A Critique of the Radicalization Perspective on Political Violence and Terrorism

• In Event: 129 - Section on Peace, War, and Social Conflict Paper Session. New Directions in Peace, War and Social Conflict

Abstract

This paper argues that the influential radicalization perspective on violence and terrorism is badly flawed on many levels and should therefore be abandoned. There is no consistent definition of “radicalization” in the literature on the topic, and the word “radical” is often used, circularly, as a synonym for terrorist, which produces tautological claims. Furthermore, the perspective’s core assumption—namely, that only radicals engage in political violence or terrorism—is empirically wrong, as is, accordingly, the claim that radicalization is a necessary cause of political violence and terrorism. In addition, the factors and mechanisms that allegedly cause radicalization (and thus violence and terrorism) which are discussed in the literature do not actually explain why a political group, state, or individual would employ violence in general or terrorism in particular. Finally, there is a consistent conflation in this literature of terrorism with political violence generally. After presenting this critique, the paper shows how the radicalization perspective fails to explain an important empirical case, namely, Al Qaeda’s use of terrorism against U.S. citizens.

Author

• Jeff Goodwin, New York University