Abstract
The present article focuses on how the so-called War on terror discourse has merged into the educational system and brought about a securitization of education. As a part of efforts to prevent young people from becoming radicalized into terrorism, the educational system is expected to be able to detect individuals ‘at risk’ and deploy methods to prevent radicalization from happening. Through the critical discourse analysis of a collection of educational practices, sampled by the European Union working group Radicalisation Awareness Network, we have been able to generate knowledge about how the War on terror discourse tends to individualize and decontextualize tensions in society that may ultimately cause terrorism. With this individualized and decontextualized approach to preventing radicalization, it appears more important to control students rather than to develop their ability to analyse complex conflicts in society.
Introduction
In the aftermaths of the Al-Qaida attacks of 11 September 2001, there has been a reoccurring debate on how to prevent such actions from taking place again and why they take place at all. This debate is often pursued within the framework of the so-called War on terror (Hatem, 2004). The War on terror is in some respects reactive and consists of a very concrete composition of actions that can easily be understood as acts of war; that is, military interventions, airstrikes, special military unit operations, etc. But in other respects, we are faced with actions that do not fit clearly into this war; for instance, mass surveillance undertaken by a mixture of military units and security police, security controls and identification processes at sites considered to be sensitive in one way or another. We are also faced with an interlinked development in which this War on terror has developed into a proactive discourse including terms such as counter-terror, preventing extremism and preventing radicalization (Hodges, 2011; Husband and Alam, 2011; Kundnani, 2014, 2015). A state of war is naturally not limited to acts of war, but also infuses all aspects of life for those affected by it and has long-lasting effects (Hatem, 2004). We can presume that a state of war establishes readiness to sacrifice, preparation for various actions and measures taken aimed at victory and conflict resolution. The War on terror and its offspring have been interpreted as a discourse itself (Farish, 2010; Hatem, 2004; Hodges, 2011) – a discourse that enables us to take broader perspectives and discuss its possible impacts on and relation to the affected societies, not least their respective educational systems.
The American sociologist William Isaac Thomas formulated in 1928 the so-called Thomas theorem, which states ‘If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences’ (Thomas and Thomas, 1928: 572). When we consider ourselves to be at war, it does not matter whether this war is real from its premises. The defined war will nonetheless be real in its consequences; ‘an us’ and ‘an enemy’ will be constructed, and this construction will extend beyond those engaged in physical combat. One component of this War on terror is the enemy from within – the local ‘radical’ who sympathizes with ‘the enemy’ and acts or may act in accordance with his/her sympathies. The ‘enemy from within’, referred to as ‘radicalized’ individuals, has been pointed at in public debates and in the research (Gustafsson et al., 2015), and there have been calls for strategies to counteract this phenomenon.
One major act to prevent ‘the enemy from within’ is the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN, 2016a), a body set up by the European Commission. The main objective of the RAN is to develop strategies to prevent what is referred to as radicalization among adolescents within the European Union. One prime asset created by the RAN is a collection of approaches and practices that have been sampled among the member states and published in an overview.
The full title of the RAN’s sample of methods 1 is RAN collection: Preventing radicalisation to terrorism and violent extremism (RAN, 2016a). The RAN collection consists of eight chapters, one introductory chapter and subsequent chapters elaborating seven different areas for intervention and prevention methodology. The introduction chapter voices the policy perspectives of the RAN and is followed by similar introductions to each of the chapters before the various methods are presented – 98 in total. In the present article, we will refer to this collection using the acronym RANC (Radicalisation Awareness Network Collection). The present study is a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the introductory chapter and the fifth chapter, ‘Educating young people’, which includes descriptions of 19 different methods. 2
Aim and research questions
The aim of the present study is to investigate the relation between the discourse Preventing radicalization, which arose from the War on terror, and the discourse of the educational system, referred to here as Schooling. Schooling cannot easily be understood as a singular discourse per se, but in this particular case it refers to the broad sense of educating, tutoring and training children and adolescents within formal educational systems, with a particular focus on fostering pupils to become democratic citizens. The following research questions have guided the investigation.
