University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2017 Governing Terrorism through Preemption: A Comparative Analysis of Radicalization in Three Western Liberal Democracies Derek M.D. Silva University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Silva, D. M.(2017). Governing Terrorism through Preemption: A Comparative Analysis of Radicalization in Three Western Liberal Democracies. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4278 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GOVERNING TERRORISM THROUGH PREEMPTION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RADICALIZATION IN THREE WESTERN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES by Derek M.D. Silva Bachelor of Arts University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2012 Master of Arts Carleton University, 2014 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2017 Accepted by: Mathieu Deflem, Major Professor Andrea K. Henderson, Committee Member Carla A. Pfeffer, Committee Member Wadie E. Said, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Derek M.D. Silva, 2017 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION For Ali, Gilmour, and Gator. Gilmour, you were my best friend and true companion. I will never, ever forget the memories we shared as a family. You will live on in my heart forever. Rest in peace my boy. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose now infamous proclamation against “committing sociology” when considering issues of terrorism was in many ways the impetus for this project and my entire graduate research career. More importantly, I would like to express my sincerest of thanks to my Major Professor, mentor, and friend, Dr. Mathieu Deflem, whose guidance over the past three years has taught me invaluable lessons in how to provide mentorship and stimulate academic growth through critical engagement with your own work. The lessons I have learned from Dr. Deflem will undoubtedly follow me for the rest of my professional career. I would also like to thank my committee members, Andrea Henderson, Carla Pfeffer, and Wadie Said, for their input, feedback, and support throughout the completion of this project. To my former advisors, Nicolas Carrier and Arshia Zaidi, thanks kindly for believing in my work and advocating for me on numerous occasions. Without the support, I would not be in a position to complete this project. I would also like to thank Steven Hutchinson for being an instrumental source of inspiration, friendship, and professional advice. In addition, I would like to thank Sarah iv Lamble and the staff at Birkbeck College, University of London for housing me in the United Kingdom while I completed portions of this project. To my colleagues in sociology and criminology at USC and Carleton University, not least of which include Brian Clarke, Rhys Williams, Justin Tettrault, Alex Castleton, Alex Luscombe, Anna Rogers, Adrienne Dues, Calley Fisk, and Zachary Butler, thanks for welcoming critical and important theoretical and conceptual discussions which have helped this project greatly. I must also acknowledge the financial and institutional resources afforded to me by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Department of Sociology, and the Graduate School at the University of South Carolina. More specifically, I would like to sincerely thank Anne Hodasi and Alicia Hope for assisting me with my countless requests for administrative guidance. To Ali and Lee, words do not exist that would accurately reflect my gratitude for continuous friendship and encouragement. Finally, to my family, especially my Mom and Dad, who never lost faith in me, thanks for the support as I chased my dream. v ABSTRACT In recent years, issues related to terrorism and counterterrorism are increasingly being understood through the construct of ‘radicalization.’ At its most basic level, radicalization is most often conceptualized as a transition from “normal,” conventional political, religious or otherwise ideological beliefs towards extremist views and ultimately violence. The process is now adopted by governmental officials and politicians, police authorities, journalists, and even scientists to justify various forms of governmental intervention, such as policing, social and public policy, education, and surveillance. Notably missing from the scholarly literature is a distinctly sociological understanding of the implications of the proliferation of radicalization discourse in contemporary society. Considering the relative absence of sociological research on radicalization as a construct, this project develops a theoretical perspective based on insights from the sociology of social control to explore the emergence and genesis of radicalization discourse and its social implications. In particular, this study engages with theories of governmentality, literature within critical policing studies and the othering paradigm traced back to the work of Edward Said, to explore the global diffusion of radicalization discourses across three Western liberal democracies – the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada – from 1969 to the present. More specifically, utilizing critical discourse and case study analysis, I explore how social institutions of law, politics, media, and science conceptualize radicalization vi and investigate the material practices of risk, security, and policing for which such discourses give rise. Following the analysis of thousands of publicly available governmental and non-governmental documents, this study finds that not only has radicalization become a dominant framework for understanding terrorism, but that modern discursive labeling mechanisms associated with preemption disproportionately affect certain cultural and ethnic minorities. The data illustrate this trend across social institutions in all three countries. The findings also highlight how notions of risk and security are increasingly embedded in the daily lives of citizens through discourses of radicalization in order to more efficiently govern the threat of terrorism. The study therefore broadens sociological and criminological debates on processes of social exclusion, social control, and cultural change in the context of terrorism and highlights some of the ways in which social distance is constructed and represented in the public sphere. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures .................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 9 Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 4: The New Politics of Terror ............................................................................. 43 Chapter 5: Seeing Radicalization Through Law ............................................................... 85 Chapter 6: Discourses of Radicalization in the Public Sphere ....................................... 107 Chapter 7: Scientific Discourses and Radicalization ...................................................... 147 Chapter 8: The Policing of Radicalization ...................................................................... 174 Chapter 9: Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 224 References ....................................................................................................................... 235 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: References to Religions in Major Reports on Terrorist Threats ...................... 57 Table 4.2: Use of The Term ‘Radicalization’ in Major Governmental Communications Pre- and Post-2000 .......................................................................................... 63 Table 4.3: References to Islam in National Security Strategies ........................................ 75 Table 4.4: Top Themes Referenced in Counterradicalization Strategies ......................... 76 Table 4.5: References to Religions in Counterradicalization Frameworks ...................... 78 Table 5.1: Federal Case Law References to Islam and ........................................................ Radicalization by Country ............................................................................ 101 Table 5.2: References to Religions in Federal Case