Introduction Political Radicalism Among the Younger Generations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Youth and Globalization 2 (2020) 123-136 Introduction ∵ Political Radicalism Among the Younger Generations Anne Muxel Senior Researcher, CEVIPOF (CNRS/SciencePo), Paris, France [email protected] In contemporary democracies, protest feeds on the difficulties currently fac- ing political representation and is expressed within the framework of direct rather than representative democracy. The increase in protest-based attitudes and behaviours observed in many countries around the world (especially among younger generations) is undoubtedly related to the current climate of widespread mistrust in the institutionalized and representative mediation of politics. Since the beginning of the 1980s, a number of studies in political sci- ence have reported the gradual rise of more critical forms of citizenship to the detriment of institutional forms of civic and political participation. On the one hand, critical citizenship has gathered strength as the relationship between ordinary citizens and politics has become more individualised and, on the other, as traditional party allegiances have weakened (Hirschman, 1970, Inglehart, 1977, Norris, 1999). This more demanding and protest-based polit- ical culture, has led to greater familiarity with a protest-based repertoire of opinions and/or actions, and an enhanced tendency towards extremism and radicalization, particularly among younger generations. The thresholds between legal and illegal forms of demonstration and/or collective mobilization are not easy to define. All research on what might be termed “civil disobedience” stresses the tenuous nature of the border zone in © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/25895745-02020001Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 02:51:07PM via free access 124 muxel which the transition to radicalization takes place. Young people today become politicised in a climate where new connections between conventional and unconventional politics are manifold. The borders to radicalization have also become more porous, including at the voting polls. Protest voting and an incli- nation towards extremist parties is more prevalent among younger than older generations. Violence is used as a subversive force and has an impact if not on the polit- ical system, at the very least on the social system. Some violent protest is explicitly based on political ideologies. However, new forms of violence have also emerged and have given rise to contrasting interpretations depending on whether they are labelled as political or not. For some, they stem from a logic of rebellion rather than from actual political issues in a context where “inci- vility” and deviance from the norm are on the rise. Others believe that, while they are outside the framework of institutionalized politics, they nonetheless originate in the actors’ political conscience. 1 A Set of Varied and Disparate Phenomena Political radicalism is not easy to define and expresses a set of varied and dis- parate phenomena which have in common protest and a categorical demand for profound change in society: denunciation of the established social order and the economic, cultural and political elites that support it, rejection of the institutions that underpin the political system in force, and a conviction that social and political structures should be radically transformed. Radical tendencies characterise both individual and group attitudes and behaviours, and build an entire repertoire of meanings and actions that are expressed in a broad variety of ways. This special issue offers a comprehensive panorama of the large spectrum of these phenomena. Some contributions focus on opinions and ideology while others study peaceful protest. Some concentrate on explaining and discuss- ing radicalism within the framework of democratic legitimacy while others address the issue of violence and illegality. While the intensity and socio- political consequences of radicalism may vary greatly, it is always based on the same notion of categorical rejection and refusal. Thus, radicalism opposes the conventional order of politics both in its principles and actions. It supposes profound contestation and a breaking-away from the established order. It legit- imizes transgression up to the ultimate recourse to violence that it justifies. Finally, it feeds off the “extremisation” of ways of thinking about and interpret- ing the surrounding world. Youth and GlobalizationDownloaded from 2 (2020) Brill.com09/27/2021 123-136 02:51:07PM via free access political radicalism among the younger generations 125 A distinction has to be made between on the one hand, cognitive parame- ters (attitudes and opinions) and on the other factors that lead to the act itself (behaviour) (Hafez, Mullins, 2015). Radical opinions are expressed as values and beliefs while radical acts entail taking concrete action within a legal con- text, for example, participating in a demonstration or joining a radical organi- zation. However, radical acts may also take place in an illegal context, such as committing acts of violence, damaging public or private property, and possi- bly culminating in terrorism. While the links between these two dimensions are obvious, (and particularly the first as a precursor to the second), radical opinions are clearly far more widespread than radical acts. The vast majority of individuals with politically radical opinions or who adhere to radical belief systems, do not engage in any concrete form of action that aligns with these opinions. The contribution in this issue made by Philippe Shröder, who works on anti-Semitic attitudes among German adolescents, shows the relationships of such attitudes to ideological background, and above all to a right-wing polit- ical orientation. However, there is a clear gap between the opinions and the attraction to anti-Semitic attitudes adolescents may have and the anti-Semitic acts they might actually engage in. Only a minority of individuals engage in violent or subversive political action (Kurzman, 2011). Thus, an individual or group with radical ideas will not necessarily adopt radical behaviour or engage in radicalized acts. The links and bridges between radical opinions and radical acts in the political field merit investigation, par- ticularly to determine whether one and the other follow the same logic, and more particularly, whether they have the same intentions. It is essential to define the threshold of opinion or action beyond which politicization can be defined as radical or radicalized. Many authors have stressed the difficulty of delineating the perimeters of political radicalism and a number have written about the nebulous web of types of radicalism. Between the two ends of a political radicalism scale, a huge diversity of types of expression and intermediary political activities can be perceived. At one end of the scale, non-mainstream political parties adopt electoral strategies that promote anti-system protest programmes and radical attitudes. At the other end of the scale, the logic of violent or terrorist acts pre- dominates. The thresholds between these different degrees of radicalism are not always clearly identifiable. Political analysts frequently disagree on what exactly does or does not constitute radicalism. Some believe that this diver- sity of definitions should be analysed as part of a continuum that supposes a gradual and coherent process of radicalisation among both individuals and groups, while others believe such diversity should be interpreted as highlight- ing the absence of connection between the different phenomena of political Youth and Globalization 2 (2020) 123-136 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 02:51:07PM via free access 126 muxel radicalism observed. The first approach, initiated by Charles Tilly, tends to con- sider radicalism as a series of phenomena that are not only coherent but also gradual, and part of the same dynamic of political meaning and action (Tilly, 1978). Radicalism then becomes a question of degree and intensity along the same continuum that stretches from potential engagement to a culmination in revolutionary violence. Thus, the research carried out by Doug McAdam on US activists in the 1970s-1980s, led to a now classic interpretation of political radi- calism in terms of degree or intensity, that distinguished between low and high cost, and low and high risk activism (McAdam, 1986). The second approach sees radicalism through a prism that not only differentiates between radical opinions and acts but also shows certain acts as being exceptional events. Violence, for example, is considered as an expression of radicalism that is out- side the norm and that follows a “tipping-point” or conversion (Della Porta, 1995), or that is part of an individual or collective pathology. However, the thresholds between the two and the borders surrounding the grey areas of radicalism are not easy to define. On this point, Alan Marsh’s well-known diagram (1977) lists the different forms of political participation citizens are likely to engage in, depending on whether they are considered to be “orthodox and conventional” or “unorthodox and unconventional”. The diagram also reveals the tremendous complexity involved in identifying pos- sible areas of overlap between the two. For example, the radicalism threshold between a legal and an illegal demonstration is not easy to define, nor is the occupation of a given premises or the blockading of a factory in comparison with a violent act. All research on what might be qualified as “civil disobedi- ence”