Defining Extremism in a Free Society

Somewhat ironically, one of the more complex challenges in contemporary counter-extremism practise is defining exactly what is meant by the term ‘extremism’. The very concept is culturally and ideologically relative since it is rooted in a shared understanding of acceptable behaviour and thought. Therefore, arriving at an objective or universal definition is very difficult, especially since the term is frequently instrumentalised for political purposes. Some say extremism is something you can recognise when you see it but is much harder to define, others argue that it is the secular version of blasphemy. In this piece, I want to explore the complexities of this debate and propose a definition that I think best works for a contemporary Anglosphere context.

Firstly, we need to ask if a definition is important at all and what purpose it serves. In my view, the manner in which political differences amongst a population are regulated, and the mechanisms used to manage change, decides how stable and strong a society is. If those mechanisms are functional, and long-term stability is achieved as a result, they need to be preserved and protected if a society wants to continue. Therefore, each and every society needs to develop ways of protecting itself from threats which can undermine its ability to function.

Extremism is, thus, a term used to describe modes of thinking and behaviour that are rooted in a rejection of the very foundations that a society is built upon. By going outside of the existing framework, extremists undermine faith in the system that regulates differences and manages change. Over time, if this is allowed to continue unchecked, the delicate fabric that holds a society together begins to tear. As such, it is important for a society to identify and challenge such threats without resorting to the kind of tyranny and oppression that undermines the credibility that the system is built on.

This challenge is especially acute for free societies since they pride themselves on being able to manage and accommodate a diverse range of viewpoints in a rules and values based framework built on consensus. They have to allow for the expression of opinions that are unpopular, and even challenging, whilst identifying and policing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, i.e. that behaviour which does not undermine the society as a whole. This is a difficult balance to achieve without a clear understanding of where those boundaries are and the nature of the threats that exist.

Thus, the extremism that we are seeking to capture by a definition is political in nature and, since political change necessitates social action, the definition needs to be conscious of both causes and tactics that various political actors adopt. Causes can be extremist in nature even when they don’t call for criminal actions, just as tactics can be extremist even if the cause is not. ISIS is an example where both the cause and tactics are extreme but with ETA, the tactics were extreme but the cause was not necessarily. On the other-hand, the Muslim Brotherhood is an example of an extremist cause that does not always adopt extremist tactics depending on the location and period in history. Therefore, for an organisation or individual to be branded extremist, either the cause or the tactics must be extreme.

In an Anglosphere context, extreme causes are those that seek to create a social order in which the current values, and mechanisms for regulating change, are upended in favour of a system that is anathematic to the current one. In such a system, democratic norms are abolished, the concept of equality is denigrated or ‘reinterpreted’ and political differences of any kind are simply not tolerated. Such systems are usually dictatorial, authoritarian and built on values that cannot be challenged or debated. Power is usually centralised and held by a clique of despotic rulers and change is not possible. Nazi Germany or the Caliphate of ISIS would be good examples.

Extremist tactics are those that involve violence, the promotion of hatred towards other groups in society (rooted in immutable characteristics) and denying such groups their basic human rights. They also include the destruction of public or private property, making death threats or engaging in other forms of behaviour which are criminal. Extremists generally seek political change regardless of the consequences of the methods adopted since the belief in the necessity of change is so intense and uncompromising. Hence, their tactics frequently stray into criminality and doing physical harm to others.

The word ‘violence’ in this context means physical force being used as a tactic to achieve change, as opposed to a violent altercations taking place, that were not intended. It must be an expressed aim of the group or individual to use violence as a means of achieving stated goals against all or any specific type of target. Violent means must also be differentiated from terrorism, since the latter refers to a specific form of violence which usually results in the murder of one or many individuals with view to raising the profile of a cause.

Taking the above into account, I would propose the following definition of extremism – “construing reality through a narrow ideological framework which promotes violence, and/or hatred towards other groups in society, for a political goal”. I believe this definition grasps the essence of extremism, or at least the type that needs to be tackled and countered, in that it captures both extremist causes and tactics whilst leaving room for differences and the expression of opinions which deviate from the norm. It is also ideologically agnostic and focuses on the harm extremists do rather than the fact that they are outside of social norms.

The fact that the actions must be in pursuit of a political goal is an integral part of any definition. There are many actions that are arguably extreme but not extremist, for example; forced marriages, so-called honour killings, domestic violence etc. There are also actors who are arguably extreme without being extremists such as members of the Flat Earth Society or those who hold other such bizarre views. Thus, extremism is not about actions or views that can be described as extreme, unless when they are adopted for a political goal which means they normally form part of a much wider meta-narrative rooted in an ideological outlook. As such, religious fundamentalists would also not be classified as extremist if they were not using violence or promoting hatred for a wider political goal.

There is a secondary discussion to be had around the point at which the state should intervene or take action. Arguably, it is not illegal to be an extremist so one can believe in an extremist cause without expecting state intervention of any kind. However, anyone who adopts, promotes or is likely to embrace extremist tactics, with or without an extremist cause, should expect the state in intervene. Thus, the state should remain more focused on the tactical side since it has a role to play in protecting society and minimising harm.

Challenging those who believe in extremist causes is, arguably, also the role of the state and civil society but strategically that must be approached very differently. A free society should allow people to hold and express such views within reason as long as they don’t veer towards criminality of any kind. It should also seek to actively discredit them through open dialogue and critical discourse in which such outlooks are legally tolerated but challenged in civil society. This is a much harder issue to tackle since it requires a society to still have faith in its core values and the willingness to protect those values when they are threatened. I would suggest that spirit is somewhat absent currently.  

A definition of extremism only holds for as long as a society is open and fair. The aim of a democratic and free society is to ensure there is no need for anyone to adopt extremist tactics because change is possible through participation. There will always be those who adopt extremist causes but they can be minimized if there is a common set of values that holds people together. A society that can manage diverse viewpoints without falling apart is healthy, but one that refuses to challenge existential threats will weaken and inevitably fail. Stability requires strength, moral clarity and a clear understanding of what the threats are and if those things do not exist then, over time, neither does the society.