Talk:Deradicalization

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 29 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mfowle1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs more perspectives

This is an important topic, but it needs greater coverage than what is already here. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if wired counts as a reliable source, this (see bottom) article directly counters the only perspective mentioned under criticism..

Sociologist Gérald Bronner calls the notion of "deradicalization" flawed, saying "It means that you can take an idea or a belief out of the brain, and I think that’s just impossible" and instead suggests "not a kind of mental manipulation but the opposite — mind liberation, a strengthening of their intellectual immune systems".

As to the claim "[deradicalization] means that you can take an idea or a belief out of the brain", this source states..

Today, deradicalisation is used as a catch-all term for three very different processes. First, there’s deradicalisation itself; the ability to get someone, either a convicted terrorist or an at-risk extremist, to disavow the entire movement they were part of. Then there’s disengagement; more focused on how to stop that person from committing violence, rather than trying to help them change their overall world view. Finally, there’s prevention, essentially applying the lessons of the other two to understand how you can stop people from becoming extremists in the first place.

— https://www.wired.co.uk/article/how-do-you-deradicalise-an-incel

Thus clearly not "that you can take an idea or a belief out of the brain" but "disavow[ing]". Ybllaw (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This wired article seems to have interviewed John Horgan, Paul Gill who is a professor at University College London¹ and Daniel Koehler who founded GIRDS² (German Institute on Radicalization and De-Radicalization Studies) according to the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs supported organisation ICCT

¹https://www.ucl.ac.uk/jill-dando-institute/about-us/people/academic-staff/paul-gill

²https://www.icct.nl/people/daniel-koehler/ Ybllaw (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Also according to the wired article..

The field of deradicalisation has it roots in Racist and Right-Wing Violence in Scandinavia: Patterns, Perpetrators, and Responses, a book published that year by Norwegian researcher Tore Bjørgo

This page doesn't mention this book at all currently. Ybllaw (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As to under criticism "calls the notion of 'deradicalization' flawed", from the wired article again..

The most effective route out is to challenge this “de-pluralisation” of their worries. So if someone is concerned about money, help them hold down a stable job. If they are looking for a sense of camaraderie, help them to socialise with wider society. That doesn’t mean you completely ignore the ideology or ideas. “You cannot address the person's connection to an extremist environment without addressing what they found attractive

Thus these people interviewed seem convinced that it is effective, not flawed. Also..

the framework exists, and groups like GIRDS and more have been using it to support former far right, Islamic or nationalist extremists

Thus not only do these people call it effective, they seem to have proved that it is. Ybllaw (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)