Counter-Terrorism and the Counterfactual: Producing the ‘Radicalisation’ Discourse and the UK PREVENT Strategy

Abstract

This article interrogates the production of the ‘radicalisation’ discourse which underpins efforts to govern ‘terrorism’ pre‐emptively through the UK's PREVENT strategy. British counter‐terrorism currently relies upon the invention of ‘radicalisation’ and related knowledge about transitions to ‘terrorism’ to undertake governance of communities rendered suspicious. The article argues that such conceptions make terrorism knowable and governable through conceptions of risk. Radicalisation knowledge provides a counterfactual to terrorism—enabling governmental intervention in its supposed production. It makes the future actionable. However, while the deployment of ‘radicalisation’ functions to make terrorism pre‐emptively governable and knowable, it also renders PREVENT unstable by simultaneously presenting ‘vulnerability indicators’ for radicalisation as threats to the wider collective—these conducts are framed as both ‘at risk’ and ‘risky’, both vulnerable and dangerous. This instability speaks to ad hoc production of the radicalisation discourse by scholarly and policy‐making communities for the governance of terrorism through radicalisation knowledge. This article analyses the production of the radicalisation discourse to explore its performance as a form of risk governance within British counter‐terrorism.

‘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).…”

Algorithmic autoimmunity in the NHS: Radicalisation and the clinic

“…This is a remarkable depoliticization. Building upon previous policy articulations of 'radicalisation' as a process driven by risk and vulnerability factors (Heath-Kelly, 2013), political violence has now been further depoliticized such that it is categorised as a pathological behaviour that results from 'ideological abuse'. For example:…”

Editors’ introduction: critical terrorism studies: practice, limits and experience

“…Domains of law and politics have made tacit acknowledgement of the problems of rendition, detention and house arrest, and yet detainees remain caged without recourse to legal process. Regimes of surveillance legitimise "targeted" practices against bodies deemed risky, and the international spread of radicalisation policies continues to frame race and religiosity on a spectrum of "vulnerability" toward becoming terrorist (Heath-Kelly 2013). Of what significance is this normalisation?…”