What discourses on radicalization and the War on terror emerge in the selected RANC sample? What discourses regarding educational practices and approaches emerge in the selected RANC sample? How do discourses on radicalization/War on terror and on educational practices/approaches relate to each other in the selected RANC sample?
Survey of the field
During the past decade, there has been an increased demand to prevent radicalization on different levels of society – particularly in schools. Yet, given the lack of scientific support and the vague notions about what to focus on, there has been uncertainty as to how to successfully confront these issues (Kundnani, 2012, 2014; Sedgwick, 2010; Veldhuis and Staun, 2009). Moreover, the concepts of radicalization and extremism have primarily had a security policy focus and have not been directly linked to the work in, for example, schools, social work or healthcare (Sieckelinck et al., 2015).
The discourse on radicalization has been nourished in a context that is trying to understand why young Muslims are not integrated into western society (Sieckelinck et al., 2015). Transferring this discourse to, for example, education is complex and may generate counterproductive thinking about young people ‘at risk’. These adolescents are either categorized as victims of existing societal structures or as religious fanatics who are beyond redemption (Sieckelinck et al., 2015).
Contemporary educational research shows similar patterns. British researchers Mac an Ghaill and Haywood’s (2014, 2015) studies of British-born Pakistani and Bangladeshi young men’s experiences of inclusion and exclusion in school showed that the young men were aware of how racialization operated through codes of masculinity and among certain groups of boys; that is, boys with a Muslim background. The young men in their study recognized that the existing Islamophobia in society, which they argued is a danger to their community, is a central element of their social and cultural exclusion.
Discourses related to Islamophobia and terrorism are also closely connected to the moral panic about certain groups of boys at school (Haywood and Mac an Ghaill, 2013). In the moral panic debate in the UK and the US, certain voices stress the importance of strict guidance for boys who are considered to be ‘at risk’. The people standing behind this view argue that these boys need a firm and strict hand, preferably from a man, to guide them on the right path, otherwise they might become a threat to national security. This discourse is strongly racial; when referring to threats to national security and society, only non-whites are mentioned (Haywood and Mac an Ghaill, 2013). There is a British programme called PREVENT that has been running since 2007 within the educational system in order to prevent radicalization (HMG, 2011). Research on this programme has found that there is an influence of the racial profiling of the War on terror discourse leading to stigmatization of Muslim communities and Muslim identities (Thomas, 2016).
Contemporary research on how to prevent radicalism underlines the importance of dialogue. Miller and Donner (2000) argued for the importance of understanding racial identity development when conducting racial dialogues. Researchers have also underlined the importance of using a broader anti-oppressive framework to recognize intersectional aspects of existing inequalities in society (Macey and Moxon, 1996). Along the same lines, Sieckelinck et al. (2015) argued for the importance of openness and a tolerant school environment, where all students, including the so-called radicalized, are given the opportunity to consider and express their thoughts and are treated in a non-judgmental, but at the same time intellectually critical, way. They also emphasized the importance of social inclusion in educational work, where students with different social backgrounds are given opportunities to meet and exchange experiences beyond their identity positions.
In a recently published research overview, the Swedish researcher Herz (2016) mapped out certain components that seem to be successful in preventing radicalization and violent extremism: effective collaboration between authorities, having a local presence, involving family and civil society, increasing human rights and access to welfare, focusing on the individual instead of the ideology and critically examining one’s own organization. Herz suggested that professionals in, for example, schools should use traditional and general preventive social work and pedagogy to promote democratic, social and human rights.
