Scholarlink

<p>Current debates question whether society’s mainstream is undergoing radicalization, introducing the oxymoron <i>radicalized mainstream</i>. In this theoretical meta-reflection, radicalization is defined as individuals’ increasing deviance from superordinate important, socially accepted norms by increasing conformity with (sub)group norms. Applying this notion to established radicalization theories, comparing social psychological and political science definitions of radicalization, similarities and differences between contextualized and decontextualized understandings are highlighted. While it seems paradoxical for the mainstream to radicalize—since logically, deviance from the norm cannot be normative—a radicalized mainstream is nonetheless conceivable in relation to a superordinate injunctive norm that prescribes what should be done but is violated by subordinate <i>mainstream</i> norms. Resulting from the theoretical discussion, three conceptions of radicalized mainstreams are distinguished, all understood as norms deviating from injunctive norms: (I) descriptive norms, (II) consensus-overestimating injunctive but less shared norms, and (III) norms of groups that are logically subordinate to larger norm-setting groups, as in the case of national mainstreams in relation to supranational norms.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Radicalized Mainstream: Turning an Oxymoron into Something Meaningful

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月25日

查看全文
  • Fabian M. Hess

摘要

Current debates question whether society’s mainstream is undergoing radicalization, introducing the oxymoron radicalized mainstream. In this theoretical meta-reflection, radicalization is defined as individuals’ increasing deviance from superordinate important, socially accepted norms by increasing conformity with (sub)group norms. Applying this notion to established radicalization theories, comparing social psychological and political science definitions of radicalization, similarities and differences between contextualized and decontextualized understandings are highlighted. While it seems paradoxical for the mainstream to radicalize—since logically, deviance from the norm cannot be normative—a radicalized mainstream is nonetheless conceivable in relation to a superordinate injunctive norm that prescribes what should be done but is violated by subordinate mainstream norms. Resulting from the theoretical discussion, three conceptions of radicalized mainstreams are distinguished, all understood as norms deviating from injunctive norms: (I) descriptive norms, (II) consensus-overestimating injunctive but less shared norms, and (III) norms of groups that are logically subordinate to larger norm-setting groups, as in the case of national mainstreams in relation to supranational norms.