christian youths being referred to as radical can be seen as something positive, since it means returning to the “natural” or “fundamental” interpretation of their religion.

Radical as a relative quantity

The interpretation of the words radicalisation and extremism depends on how we view what is normal, what is moderate or in the middle. This means that our understanding of these phenomena will always be subjective, relative and context-dependent to some extent (Coolsaet 2016; Mandel 2009).

Our interpretation of the word extremism depends on what we deem to be normal. For example, denying women the right to vote or have an abortion would be considered extreme in Norway today, while in the 19th century it was the acceptance of these actions that would be deemed extreme. Freedom of speech is another example. In democratic Norway it is considered to be important, while in countries such as Saudi Arabia and North Korea freedom of expression is deemed to be extreme. Peter Neumann highlights this by paraphrasing a familiar adage: “One man’s radical (or terrorist) is another man’s freedom fighter” (2013: 878).

It is important to understand that being radical is not dangerous in itself. This is particularly true when it comes to young people, who will often be going through a phase of exploration in which they may sometimes express fringe views.

It is important to understand that being radical is not dangerous in itself.

Where, then, do we draw the line between positive and more negative forms of radicalisation? In its negative form, radicalisation will often mean adopting totalitarian ideologies, something that can be destructive and dangerous to society. In its positive form it can be seen as an important fight against unfair norms or standards, e.g. the fight for equality.

The risk of misclassification

It is also important that teachers are aware of the major consequence that a selective and relative understanding of the term can have for innocent people who are misclassified as being radicalised. Ill-defined suspicion based on religion and ethnicity can lead to more radicalisation (Veldhuis and Staun 2009: 19). It is therefore important that we try to be as accurate as we can when seeking to understand and explain the phenomenon. This is especially important since the terms radicalisation, extremism and terrorism are often used interchangeably.

Ill-defined suspicion based on religion and ethnicity can lead to more radicalisation.

The existing definitions of the term have helped give practitioners, the media and the public a general framework that they can use to understand and prevent radicalisation. However, some of the existing interpretations of the term have had the effect of shifting the focus away from certain groupings, beliefs and actions. It is therefore important for teachers to remember that radicalised individuals and groups come in many different shapes. For instance, the word is used as a reference to radicalised Muslims, left-wing radicals and people who have embraced more extreme right-wing ideologies. One example of the latter is Anders Breivik, who went through a radicalisation process in which extreme right-wing ideology played a part.

Radicalisation can happen in different ways. The causes of radicalisation are complex, and the trajectories can vary. That is to say, it is not a linear process that follows a fixed course from one level to the next.

The motivation for signing up to extremist movements varies from person to person. It is often a case of social and emotional processes. The cause of ideological radicalisation can just as often be a consequence of mixing in extreme circles.

Radicalisation can happen in different ways. The causes of radicalisation are complex, and the trajectories can vary.

Both individuals and groups are radicalised through processes that can be detected. However, causes that may be decisive for one person may not be as important to another.

Radicalisation is not an illness

It can be tempting to believe that only sick people carry out acts of terror – people with some form of mental illness or other pathological personality traits. This is not the case. Most terrorists are healthy and as ordinary and sensible as anyone else.

Most terrorists are healthy and as ordinary and sensible as anyone else.

In some cases radicalisation involves young people looking for explanations of crises they have lived through (Wiktorowicz 2005). Others may be seeking to understand the injustice in the world (Sageman 2004; 2008). Why is the world the way it is? Why are there wars? They may also have a genuine wish to find solutions to major political conflicts. One common feature is that radicalisation takes place in interaction with others, together with friends or others whom the person has a trusting relationship with.

Radicalisation happens through friendships and social bonds

“Interaction with radical individuals is a factor in creating and developing motivation for radical ideas and actions” (Nesser 2011: 39).

Petter Nesser, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, says the following about interacting with radical individuals: “Anyone can become radicalised if they make the right contacts, although some people are more susceptible than others” (Johansen and Matre 2015).

Radicalised people are often close friends with other radicals whom they feel strongly about.

Radicalised people are often close friends with other radicals whom they feel strongly about. Their bond and shared identity are very important to them (Sageman 2004). Many researchers therefore believe that social interaction with radical individuals and groups is an instrumental factor in radicalisation.

However, it is not the case that socialising with radical individuals determines who becomes radicalised – many people who have social relations with radical individuals do not themselves become radicals (Ahmed 2015).

What role does background play?