Methodology
The study of the RANC will use CDA as its theoretical and methodological basis. CDA is both constitutionalizing and constitutionalized (Fairclough, 1992), and from this dialectic position, discourse is understood differently than it is from a poststructuralist perspective. According to Fairclough, CDA consists of three layers: text, discursive practice and social practice (Fairclough, 2010). Text is understood in a broad sense as consisting of both written and other forms of communication, verbal and nonverbal. The text is, from a critical realism perspective, descriptive, while the discursive practice involves interpretation of the text as well as production and consumption of texts. The interpretation produces and reproduces new texts in a continuous process and can thereby not be separated from the text itself or the social practice. The third layer, the social practice, could be portrayed as an arena on which discursive practices are organized and reinterpreted through communicative patterns and interaction. The discursive practice is thereby organized and reinterpreted within the social practice (Säljö, 2005). In other words, in CDA, discourses are created in an interactive process between social structures and social actors. Actors create the discourses, and relations between discourses are limited by the communicational frameworks that define what is possible and acceptable to play out, given the positions assigned to the actor in the social structure. The actor may in some circumstances step outside these positions, because CDA acknowledges that actors have agency (Corsaro, 2005).
In accordance with the premises above, the discourse contributes to constructing: a) social identities; b) social relations; and c) systems for knowledge and meaning. The discourse thus constitutes three functions that all interact with each other, and this requires that the analysis of discourses bring attention to two dimensions of the discourse.
The communicative action as such. The discursive order.
The first dimension seeks to determine what sort of linguistic action we have at hand (in an article, interview, report, etc.) and what kinds of modalities we find within the text; that is, in what way discourses are expressed and articulated. The second dimension is the sum of discourses that are used within a social institution (such as the school) and the patterns of cultural hegemony (Winter Jörgensen and Phillips, 2000).
Analytically, it is necessary to distinguish between the text and the discursive practice. In the latter, attention is directed at how the author (sender) relates to existing discourses and how the receiver decodes accordingly. Analysis of the discursive practice focuses on identifying what discourses the current texts are based on (i.e. interdiscursivity). The text analysis focuses on the structure within the text and how it linguistically constitutes discourses. Then one can move on to the relation between the text and the social practice that the discursive practice mediates. In other words, it is within discursive practices that language is utilized to produce and consume texts, and where texts shape and are shaped by social practice. We are inspired by CDA in the sense that we are interested in exploring both the discourses the empirical material are based on (discursive practice) and how discourses are articulated (text); that is, which and in what way words constitute discourses. However, due to limited empirical evidence applicable to larger social structures and the fact that CDA itself does not include discourse analysis on the social practice, we choose to only briefly touch upon this level.
The present study will pass through different mutually integrated – not separately presented – levels (text, discursive practice, social practice) in an attempt to discover the structure of and relation between the text, the discursive practice and, to some extent, the social practice.
Text analysis of the RANC in order to distinguish how discourses on radicalization and education are articulated and ordered. Analysis of the discursive practices in the RANC in order to identify discourses and possible interdiscursivity.
In the RANC’s introductory chapter, we receive information about the purpose of the publication, but also about how it is framed by the usage of reoccurring key terms. In the present study, the key terms are radicalization, risk factors, practitioner and resilience. We will use these key terms to understand how the discursive order is constructed. Thus, one level in the study involves distinguishing the selected RANC sample as text and examining how discourses are articulated and ordered.
Another level in the study seeks to analyse the discursive practice and clarify whether it is possible to point at interdiscursivity, and if so, between which discourses. An additional aim is to determine whether any of the identified discourses can be understood as a nodal; that is, as culturally hegemonic. We also briefly discuss the possible impact on social practice. The main objective in this regard is to analyse whether it is possible to claim that there is an impact of the discursive practice on the social practice and whether it then strives to sustain the underlying discourses or brings about a social transformation.
