The Flemish policy approach is in line with the mainstream view of 'radicalisation' as a process in which radical religious convictions form the first step for an individual on the road to violence. Not only is the scientific basis for this reasoning very shaky, it even threatens to strengthen the breeding ground of political violence in our society: social exclusion and the limitation of opportunities for vulnerable young people to denounce this exclusion. If a Muslim youth dares to denounce perceived injustice, this can be seen as a sign of… radicalization.
According to the researchers, the Flemish policy for the prevention of radicalisation has - perhaps unintentionally - four counterproductive effects in youth welfare work with vulnerable young people with a Muslim background. First, radical opinions are quickly problematised as a sign of 'dangerous radicalisation', while radical opinions are not new to youth workers. They regard them as a sign of involvement in society or as a normal development in puberty. A youth worker testifies: “Some young people, instead of pulling them out of that weird-ideas corner, are pushed further into it. By constantly questioning and harassing them about it.”
In addition, Muslim youths feel pushed even further into a corner because of their 'dangerous' faith. This reinforces their feeling that they are second-class citizens. The us versus them thinking in public opinion is also increasing and this leads to unnecessary polarization. A youth worker from the neighborhood itself: “We were Belgians before that, despite our Moroccan background. Now we are Muslims.”
Moreover, there is an emphasis on the early detection of young people who are 'at risk of radicalisation'. On the one hand, the target group is thus infinitely broadened to those who run the risk of being at risk. But on the other hand, that prevention is strongly narrowed down to early detection. The increasing pressure to cooperate in such investigations of 'radicalising' young people puts great pressure on youth workers. It undermines their necessary relationship of trust with these young people.
Finally, the emphasis in Flemish prevention policy is too much on an individual-religious approach. Although the social breeding ground is recognized in policy documents, an individual and psychological approach is mainly chosen. For example, little attention is paid to the role of discrimination in the areas of housing, work and education and to racial profiling by the police. And the fact that policymakers themselves 'radicalize' in their discourse and that they can stir up the risk of political violence from above, is disappearing completely from the picture.
The researchers argue for the recognition of the indispensable role of youth welfare work in the general prevention of violence, instead of the current focus on the early detection of something as vague as 'potentially radicalising young people'. The research is underpinned by a critical analysis of the dominant religious-psychological explanatory models, an analysis of the substantive paradoxes in the most important Flemish policy documents on 'deradicalisation' and case studies in three metropolitan organizations in youth work with socially vulnerable youth.
The research results were presented on December 6, 2018 to 250 participants in an open lesson of the social work course at Artevelde University College. Elke Decruynaere (alderman for education and youth of the City of Ghent), Prof. Sami Zemni (UGent) and Ikrame Kastit (Uit De Marge vzw, umbrella organization for youth welfare work) responded to the research results.
Valorisation
In Flanders, about a hundred larger and smaller organizations are active as 'Operations with Socially Vulnerable Youth' (WMKJ). Many of these organizations are confronted with 'radicalisation' and feel the pressure to work on deradicalisation. That is why training and support is developed for and with this field of work. This includes
- determining a substantive positioning of the organization vis-à-vis the radicalization discourse,
- working with the target group towards an inclusive society as general prevention,
- and developing a deontologically correct response to external demands for early detection as specific prevention.
Research realisations and publications
Meet the team
Work with us?
Request customised research
We are happy to help you formulate your research question and approach.
