Introducing: Counterpoint’s Radicalisms Programme
Author: Catherine Fieschi
From its inception The British Council has been tasked with confronting all forms of extremisms. Borne in 1934 in the midst of an increasingly divided and xenophobic Europe, creating the Council was an attempt to counter the nationalist zeitgeist with a healthy dose of international humanism.
Countering extremism and understanding its different strands as well as how it and they relate to forms of radicalism requires a new set of conceptual and practical tools—but also an understanding of history, institutions and cultural references. This is what this work programme is all about.
One of our main themes has exercised policymakers and commentators
relentlessly: can we tell extremism from radicalism?
We would argue that radicalism is about aims. These may be, quite literally, ‘radical’ in their opposition to the received wisdom or status quo, or represent an ongoing and relentless criticism of values, ideas or institutions that tend to be taken for granted.
Extremism on the other hand refers to behaviour and means rather than objectives or aspirations.
The line may be fine, but we think it is a useful one. Because it means that, of course one can be a radical but not extremist, and a more interesting extremist without being a radical.
Such definitions illustrate the difficulty of categorising movements.
Many have argued that if the radicalism is *too radical*, whether or not it advocates violence or extremist behaviour (which includes verbal violence), it may nonetheless represent a threat—to social cohesion for instance.
In that case, some have argued that the distinction between the two is too fine a distinction to make in practice. Others argue that radicalism is a mark of a healthy and vibrant society.
Wherever the lines lie – we want to inform you and debate them here.
That is why we have created this new space.
Excellent stuff Catherine – look forward to seeing more here.
I’m interested in how you define extremism. Has the word been highjacked to carry purely negative connotations? What about extreme love or extreme sacrifice or ultruism? Of course radicalism and extremism need to be understood and combatted in their negative forms, but perhaps an ‘extremely’ positive alternative could fill the void of radically misdirected passion? I’m no expert on the matter (clearly!) just a thought.
You are absolutely right. As Catherine mentioned here this is of concern to us, and that’s why we wrote about the need to free in particular “radicalism” from its almost exclusively negative connotation (http://www.counterpoint-online.org/its-time-to-be-radical-about-radicalism/ and http://www.counterpoint-online.org/has-obama-overtaken-osama/ ). Keep checking back here, as this very issue is high on our agenda and will be addressed in blogposts to come.
I think the insights of psychiatrist and writer, Adam Phillips, into ‘excess’ illuminate the whole area of human concern quite brilliantly. An extract from his next book, On Balance, in the Guardian recently starts with the corruscating epigram: “Nothing makes people more excessive than talking about excess”. The discourse of excess seems amongst other things to be crucial in establishing the norm against which we calibrate social acceptability http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/08/excess-adam-phillips