In recent years, there has been a growing debate about how to define and counter extremism, especially in the context of terrorism and radicalisation. Some argue that the current definitions are too broad, vague, or subjective, and that they may infringe on civil liberties, human rights, or freedom of expression. Others contend that the existing definitions are too narrow, rigid, or outdated, and that they fail to capture the diversity and complexity of extremist ideologies, movements, and actions.
But what is extremism, anyway? And why does it matter how we define it?
Extremism is generally understood as a deviation from the norm or the mainstream, in terms of beliefs, values, or behaviours. However, this raises the question of who sets the norm or the mainstream, and how they are determined. Different societies, cultures, or groups may have different norms or mainstreams, and they may change over time. Moreover, what is considered extreme in one context may not be so in another, or vice versa.
For example, some forms of political dissent or social activism may be seen as extremist by some authorities or segments of society, but as legitimate or even necessary by others. Similarly, some religious practices or beliefs may be regarded as extremist by some faith communities or secular actors, but as orthodox or essential by others. Furthermore, some extremist groups or individuals may use violence or coercion to achieve their goals, while others may not.
Therefore, defining extremism is not a simple or straightforward task. It involves making judgments about what is acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong, normal or abnormal. It also involves balancing security and liberty, order and diversity, stability and change. It requires taking into account the historical, political, social, cultural, and psychological factors that shape and influence extremism.
A new definition of extremism may not necessarily solve these challenges. It may create new problems or controversies. It may be too inclusive or exclusive, too flexible or rigid, too general or specific. It may be misused or abused for political or ideological purposes. It may have unintended consequences or side effects.
Therefore, before we rush to redefine extremism, we should ask ourselves: do we really need a new definition? And if so, what kind of definition do we need? And who should be involved in crafting and implementing it?
These are not easy questions to answer. But they are important ones to ask.
