ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on a question at the heart of any evaluation of counter-radicalisation policy: what is its target? Through engagement with existing work on the purposes or ends of counter-radicalisation, the chapter distinguishes between narrow approaches, which view counter-radicalisation as a strategy aimed at preventing violence on the one hand, and broader approaches that seek to address radical, violent, or extremist beliefs on the other hand. Although both approaches share contestable assumptions – including those around the linearity of radicalisation, and the causal power of ideas – we argue that this ambiguity is an important source of political and analytic confusion. Moreover, where broader approaches greatly expand the targets, practitioners, and spaces of counter-radicalisation policy, they pose additional – and potentially troubling – social and political implications, including for citizenship and associated freedoms. By drawing on a range of relevant ‘real-world’ examples, the chapter therefore shows how distinguishing between narrow and broad approaches enables engagement with fundamental questions of efficacy, legitimacy, and justice in this policy area. The chapter ends by noting that the designation of ideas or violence as radical or extreme is inherently political and relies upon the identification – or construction – of that which is seemingly mainstream or moderate. This, we suggest, raises important questions for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners going forwards.
