The following is an email I would like to send to our friends at OICD.
Dear Bruce,
following our discussion in the summer, I would like to propose we consider writing a research proposal to a Horizon 2020 topic called SU-GOVERNANCE-10-2019 (“Drivers and contexts of violent extremism in the broader MENA region and the Balkans”). This could potentially be a strong proposal, because:
You have the start of a theory of how identities can be weaponized to fuel conflict. Your work is smack in the middle of the topic.
This theory is, potentially, actionable: it might offer antidotes to identity weaponization. This makes it highly relevant in the context.
However, the theory still needs some polish, buttressing etc. Some serious research work might push it over the edge of completeness. This means that the impact of this proposal is potentially high.
You have substantial experience in the Balkans.
We have a research method, SSNA, that resonates with your theory. There is potential to develop SSNA in the direction to make it do what you want: map the cognitive pathways to identity weaponization.
We have some track record in MENA, and part of the 4,500+ Edgeryders community is located there. We also have capacity in the region, with some collaborators who live there, are native speakers of Arabic, etc.
Notice the very interesting additional focus on “foreign fighters” inside the EU. This calls for a deeper ethnography than we have deployed so far. I am intrigued from a methodological point of view.
If you like the idea, I would suggest we write a 1.5 pages concept note and start assembling a consortium. We will probably need a call between us to get started.
I’m very much interested in this topic in Armenia/Nagorno Karabakh - Azerbaijan. Let me know if there is a way to do this research in the region. Armenia is considered the 3rd most militarized country in the world after Israel and Singapore.
I have similar concerns to @nadia , to be honest, from both a professional and personal standpoint. Starting from ‘violent extremism’ re MENA region carries certain assumptions along with it — I would caution any project to take very seriously what it means to start from there. I’m not saying this to discourage you or say that it is impossible to have impact, only to caution that often you get what you interrogate for.
This is an excellent observation, @amelia. I propose we build it into the proposal (if we get that far), and make it a source of added value. Are you up for joining the call with Bruce?
Yeah, I’ve been thinking about it. I remember someone once saying that this kind of thing is the cheapest path towards achieving political change. Norway stood out after Breivik because the Prime Minister pointed to a different reaction than most other societies in Europe/ N.America in response to violent extremism. We all know why that was to some extent, either way it is interesting.
Maybe a different vantage point not moralising or fearful. Adopting a frame of enquiry that doesnt moralise, assumes radicalism is good under certain circumstances depending on who is doing the looking. case in point - resistance movements during WW2.
You pick an overwhelming enemy that is a threat to all, say destruction of natural habitat.
Start with what is out there without moralisation and learn from it about effective paths to achieving change towards sustainable development. (I mean, look at france right now - they got through first demand of ditching the fuel taxes - ok it’s not necessarily the change we want but it’s just an example).
Or even the viennese art noveau movements parts of which were agitating for the war which at the time seemed to be a progressive move. Let’s assume that at the seed of any and all radicalism is a call for change towards some better outcome.
And maybe just maybe it is the reactions/actiones of institutions and other actors at crucial points in time that drives them towards something destructive? You know, like how the populists start redirecting public anger from root causes to scapegoats by reframing issues, meme architecting and repetition till the association is set. Instead of like in the early labour movements or french revolution where it was kicking upwards towards where the trouble actually began?
Kind of like when kids are having a party and everything is fine, then the cops show up, they act preemptively/in a manner that accuses participants (assume there is goint to be trouble), some are pumped up testosterone monsters looking for a fight, energy changes towards aggressive and the whole thing turns violent.
In terms of style/narrative of the actual research proposal I think we can learn from Vinay’s approach towards pretty extreme measures when it comes to salvaging the planet. As well as that report about blue church stuff, situational analysis from that dude, @alberto or @hugi know the one. Scary in that it says - assume this is a fact of life that is not going to be gotten rid of- how to channel it?
Hall was recently echoed by David Graeber’s op-ed on the French gilets jaunes:
intellectuals of left and right insist that the Gilets Jaunes are “anti-ideological”, unable to understand that for horizontal social movements, the unity of theory and practice (which for past radical social movements tended to exist much more in theory than in practice) actually does exist in practice. These new movements do not need an intellectual vanguard to provide them with an ideology because they already have one: the rejection of intellectual vanguards and embrace of multiplicity and horizontal democracy itself.
Thanks for including me Nadia, very interesting topic for me and an interesting proposal…even though I don’t necessarily agree with the language and direction it’s pointing to.
Spent a lot of time doing my own research into Balkans (origins of today’s narratives, the divisions, reasons for identifying the nation with religion, reasons for present day pathetic state of intelligentsia in our countries etc), let by a simple idea that by knowing the past we can understand the present better and anticipate some of the possible futures.
I cannot say much about MENA except that we Europeans have contributed a great deal to the present situation (for reasons too long to go into here), but I will gladly share insights about Balkans or diaspora in Europe. As a member of diaspora and someone who is in touch with various diasporas here I would gladly explore that subject further. Key words are inclusion and education, that is the only way to create understanding in a society built of many different groups. With understanding comes acceptance and respect. Look at minorities in Belgium, they are all in their own closed ecosystems and then you have Belgians further divided as well. There are walls between people here unfortunately (and it’s like that all over Europe). Even Merkel admitted some years ago that German multiculturalism experiment has failed (interesting to see her in all out support of immigration in EU after saying something like that in 2010).
Unfortunately today’s power systems seem to thrive on division and fear: it is constantly used in Balkans to nudge the people towards a certain goal, to distract people and to win elections for example. Look at England or US elections, desperately attacking Russia on all fronts,trying desperately to hide their own mess.
I participated in overthrowing Milosevic in Serbia in 2000. Back then I was just a teenager, believing in such revolutions and believing violence is justified as a response to oppressive systems. Turns out there are many levels of violence, control and manipulation.
Now I despise it in every way. I am convinced that in violent revolutions we create an environment in which violent people come to the top of the power structure, it is also very logical since that is how we have set our values (if we have democratic elections where we can determine a value of a person through its contribution to the society, intelligence and other values then we create a system in which there is no place for violent people). The short term consequences of violent changes of power systems are bad. The long term consequences, however, are much worse, they are horrifying! Violent men surround themselves with more violent men (and they choose people less competent than them so they can stay in power). They create this negative natural selection systems in which your set of “values” determines your chances of success. The damage done to future generations by creating this kind of system is immeasurable, as is now visible in Croatia and Serbia. People who can’t deal with it leave the country, those that stay fall in line or fall in depression…
In any case, @alberto if you think I can be useful in your proposal I will gladly help. Curious to hear your thoughts about the issues raised in that proposal.
My thoughts, @jasen_lakic, are that already this discussion is displaying some of ethnography’s magic dust: the ability to push back against a research question, redefine it, improve upon it. Our methodology enables more of this. So, I am seeing a good fit. As @amelia is saying, we could define the added value of our proposal precisely in terms of “listening without prejudice”, as the late George Michael would have said.
Yeah great approach, I believe the best solutions for anything are found when bringing together people with all kinds of cultural backgrounds, education or experiences
I reached out to our contact in OICD, and he reacted with enthusiasm. We have since produced a very rough draft (one and a half page) of what we want to do. We are not yet ready to share it with the world at large, but if anyone here wants a sneak peek go here and ask for access.