Assembling and deconstructing radicalisation in PREVENT: A case of policy-based evidence making?

Abstract

In the last 15 years the concept of radicalisation has come to prominence as a means of explaining the process by which individuals become attracted to extremist ideology and endorse the actions of terrorist groups. Post 9/11, radicalisation has gained traction in policy, political and media circles in Britain, being commonly connected to the threat of 'home-grown' terrorism. In this article, we critique the understanding of radicalisation outlined in the UK Government's PREVENT strategy. We focus specifically on how particular understandings of radicalisation are constructed, evidenced and operationalised in PREVENT and the way in which these understandings align with party political worldviews. It is posited that an unremitting focus on the role of religious ideology in the process of radicalisation within PREVENT mutes recognition of otherwise

Untitled

“…However, the data on those who are referred to Channel and those who are considered in need of support suggests that there is a disproportionate emphasis on young people. The Government's belief in the susceptibility of young people from largely disadvantaged backgrounds to radicalisation lacks the type of empirical research needed to really understand the issue (Breen, 2007;Mythen, et al, 2017). Mythen et al (2017) explain that the government's position comes largely from responses to two questions in the 2010 Citizenship Survey that asked about the use of violence to protest or achieve a goal.…”

“…The Government's belief in the susceptibility of young people from largely disadvantaged backgrounds to radicalisation lacks the type of empirical research needed to really understand the issue (Breen, 2007;Mythen, et al, 2017). Mythen et al (2017) explain that the government's position comes largely from responses to two questions in the 2010 Citizenship Survey that asked about the use of violence to protest or achieve a goal. This, along with concerns that young people are more likely to be searching for meaning and identity, and willing to join social networks -all of which have been identified as building blocks for radicalisation (Murshed and Pavan, 2011;Zech and Gabbay, 2016) -suggests they are the perfect target for fundamentalists.…”

Prevent

“…The Government's belief in the susceptibility of young people from largely disadvantaged backgrounds to radicalisation lacks the type of empirical research needed to really understand the issue (Breen, 2007;Mythen, et al, 2017). Mythen et al (2017) explain that the government's position comes largely from responses to two questions in the 2010 Citizenship Survey that asked about the use of violence to protest or achieve a goal. This, along with concerns that young people are more likely to be searching for meaning and identity, and willing to join social networks -all of which have been identified as building blocks for radicalisation (Murshed and Pavan, 2011;Zech and Gabbay, 2016) -suggests they are the perfect target for fundamentalists.…”

‘What is the headspace they are in when they are making those referrals?’Exploring the lifeworlds and experiences of health and social care practitioners undertaking risk work within the Prevent Strategy

“…It has instead focused on other dimensions including the ways in which the concept of radicalisation is constructed within the policy (Heath-Kelly, 2013). The Prevent Strategy has also been located within a broader shift towards 'pre-emptive' risk policies (Hammerstad & Boas, 2015) and the stigmatisation of Islam (Mythen, Walklate, & Peatfield, 2017). A significant proportion of the literature focuses on the impact of the Prevent Strategy on groups categorised as 'high risk', namely Muslim communities.…”