Contradictions in Processes of Deradicalization

Prevention and de­radicalization of extremists constitute a pressing contemporary political and security issue which draws signi­ficant scholarly attention. A key aspect of radicali­zation processes is an adherence to a seemingly co­herent set of logical axioms and principles at the core of a parti­cular worldview. In the process of deradicaliza­tion this sense of coherence is often dis­rupted through contradictions, doubt and dis­sonance. While a seemingly coherent ad­herence to an epistemic framework has been (usually implicitly) assumed in aca­demic literature, the issue of contra­dictions has not been given explicit attention. Preliminary research suggests contradic­tions play a key role in disengagement and deradicalization of ex­tremists. Contradictions are visible in life-stories of formerly radica­lized people and in the psychological and pedagogical practice of professionals. This pro­ject investigates such broadly understood contradictions – under­stood as ideolo­gical assumptions and narratives based on logically contra­dicting axioms and on conflicting or otherwise inco­herent motivations, demands and emotional impulses. Taking a multi-scalar perspec­tive that links the personal pro­cesses of deradicalization with globally circulating dis­courses and local experiences, this pro­ject examines psychological, behavioral, group, and wider social and societal appearances of con­tradictions and the ways in which they become apparent in de­radicalization. It will allow for a better harnessing of the im­portance and functions of contra­dictions. This research includes an applied potential, con­tributing to an understanding of how contradictions can be used in practice, aiding the cre­ation of more precisely targeted inter­ventions for disengagement, de­radicalization and prevention.