| Abstrakt: |
ABSTRACTWith citizens turning to extremism, ‘counter-narratives’ have been forwarded as a remedy for online ‘counter-radicalisation’. Still, the relationship between counter-narratives and counter-radicalisation remains theoretically under-examined. Taking as its starting point a policy proposal by the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), and drawing on the work of Arendt and Kant on judgement, this article explores the link between political mind-change and the counter-narrative forms of logic, facts and humour. By understanding radicalisation as an error of judgement, the text examines implicit assumptions about politics and the mind in counter-narrative policy. While counter-narratives of fact and logic emphasise the self-evident nature of political decision-making by ‘saying what is’, the humorous counter-narratives, meant to disarm through laughter-induced aporia, fail to live up to the instrumental logic required by the policymakers. Rather than representing a solution to the problem of radicalisation, the counter-narrative remedy is better described as a ‘vehicle for sense’ in the discourse on extremism. |