It is not possible to predict who will become radicalised based on information about their background. Radicalised individuals rarely have common features with absolutely everyone in a group. Different groups can share different traits. These traits shared by radicalised people are also shared by many people who are not radicalised. It is therefore important to be cautious when interpreting signs of radicalisation.

Traits shared by radicalised people are also shared by many people who are not radicalised.

For instance, a 2007 study of radical Muslims in Denmark, the Netherlands and Britain found that those who had become radicalised were usually men under the age of 35 and primarily descendants of immigrants who had grown up in the suburbs (Precht 2007). Yet only a tiny minority of all young Muslims under the age of 35 who grow up in suburbs become radicalised. This conclusion concurs with a study from 2015 conducted amongst Muslim men in Norway (Ahmed 2015).

Radicalised people come from different walks of life, and there is nothing to suggest that poverty in itself is a driving force behind radicalisation (Schmidt 2013). However, several studies have revealed that these individuals are on the fringes of wider society, they feel marginalised, and their life prospects are poor. This is true for many of those who have become radicalised.

The Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) have investigated the backgrounds of people who frequent extreme Islamist communities in Norway. They found that a majority were young men with little education, criminal records and a patchy employment history, i.e. elements of marginalisation. Converts and people who arrived in Norway as children or adolescents are overrepresented. The average age is 27.5 years (PST 2016).

An imbalanced emphasis on religion and ethnicity can led to discrimination and reinforce a feeling of exclusion and alienation.

Many of those who participated in extreme right-wing and racist groups in Norway in the 1980s and 90s were marginalised youth, especially boys and men (Bjørgo & Gjelsvik 2015). There are too few studies of such groups to be able to generalise, but studies from Germany have identified unemployment and crime as factors shared by many of those who associate with extreme right-wing groups (Goodwin et al. 2012).

Too much focus on background factors can be counterproductive. An imbalanced emphasis on religion and ethnicity can led to discrimination and reinforce a feeling of exclusion and alienation. Contrary to intentions, it can lead to radicalisation becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Life crises as cognitive turning points

Most people will experience various forms of crises at some point in their lives, be it death in the family, serious illness, redundancy or other events. Such life crises can leave people vulnerable and weaken common and generally accepted beliefs. It can make us more susceptible to new ideas and opinions and a new world view that provides answers and solutions to the crisis (Wiktorowicz 2005). A crisis can therefore also be a trigger for radicalisation.

Life crises can leave people vulnerable and weaken common and generally accepted beliefs.

Political crises or serious events in the world can also be perceived as traumatic and lead to moral outrage. For example, political crises such as the invasion of Iraq can result in moral outrage amongst young Muslims in Europe (Sageman 2004: 2008).

However, while life crises are something most people will experience, they are followed by radicalisation only for a small number of people. Most of us learn to live with a loss or an injury, sometimes content with settling for an explanation. We usually seek solutions to a crisis according to how we view the world and understand our existence. This means that crises do not necessarily lead to change (Wiktorowicz 2005; 20).

For some, a crisis will cause them to acquire a new lifestyle, a new ideology and a new mindset.

For some, a crisis will cause them to acquire a new lifestyle, a new ideology and a new mindset. Some people may try out multiple ideologies and modes of thought before returning to their old self. For others, the change resulting from the crisis may be permanent. In both cases, radicalisation is just one of many possible outcomes. For example, we know that many minority youths experience discrimination, but only a small number of them are attracted to radical thinking and ideas.

In psychology the word resilience is used to describe our capacity for tackling crises, for being able to recover. It refers to our ability to regain our balance after being rocked. To reduce negative fallout from crises, be it radicalisation or something else, it is important to strengthen our resilience. Our resilience can be strengthened through inclusion in safe communities and by practising reflection and critical thinking. You can read more about how to do this in practice in the chapter on prevention work in schools.

Radicalisation with and without ideology

Organisations and groups that use terror as a means often justify it with ideology. However, ideology is only important to a few: the entrepreneurs and ideological leaders of the group. Other members may have little or no interest or knowledge when it comes to the group’s world view (Schmid 2013).

Ideology is only important to a few: the entrepreneurs and ideological leaders of the group.

Ideological radicalisation – the acceptance of radical political and religious ideologies – can occur as a result of moving in extreme circles rather than seeking out radical groups due to conviction.

This discovery was made in Tore Bjørgo’s studies of various far-right and racist groupings in Norway. He found that ideological radicalisation of many of the participants happened after they had committed xenophobic violence (Bjørgo and Gjelsvik 2015).

