Wappies, religion nuts, conspiracy nuts – plenty of swear words for those who believe that corona was invented by Bill Gates, that God wants us to kill cartoonists, that the Mossad organized ‘9/11’ or that Mark Rutte is an alien reptile. But why do people believe such outrageousness – are they deranged or at least irrational?
No, say scientists who advocate taking conspiracy theorists, extremists and other radicalized citizens ‘seriously’, ‘listening’ and not dismissing them as moral idiots or cognitive toddlers. Instead, we must look for underlying motives of people who tend to believe extreme ideas. Such as the feeling of not being seen socially or not being counted.
This search can be done with the help of concepts such as epistemic injustice, with which philosopher Miranda Fricker characterizes ignoring other people’s views or experiences as inferior. Or Chantal Mouffe’s ‘agonistic’ pluralism, the idea that democracy is always controversial and that not one political vision should push others away as irrational.
Theologian and philosopher Rik Peels joins that line of methodical apologists. In his inaugural lecture The extremist and the scientist On Friday, he advocated a new paradigm in radicalization research at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Extremists are not crazy, according to Peels. With some exceptions, they are generally normal people. A more nuanced view of rationality, with contributions from philosophers and theologians, should make this clear. His inaugural lecture is part of an international research project that he leads, Extreme beliefswhich should result in seven academic books.
You have jumped on the radicalization research bandwagon, to put it disrespectfully.
“Certainly, but we also do something different. A lot of research is being done into radicalization and conspiracy thinking, but theology and philosophy have so far been virtually absent. While I think they can make an important contribution. Not by coming up with yet another explanation for the phenomenon, but by providing concepts that lead to new perspectives and other questions.”
What does that achieve?
“First of all, a more layered idea of the rationality of the extremist. There has long been a belief in science that you should not pathologize extremists, they are generally not sick people. But does that mean they are rational? I view this from the theory of ‘non-ideal epistemology’ of philosophers such as Robin McKenna. An ‘ideal observer’ has all the evidence. But if you take into account the limited access that many people have to knowledge, the thinking styles they use, the dynamics of groups in which they move, you will understand that they are rational in their way of seeing and thinking. That can shed light on the extremist’s internal life.”
How do you, as a researcher, prevent yourself from falling into relativism, the idea that every ‘narrative’ is equally good or valuable?
“Truth does not have to become relative. Human beliefs can have subjective rationality without being objectively rational. In the Middle Ages, people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. In their worldview that was rational, they did not yet have access to evidence to the contrary. We must keep epistemology, what we think we know and how, separate from ontology, how reality works.”
But what is striking about conspiracy thinking is that people continue to believe in it despite all evidence. Is unreasonable doubt still rational?
“You always have boosters who know better but propagate such theories for political reasons, for example. But a large proportion of people who go along with it will be genuinely convinced of it, due to their situation in life or experiences with the government. It is not knowledge but it can be subjectively rational. People are meaning-giving beings, they look for the meaning of something, patterns, based on sources that appeal to them in their situation.”
That is a psychological fact, does that also make the outcome rational? Your colleague Quassim Cassam calls conspiracy theories ‘not only incorrect but also intellectually harmful’.
“Then you are talking about hardcore conspiracy thinking, with a capital letter. QAnon, or David Icke with his reptiles. That is both epistemically and morally harmful, I share that view. But my research into extremism and radicalization is much broader. You can distinguish all kinds of types – new ones are being added all the time, see corona – that overlap but are not identical. Moreover, you also have people who on the fence to sit. These are the ones who have doubts, who have the feeling: ‘there might be something in it’. Or who are frustrated that a vision that appeals to them is not given a chance or is dismissed in advance as undiscussable.”
But surely that can be justified, as you yourself also write about Holocaust deniers?
“Scientists must also speak to people who believe that, but that is indeed not possible with an open mind. Well, the question is: why do you believe that, how do you come to that conclusion? We tend to stereotype radicalized people as pathological, immoral, irrational. I try to show that it is more complex and can differ from person to person. You have to keep an eye on this, scientifically, but also because otherwise you run the risk of categorically dismissing these people. That is bad for society. Don’t label them as ‘irrational’ in advance.”
Is the goal also to help with deradicalization?
“Certainly, but deradicalization is not a mirror image of radicalization. You can offer people different narratives. Think of imams who discuss the interpretation of texts with radical Muslim youth. You have to work from their worldview. Religions are a source of radicalization, but they also have means to counter it.”
Aren’t you afraid that you are making extremism respectable or giving it oxygen?
“No. You must continue to distinguish between scientific research and public debate. I was asked to participate in a recent TV documentary about right-wing extremism. I thanked you for that because I felt there was insufficient response. Then you become a megaphone.”
So continue to contradict.
“Absolute. Not at every birthday party, which is not always wise, but certainly in the public debate. Always keep doing it.”