The Limits of Antiradicalization
This chapter summarizes the arguments of the book, reveals the consequences of these programs, and presents alternative policy options, offering three main criticisms. First, these programs fail to engage with how masculinity and femininity inform the radicalization process, and cannot understand personal drivers or the sociopolitical environment. Second, male radicalization is unreflectively linked to a flawed masculinity, and women’s radicalization depends on orientalist stereotypes about passivity and subjugation. Solutions hinge on particular ideals of masculinity that few men can obtain, while women are seen as a rescue mission. Third, a paternalist logic justifies intervention in ordinary lives in the name of security, yet fails to deliver. A gendered differential exists in the impact of counter-radicalization measures, and there are wider consequences. Individuals are denied agency, not given the option to critique for themselves the non-radical versions of agency and self being presented to them, engendering a limited form of loyalty to and security for the state.