Peter Nesser has mapped radicalisation amongst Muslims in Europe (Nesser 2015). He states that not all radicals are politically motivated. Terrorism expert Marc Sageman (2004; 2008) points out that radicalisation is often not about ideology but about group affinity and social ties.

Ideology can be important in order to legitimise and justify views and actions.

Ideology can still be important in order to legitimise and justify views and actions. Gartenstein-Ross and Grossman conducted a study of 117 radicalised individuals from Britain and the US in 2009. 40% of them believed that religion was the motivating factor behind their unlawful actions. This is consistent with a study carried out amongst 40 Norwegian Muslim men in 2015, which found that ideology can be a means of justifying hostile thoughts and actions (Ahmed 2015: 84–87).

Internet

The internet and its global reach offers innumerable opportunities for spreading radical thoughts and ideas. It can help mobilise networks, since a great deal of frustration is often vented in various online forums (Sageman 2007).

The internet can be a platform where contacts are made and maintained.

The internet is cheap, anonymous and works as a platform where both men and women can communicate and share information (Precht 2007: 57). This makes it an arena where contacts can be made and maintained, while established radical identities can be reinforced (Christmann 2012: 30).

Yet few studies have highlighted the internet as a key factor in radicalisation (Christmann 2012 30). Although the internet offers opportunities for radicalisation, there is little to suggest that it is always a key factor in radicalisation.

The internet can be perceived as the only channel in which the full truth comes out.

However, because of changing media habits amongst young people and the propaganda strategies of extremist groups, the significance of the internet cannot be discounted. One important reason for this is that the internet is seen by many as a free and uncensored channel. It can generate a different kind of attraction than established media channels. Young people can be influenced by extremist groups that consciously use the net in their information and recruitment campaigns. Extremist groups are often not given a hearing in established media channels. For that reason, their message can appear even more appealing and credible if you believe that they are being suppressed by the established media. The internet can therefore be perceived as the only channel in which the full truth comes out.

Different kinds of extremists

People who join extremist groups are very different and have different motivations for their actions. However, it is still possible to say something about the main categories of participants in extremist movements. Peter Nesser has studied jihadi terrorist groups in Europe and identified four categories of members: entrepreneurs, protégés, social misfits and random recruits (drifters) (Nesser 2011). He admits to such static categories being problematic, not least because he also found members who could not be placed in any of the four categories.

People who join extremist groups are very different and have different motivations for their actions.

Tore Bjørgo (2011) has proposed a dynamic model in which four dimensions are used to describe the participants in extremist organisations: degree of ideological motivation, leader or follower, resourceful v. marginalised, and degree of sensation-seeking.

The model is not meant as a tool for identifying potential terrorists; the categories are too open for that. Rather it is designed to say something about the need for different strategies for deradicalisation. When it comes to those who are ideologically motivated, it will be possible to enter into a dialogue with them on the issues they are concerned with. The hangers-on need alternative environments, while the sensation seekers can be offered alternative paths to excitement. The marginalised need social support and better integration in the labour market and society in general (Bjørgo and Gjelsvik 2015).

Just as there are many gateways to extremism, the way out will also differ from person to person.

This review shows how radicalisation occurs through complex and multifaceted processes. Just as there are many gateways to extremism, the way out will also differ from person to person. It is also important to distinguish between deradicalisation and preventing radicalisation. That is the duty of the school.

The role of schools ties in with the broader prevention efforts aimed at all students. It is primarily about creating a democratic culture in which everyone is included and allowed to participate and where there is room for being critical and impassioned without resorting to exclusion, hateful rhetoric and suspicion.

Prevention and deradicalisation

Both radicalisation and association with extremist organisations are complex processes. Deradicalisation, i.e. rehabilitation of radicalised individuals, is therefore a job for specialists with knowledge of religion, sectarianism, political ideologies and identity formation.

Without an inclusive environment that can support and enable vulnerable persons to participate, they have nowhere to be rehabilitated back to.

The efforts made by teachers in respect of the general school environment are also important in cases where specialists have identified a need for more targeted action aimed at certain individuals. Without an inclusive environment that can support and enable vulnerable persons to participate, they have nowhere to be rehabilitated back to.