Mapping the RANC discourses
The empirical material consists of the RANC introduction chapter and the fifth chapter, ‘Educating young people’, which includes descriptions of 19 different methods, presented in the Appendix 1. Combined, the introductory chapter and the fifth chapter provide a picture of how RANC frame the concepts of radicalization and education and their interrelatedness. The analytical part of the article comprises two main themes and are thus divided into two sections: one focusing on the concept of radicalization, in general; and the other on practitioners and the educational system, in particular. The textual analysis and social analysis (i.e. text, discursive practice and social practice) are not divided into different steps, but are instead included in both themes. This is related to the lack of empirical evidence that could be used for analysing the impact on the social practice. Accordingly, the analysis focuses on different levels in an integrated manner where social practice is pursued indirectly.
Radicalization processes and national and global security
According to the RANC, the processes of radicalization constitute a challenge that has increased considerably during recent years and that is manifested in new forms. The following statement begins the introduction chapter in the RANC: In recent years, the processes of radicalisation leading to violent extremism have greatly evolved. … Also in terms of appearance, extremists are no longer acting only as part of organised, hierarchical organisations but also within smaller cells and sometimes as lone wolves. … Within the EU, Member States are facing a variety of challenges. (RAN, 2016a: 8)
The second way of articulating the term is by referring to young individuals who are considered the subjects of radicalization or threats to society as a result of radicalization: Within the EU, Member States are facing a variety of challenges. One of the most visible threats, especially in Western Europe but spreading also to other parts, are the large number of (young) people traveling to conflict zones such as Syria and Iraq to (in many cases) become foreign terrorist fighters and join terrorist groups. There are now believed to be thousands of Europeans within the region. Apart from their potentially violent acts abroad, the threat posed by radicalised returnees, skilled in combat and with links to terrorist groups has all too painfully been revealed in some recent terrorist atrocities within the EU. (RAN, 2016a: 8) It has also shown the ability of terrorist organisations overseas to radicalise and recruit from afar. In Eastern parts of Europe, right wing and nationalist extremism is growing and more people are starting to leave for Ukraine to engage in the conflict. The southern parts of Europe often serve as transit-countries which might in the long run also influence home-grown extremism in these countries. In reaction to the foreign terrorist fighter phenomenon, the rise in Islamist extremism and domestic extremism are forming a breeding ground for increased polarisation and intolerance in societies throughout Europe. (RAN, 2016a: 8)
The modality (i.e. ways to articulate; Fairclough, 2010) of the text shows a reluctance to view society as a potential contributor to radicalization. In this, what we would like to entitle discursive practice of societal detached radicalization, the community seems to be absolved from guilt in fomenting expressions of radicalization. On the contrary, in the text, society is viewed solely as being under attack, a victim, and it will, therefore, make efforts to tackle this threat by deploying ‘first-line practitioners’; that is, teachers, social workers and youth workers (cf. Herz, 2016). Had society been present in the text, we would have expected to find references to terms like racism, poverty, discrimination, masculinity, gender, socioeconomic classes, exclusion and inclusion. Without these references, the pupils, who are the ultimate target group, fail to become subjects in the text, because we do not learn about how radicalization relates to the surrounding society in which they live and have grown up. We also do not learn about why they are radicalized.
Based on the above, we could conclude that the discursive order of the text maintains security policy as its nodal discourse (Fairclough, 2010). All phrasings, risk assessments, portraits of threats and processes of radicalization are related to society’s responsibility to safeguard itself, and there are no references to society being a possible producer of radicalization or to society’s responsibility for protecting young people from harming themselves through involvement in violent movements and, ultimately, terrorism. The potential liability of society is positioned beyond its mandate. This discursive practice of detached radicalization is obviously based on and sustains a social practice, articulated in late modernity as a highly individualized discourse, in which individual choices, strategies and biographies are largely understood as not situated, self-constructed and as a consequence of ‘free will’ (Skeggs, 2004).
