Contradictions in processes of deradicalisation

Pre­vention and deradicalisation of extremists constitute a pressing contem­porary political and security issue which draws signifi­cant scholarly attention. A key aspect of radi­calisation processes is an ad­herence to a seemingly co­herent set of logical axioms and principles at the core of a parti­cular world-view. In the process of deradi­calisation 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 deradi­calisation of extremists. Contra­dictions are visible in life-stories of formerly radi­calised 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 deradica­lisation with globally circulating dis­courses and local experiences, this project examines psycho­logical, behavioural, group, and wider social and societal appearances of contra­dictions and the ways in which they become apparent in deradi­calisation. 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, deradicali­sation and prevention.