See tekst leidis oma koha siin kodulehel peamiselt kahel põhjusel:
1) tegemist on näitega sellest, kuidas erinevatest vaadetest tekkida võivat lõhe on võimalik ületada
2) aitab meeles pidada, et üksteisest erinevad perspektiivid sageli ei muuda midagi valeks, vaid mõni on lihtsalt täpsem-asjakohasem.
Across the academic world, interest in Islamist radicalization, jihadism, extremism, terrorism and political violence is growing exponentially. […] We have also witnessed the emergence and growth of substantial milieus that support both a strict and traditionalist interpretation of Islam and, at least in rhetoric, such attacks (although the latter does not necessarily follow from the first). […] A downside of the multidisciplinary research field, however, is the division – and relative lack of dialogue – between perspectives that focus on societal, socio-economic and social contexts – including power structures – and perspectives that focus on individuals and their psychology.
Artikli kaks eesmärki:
The first is to discuss three theoretical approaches that have the potential to inform, strengthen and enrich radicalization research. These are the sociology of gender and masculinity, new debates within subcultural theory, and the sociology of religious emotion. The second aim is to discuss how these sociological perspectives may help us bridge the gap between the micro/individual and macro/societal levels of understanding Islamist radicalization.
Väljakutse radikaliseerumisega tegelemiseks:
it is of relevance to understand the actual processes that lead people to join, and come to understand themselves as members or participants of, collectivities that not only legitimate but also actively promote political violence in the name of Islam, even if the term radicalization is in itself problematic or ambiguous.
… ja seega
we thus argue that there is a need not only to criticize radicalization discourse but also to develop and refine theoretical approaches that allow us to grasp, explain and understand radicalization as an actual ‘behavioural activity’ and to cultivate concepts suited for grasping the mechanisms behind the emergence of broader supportive milieus.
Sugu ja maskuliinsus – relatsioonilisuse ja vastastikkuse konstituteerimise küsimused
contemporary gender scholars consider gender and masculinity to be social constructions. This means that gender is performed, accomplished or ‘done’, although it is also a form of structural social differentiation and a culturally central component of individual identities […] social categories such as gender, class, race and ethnicity cannot be understood in isolation, because they are mutually constitutive
radical Islamists from the West have often experienced a life characterized by hard structural social conditions such as economic deprivation, perceived discrimination, othering and personal grievances. […] Radical Islamist groups offer a way to transform personal feelings connected to hard structural social conditions, such as frustration, humiliation, hopelessness, hatred and despair, into a religious context, making these emotions religious.
The framework we suggest insists that individuals and groups that are involved in processes of radicalization should be analysed in relation to broader social contexts, in particular their position in power structures. The perspectives can help us bridge the micro/macro divide in the following way. A masculinity, gender and intersectionality perspective can help us grasp radicalization processes as a specifically male repertoire consisting of a hard and aggressive masculinity – indeed, a remasculinization strategy that can be seen as an answer to perceived or actual social emasculation produced by social marginality.
Jensen, S. Q., & Larsen, J. F. (2021). Sociological perspectives on Islamist radicalization – bridging the micro/macro gap. European Journal of Criminology, 18(3), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819851356