Practitioners and education
The educational system, in general, and educators, in particular, are given an important role in preventing radicalization (RAN, 2016a). In the RANC, the terms practices and approaches are used interchangeably and simply refer to a rather vague description of criteria explaining how and why these examples were collected. We do learn that: ‘some of the approaches directly or indirectly derived from the work of the RAN sub-groups’ (RAN, 2016a: 11). The RANC is, however, very clear in stating that the collected practices themselves ‘do not have an “approved by European Commission/RAN” label but have the aim to be informative and inspiring’ (RAN, 2016a: 13). But the text does not define the status of these practices; the practices are not defined as a collection of ‘best practices’ and there is no explanation of what constitutes a practice or an approach. It is also not clear to what extent these practices and approaches represent major trends in education within the field among the European Union member countries. Thus, we are once again extradited to arbitrariness and concepts empty of content.
Practitioners in the present study refers to someone who is supposed to carry out work intended to prevent radicalization in the context of his or her ordinary domain of employment, such as teachers, social workers or prison/probation/judicial practitioners (cf. Herz, 2016): ‘Schools and educators are on the front line to challenge and prevent misplaced retaliatory abuse as well as identify and safeguard those deemed vulnerable to radicalisation’ (RAN, 2016a: 136).
The practitioner’s work is presented without any references to general ideas or traditions of education, attempts to talk about the role of the educational system or ethics within the teaching profession. As a result, the practitioner’s work is framed without any consideration of how it may or may not interfere with other duties or the ethics of these professions. There is also no discussion of the pedagogical work or explanation of the role of education in preventing terrorism/extremism/radicalization. As a result, a discursive practice of educationally detached educators seems to be sustained. There are, however, some connections made to teaching democracy and about prejudice. The four main aims of education are highlighted in the following bullet points.
Decrease stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination. Increase knowledge about democratic orders, norms and values. Increase a sense of positive citizenship and awareness of violent extremism (including digitally, e.g. online methods). Addressing sensitive issues related to radicalization and (violent) extremism in the classroom such as responses to terrorist attacks, foreign policy perspectives and conflicts abroad, perceived grievances and freedom of speech issues (RAN, 2016a: 136).
To some extent, the term radicalization is indirectly contextualized in the aims of teaching efforts listed above, particularly in the fourth aim. The expression ‘perceived grievances’ indicates an assumption that structural injustices are not considered a root cause of extremism, but a perceived one. At the same time, the RANC underlines the importance of: ‘Educating young people on stereotypes, discrimination, extremism, democratic order, norms and values, cultural diversity and racism’ (RAN, 2016a: 136).
The RANC does not refer to students’ lived experiences of discrimination or grievances in the teaching content. Stressing their lived experiences would have provided an opportunity to include society as a necessary topic in the teaching, not just focusing on the students’ mindset. But the connection between society and radicalization is never discussed and can only be indirectly inferred from the text, thus leaving radicalization to be understood – once again –as an individual and societal detached phenomenon. The RANC’s overall nodal discourse on education, therefore, tends towards the War on terror discourse rather than towards the Schooling discourse.
An example of this individualization – in which the single individual becomes the carrier of his or her own risks – can be found in one of the methods presented (RAN, 2016a): The project targets the visual, emotional and social reality of an individual, and offers an alternative that is based on individual reasoning and ‘group think’ behaviour. I.B.E attempts to counter this stimulus at both an emotional and intellectual level. It locates its narrative within the person and not the ‘problem’ or situation. In the project they show the person how they are in control of their response behaviour as opposed to the situation. It seeks to engender critical thought into the process of how actions affect the person. It works because we deliver it with openness and a personal context. We tell a story, about disability, stigma, bullying, expectations, norms, values, extremism, choices, situations and solutions. We let the students engage their own minds and then think about how they use them. (p.161)
The 19 methods 3 described in the fifth chapter ‘Educating young people’ are utterly different from each other in their aims and claims. The manifest content has been extracted by analysing the text covering the purposes, aims and methodology (didactics) of the 19 practices. We have been able to identify five categories of intentions and aims. Seven of the practices directly related their respective aims at radicalization, using expressions such as: ‘A healthy and strong resilience is a proven protective factor in the prevention of violent radicalisation … Strengthening Resilience against Violent Radicalisation … An intensive programme for reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to radicalization …’ (RAN, 2016a: 146, 148, 188).
