The Belgian public policies on counter-radicalization: an anthropological perspective

Ever since 9/11, a large series of measures centered on the problem of “radicalization” have taken off in various European countries. The recent attacks in Paris and Brussels and the departure of youngsters to Syria has furthermore spurred the development of public policies on this question at the Belgian level, often in communication with other European countries. This anthropologically driven research project seeks to examine the public policies on (de)radicalization that have been adopted in the Belgian context. The measures implemented to counter radicalization processes have been at the heart of a burgeoning scholarly field of study, which have critically assessed the dysfunctional effects of such measures. Several scholars have indeed paid attention to the ways in which de-radicalization policies turn Muslims into suspect communities, the securitizing effects upon multicultural policies, or how such counter-radicalisation policies produce new political stakeholders and stimulate communal identities. Building upon these insights, this PhD project will seek to examine how these public policies on de-radicalization in Belgium result in new forms of collaborations which accord a new sense of agency to the different governmental levels and how these policies are being understood by the professionals on the ground.

Two research questions will thus inform this research project. The first question concerns the relationship between the different governmental levels and whether one can speak of a ‘Belgian policy’ of de-radicalization? What is the relationship between the different governmental actors? How do regional and local governments interact? To which extent do the public policies on de-radicalization provide for a new platform for inter-federal governmental exchange?  What is the role of the regional governments in this process? And to which extent can we observe distinct differences between a ‘francophone’ and a ‘Flemish’ approach on these questions?

The second question addresses the ways in which local stakeholders translate and negotiate with these measures on de-radicalization. What is the position of social workers, youth workers in this process? Do they act as active stakeholders, or rather as passive recipients? What kinds of contestations arise? How do these policies trigger debates and conversations around the professional identity and ethics of the professionals? What kind of protocols are being assigned and developed?

In order to account for the complex ways in which de-radicalization policies are being developed and implemented, a qualitative research analysis combined with a multi-sited ethnography will be adopted. Such a methodological approach will enable a detailed grasp of the “local” effect of broader policies by documenting and understanding how security policies produce and sustain a new understanding of what counts as danger, and how these – on turn – are being mediated and contested on the ground.