Navigating Radicalization Concepts: A Role for the Harm Principle

Abstract

Purpose – To examine how John Stuart Mill’s harm principle can guide debates surrounding definitions of radicalization, extremism, and deradicalization.

Methodology/Approach – This chapter begins by surveying definitional debates in terrorism studies according to three identified binaries: (1) cognitive versus behavioral radicalization; (2) violent extremism versus non-violent extremism; and (3) deradicalization versus disengagement. The author then interprets Mill’s harm principle and assesses which interpretation researchers and policy-makers should favor.

Findings – Applying the harm principle suggests that researchers and policy-makers should prefer behavioral over cognitive radicalization, violent over non-violent extremism, and disengagement over deradicalization. This is because government intervention in people’s lives can be justified to prevent direct risks of harm, but not to change beliefs that diverge from mainstream society.

Originality/Value – This chapter extends previous work that applied the harm principle to coercive preventive measures in counter-terrorism. It makes an original contribution by applying the principle to definitional debates surrounding radicalization and counter-radicalization. The harm principle provides researchers and policy-makers with a compass to navigate these debates. It offers an analytical method for resolving conceptual confusion.

Citation

Hardy, K. (2020), "Navigating Radicalization Concepts: A Role for the Harm Principle", Silva, D.M.D. and Deflem, M. (Ed.) Radicalization and Counter-Radicalization (Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Vol. 25), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-613620200000025002