These practices pay attention to individuals’ ability to recover from or resist violent radicalization. However, in the RANC, none of the practices is associated with a definition of the term radicalization or how they related to it. This is done, however, in some cases in other materials tied to these practices, but then in their own presentation outside the RANC. In relation to five of the practices, extremism, democracy, black and white thinking and teaching values are highlighted: ‘IC [integrative complexity] interventions leverage a change in mindset through broadening values, thinking, and social identity complexity’ (RAN, 2016a: 166) and ‘a) Challenges all extremism b) Promotes critical thinking’ (RAN, 2016a: 149). In relation to five additional practices, racism, discrimination, co-existence and social exclusion are discussed as important teaching topics, terms and goals: Through dialog, informal education, critical and constructive thinking and creating a debate culture and conflict resolution, Haver works towards a voluntary process of attitude change. … The aim of this activity is to improve social relationships of post-conflict societies in Croatia, and to allow children who live in multicultural and multiethnic communities to learn more about the culture and customs of “the others”. … The mission of the Never Again Association is to promote multicultural understanding and to contribute to the development of a democratic civil society. (RAN, 2016a: 163, 173, 181)
These topics have long been central to the task of fostering democratic citizens (Johnson and Johnson, 2016). But we see a tendency in which the newer the practice is, the more likely it is to focus on how to prevent radicalization, and in which the more focus there is on violence in the name of Islam, the more talk there is about preventing radicalization. Hence, radicalization seems to be framed especially in relation to discourses on Islamism. The seven programmes focusing on radicalization are from 2008 or later, and they originate from the UK, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Hungary. Looking at the ‘older’ programmes (1996–2007) and programmes that concentrate on racism, coexistence, right-wing extremism and democracy, there are few references to radicalization, but more discussion about relations between individuals, both intersubjective and in society in general. However, in the more recent practices, it also seems as though the term radicalization is mixed with more established terms: The purpose of FRIEND&FOE is to give (young) people, students and their teachers’ tools to handle conflict in a constructive manner, in their personal life and in society at large; and actively prevent the spreading of xenophobia and radicalisation, social exclusion, discrimination and bullying within Dutch society. (RAN, 2016a: 152)
In other words, this would seem to be a feasible way of incorporating the terminology from the War on terror discourse by connecting it to already existing terms related to more traditional fostering of democratic values. This finding is also sustained when we observe how programmes that have previously been developed to prevent bullying, aggression, stereotypical thinking, low self-confidence and drug addiction have been reconceptualized and used to try to prevent radicalization: ‘The youngsters at risk take part in the theatre-therapy workshops on a regular basis, normally twice a week. The participants in the workshop are mainly young people with different addiction problems that usually have low self-confidence’ (RAN, 2016a: 171).
Conclusions
Focusing on the educational system, the present study adds to the research that seeks to understand the processes of securitization of society, in general, and of schools, in particular – processes that have taken place as a result of the War on terror discourse (Bright, 2012).
Although the research has not been able to provide empirical evidence that there is a connection between radicalization and terrorism (Gearon, 2013; Kundnani, 2014, 2015; Spalek, 2011), or as Randy Borum (2011) states, ‘to be clear, most of what has been written so far about “radicalization” into violent extremist ideologies (particularly those that support terrorism) is conceptual, rather than empirical’ (p.15), in the RANC, radicalization – however it is (not) defined – is taken as the root cause of terrorism and as the phenomenon that should be prevented. Moreover, when the traditional Schooling discourse begins leaning towards the War on terror discourse, this would seem to contribute to creating a new social practice. Inserted into the broader social context, this development may indicate that a discursive struggle is ongoing concerning how education will function and be perceived in late-modern society.