There are numerous reasons for keeping deradicalisation and prevention separate. The main risk is that vulnerable people end up being stigmatised by being singled out as extremists due to their ethnicity, religion or behaviour, amongst other things (Veldhuis and Staun 2009: 18). For example, a visible and external identity change such as wearing religious garments can be misinterpreted as a sign of radicalisation. That can make the person feel under suspicion and contribute to more discrimination. Such stigmatisation can also add to a radicalisation process and therefore have an intensifying effect in the wrong direction.

Identity formation

Teachers’ efforts in terms of prevention should involve strengthening the students’ world views based on democratic principles. Interaction in the classroom should therefore seek to train the students in democratic rules of play and opportunities.

Research has shown that young Norwegian Muslims who are well equipped with a mentality founded either on democracy or on traditional interpretations of religion find it easier to resist radical thoughts and ideas (Ahmed 2015). Preventing radicalisation in schools should therefore focus on forming a shared democratic identity where there is also room for being different.

Socialisation

Using open and inclusive communication, the teacher can create an atmosphere where it is possible to raise difficult issues involving religion, world views and politics. It is important that teachers facilitate a dialogue that does not prevent the students from expressing and exploring their views. Conversation allows teachers and students to familiarise themselves with different thoughts, ideas and attitudes. It is important that the school addresses controversial topics such as the refugee crisis or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in ways that allow for different views and disagreement.

An open and inclusive classroom environment can prevent exclusion.

The teacher has a dual challenge: on the one hand they have to ensure that students talk to and about each other with respect. This can be done by drawing up rules on speech in the classroom. On the other hand, a diversity of opinions and differentness must also be seen and heard. Such an open and inclusive classroom environment will be able to prevent exclusion, suspicion and a negative feeling of being culturally weak.

The classroom must offer the students a safe atmosphere in which they can openly express their views.

They must be able to speak freely with their teachers about their thoughts and feelings. The classroom must offer students a safe atmosphere in which they can openly express their views. (Davies 2014: 454).

Arun Kundnani believes that a genuine alternative to terrorism is a democratic process that involves giving a hearing to opinions and ideas that the majority find offensive or uncomfortable (Kundnani 2009). In order to get this right, it is important that the students learn to distinguish between criticism and personal attacks (including prejudice), and they must build up a form of resilience to be able to resist taking offence (Davies 2014: 455).

It is also important to adopt some ground rules founded on human rights and national and international law as a framework for speech, communication, dissemination and discussion in the classroom and elsewhere in the school.

Contributing and participating in society

It is important to boost the students’ faith in the use of lawful democratic channels to bring about change in society. This way we also make it clear that unlawful means such as violence and hateful speech are not the way to go.

The fact that young people see the world as unfair and feel a need to change it can also be seen as a good sign.

The fact that young people see the world as unfair and feel a need to change it can also be seen as a good sign. Accordingly, teachers should ensure that the students are familiar with the various means and channels to enable them to exert influence and effect change.

In order to prevent radicalisation, in 2015 the UN Security Council encouraged all its member states to increase participation by young adults in decision-making and peace processes locally, nationally, regionally and internationally (United Nations 2015). In keeping with that call, the classroom should be an arena in which young people are encouraged and trained to contribute and participate in society, while democratic preparedness should play an important part in the world view the students learn at school.

The classroom should be an arena in which young people are encouraged and trained to contribute and participate in society.

The classroom should be an arena in which young people are encouraged and trained to contribute and participate in society.

To allow this to happen, the students must be able to express themselves, speak up, negotiate and influence decisions. Teachers must play an active part in enabling the students to do so and not impede the process (Davies 2009: 199).

Active participation in the classroom and at school should serve as a springboard for involvement and participation in society. In order to combat radicalisation it is especially important to teach the students how political decisions are made. It is important to show young people that democracy provides numerous channels for influencing decision-making.

Critical thinking

Students need to learn and practise critical thinking to prevent their enthusiasm and idealism from developing into ideas and actions that are harmful to society.

This means using tools to help them ask simple questions such as how and where to obtain information and who is putting out the information. This will stimulate their critical awareness and encourage a sceptical attitude towards radical thoughts and ideas. The same should apply to the use of pictures and video.

Practising critical thinking lets the students discover that there are multiple realities, truths, perspectives and interpretations.

Practising critical thinking lets the students discover that there are multiple realities, truths, perspectives and interpretations (Davies 2009: 192). This realisation should increase the students’ tolerance of other people’s opinions without condoning the extreme. Critical thinking rooted in democratic values is the way forward to prevent radicalisation amongst Norwegian youth.