Ask the Expert: Countering Radicalization

Allard Feddes’ (Social Psychology) answer

Dear Marte,

Thank you for your question. Indeed, not only every newspaper and talk-show discusses polarisation, also students and researchers do so at the time I write this. At least, those who are currently enrolled and teaching in the 3^rd year elective course “Current Topics: Polarization”. In your question you already raise an important point: Can radicalization be considered as the “extreme sibling of polarization”, as you nicely put it. First of all, what do we mean by radicalization? This is a container concept which has (just as polarization) been used and abused in all levels of society throughout the past decades. Radicalization, as Bertjan Doosje et al. put it in 2016, is a process in which a person (or group or society) becomes increasingly motivated to use violence against persons of particular other groups (out-groups) or symbolical targets to achieve societal change. Interestingly, intergroup emotions (emotions that are dearly felt by an individual on behalf of the group) seem to play an important role in the decision of people to engage in (extreme) collective action aimed at societal change. For example, research by Nicole Tausch and her colleagues (2011), has shown that anger seems to be a constructive emotion, turning people to normative (signing a petition) or nonnormative actions (think of blocking the A12 highway). In contrast, hate or contempt are emotions that drive more extreme (violent) forms of collective action. Here a link can be made between the literature on radicalization and, let’s assume they are siblings, polarization. Divisions among people in our societies are often closely intertwined with emotions (so-called affective polarization). These emotions can range from moderately negative (anger, distrust) to more extreme negative emotions (resentment, mutual loathing). What follows is that when people reach such levels of “extreme emotions”, civilized forms of interaction are hard to realise. Indeed, distrust in authorities is considered a key factor in processes of radicalization leading to violence (it should be noted here that the fast majority of people who radicalize never use or support violence). What now is the remedy, what can be done to counter polarization? For this we can take the example of one of the most celebrated politicians of the 20^th century, Nelson Mandela. He managed to bring together the South-African nation by fostering hope and trust instead of anger and rage. Politicians, teachers,  first-line workers, parents (and newspapers, and talk-shows) could follow his example. By increasing trust (or at least decreasing distrust), a first small step can be made to counter polarization in a society.

Allard