We cannot claim that the present findings reflect the general educational system as such. Nonetheless, it is clear that the 19 methods established by NGOs depend, for their survival, on funding and that this funding is related to their ability to incorporate their programmes into schools, thus creating some kind of demand for their services. Regardless of whether this demand springs from a genuine need in the schools or has been created within the public debate on radicalization, it can be argued that the discourses operating in the RANC have an impact on the educational system. Thus, we are not talking about teaching experiences developed within and by the educational system as such, but practices developed by actors who are capable of incorporating the discourse promoted by the RANC and adapting it so as to create a demand in the schools. And it is quite clear that these NGOs, when they describe how they perform their teaching activities, lean towards the nodal discourse of schooling when they articulate their pedagogical approaches: for instance, they talk about dialogue, critical thinking and inclusion. It is also clear, however, that the newer the presented practice is, the more likely it is to discuss radicalization based on the nodal discourse of the War on terror. These texts are highly focused on what young people must not become, what they should avoid and how they can see beyond propaganda, and less focused on pupils developing an understanding of themselves, the society they live in or on how teachers can incorporate pupils’ lived experiences into their teaching. The view that radicalization is a societal detached, individual and psychological phenomenon is highly predominant, even presenting a biological/medical view according to which brain structures may contribute to confrontation (RAN, 2016b: 4). There are several examples of methods that do bring up racism, Islamophobia and discrimination, but they do not include individual experiences of these phenomena in the teaching process. Nor could we find, within the RANC material, examples of how the War on terror itself – through, for example, stigmatization (Haywood and Mac an Ghaill, 2013) – may contribute to radicalization. Furthermore, the many references to resilience contribute to the individualized approach. Resilience is a feature of the therapeutic society and ‘therapeutic education’ (Ecclestone, 2012), and as Aislinn O’Donnell (2016) pointed out: ‘… this risks silencing students and precluding dialogue about difficult and complex ideas’ (p.58).
According to the RANC, it is important to detect adolescents at risk in risk communities and to equip them with the resilience needed to withstand radicalization. Once again, the educational approach becomes very individualized, concerning both how the risks are defined and how the interventions are played out. It seems to be more important to control pupils rather than include their experiences and equip them with the intellectual skills necessary to interpret complex conflicts. There is also an underlying assumption that detection of factors that contribute to so-called radicalization can be established as the aim of the intervention; that is, assumed reasons for radicalization become the basis for intervention. Thus, if one believes that the reason for radicalization is black-and-white thinking, then one will focus on this. This approach is a result of hyper-individualism, where the focus of social and pedagogical work is distorted because the single individual is viewed as the carrier of his or her own risks, as if the person were not imbedded in a society at all, ending up in a discursive practice of detached radicalization.
Our overall conclusion is in line with the Thomas theorem: when radicalization is considered real, there will be real consequences. We have shown that radicalization is viewed as an individual, psychological, societal detached and detectable factor among vulnerable adolescents. We have also shown that there are indications that this view has sparked the production and development of methods that are claimed to produce resilience among these adolescents, without involving their own everyday challenges and lived experiences in a segregated and multi-complex society. Regardless of whether the system is governed by the explicit demand that teachers identify radicalized pupils, as with the British PREVENT programme (Husband and Alam, 2011; O’Donnell, 2016), if this approach is to produce resilience to radicalization among adolescents, it is still a matter of control and the underlying assumption is that this control will prevent terrorism. The veracity of this assumption is still highly debatable, but we do see a gradual shift in the social practice of the Schooling discourse; that is, teaching democracy, towards the War on terror discourse, in relation to which teachers are expected to take actions to control potentially dangerous pupils and young people at risk. This, of course, raises questions as to whether trusting relations between teachers and pupils can flourish and whether a learning environment can develop. Regardless of whether the pupils are radicalized, the consequences of trying to control them will be real.