Radicalism: The asymmetric stance of Radicals versus Conventionals

Abstract

We study the conditions of propagation of an initial emergent practice qualified as extremist within a population adept at a practice perceived as moderate, whether political, societal or religious. The extremist practice is carried by an initially ultra-minority of Radicals (R) dispersed among Conventionals (C) who are the overwhelming majority in the community. Both R and C are followers, that is, agents who, while having arguments to legitimize their current practice, are likely to switch to the other practice if given more arguments during a debate. The issue being controversial, most C tend to avoid social confrontation with R about it. They maintain a neutral indifference assuming it is none of their business. On the contrary, R aim to convince C through an expansion strategy to spread their practice as part of a collective agenda. However, aware of being followers, they implement an appropriate strategy to maximize their expansion and determine when to force a debate with C. The effect of this asymmetry between initiating or avoiding an update debate among followers is calculated using a weighted version of the Galam model of opinion *