Radicalism vs. Extremism

[Donkey]

I think that radicalism and extremism are two terms that get blurred and or mixed up. Maybe because in my instances the both terms apply (e.g. radical extremists). Perhaps we could come up with a working definition of the terms, and then discuss their similarities, differences, merits, faults and (potentially) interdependencies.

I think that the difference lies in that radicalism refers to the method, whereas extremism refers to the end. Thoughts?

[Michael]

Very interesting question there. I'll have to think about this for a bit. I'm not so sure on that means/ends distinction though. :ummm:

I'll begin by observing that "all extremists are radicals", but "not all radicals are extremists".

[andrewl]

I think that radicalism and extremism are two terms that get blurred and or mixed up. Maybe because in my instances the both terms apply (e.g. radical extremists). Perhaps we could come up with a working definition of the terms, and then discuss their similarities, differences, merits, faults and (potentially) interdependencies.

I think that the difference lies in that radicalism refers to the method, whereas extremism refers to the end. Thoughts?

One of the things i actually retained from my minor in classics (with some dabbling in the ancient greek language) was to always look at the etymology of a word to discover its original meaning. From there I can get a sense of how the word is used today.... so....

I chose http://www.etymonline.com/index.php for my definitions.

Radical.

Ironically, this means 'root'. (from radish.). "Radical" is about things like fundamentalism, ideology, simplicity, originality, purity, primality.... The radical is an ideologue.

Extreme.

This means the 'outermost'. "Extremist" is fairly self explanatory. It is about people who are and act from the very outside of societal norms. The Extremist is (using today's language) a terrorist.



Some possible examples of radicals, extremists, and 'radical extremists'.

Darwin, Galileo, Einstein, Beethoven, Ghandi, Marx, MLK, Thoreau, (to name only a few) could be considered radicals but probably not extremists. They all presented society with ideas that challenged the entrenched and normally indisputable truths held by society at the time. In other words, they challenged the 'root' of society.

Abortion clinic bombers, death squads, people who protest gay funerals, suicide bombers, david koresh, jim jones, mcveigh (to name only a few) could be considered extremists. But probably not 'radicals'. They seek to change society from the outside of what would normally be considered acceptable behavior. They do not challenge anything fundamental about societal beliefs or truths, they really just piss people off.

However, there also exists what might be considered "radical extremists".

Islamicists, Neo-Conservatives, Zionists, numerous religious figures and institutions throughout history, (to name just a few) could be considered radical extremists.

Ultimately the original thesis posed in this thread was that radicalism is a 'means', and extremism is an 'end'. IMO, this was the right track, but it is actually the opposite. Radicalism is actually the 'ends', extremism is the 'means'.

Andrew

[andrewl]

Very interesting question there. I'll have to think about this for a bit. I'm not so sure on that means/ends distinction though. :ummm:

I'll begin by observing that "all extremists are radicals", but "not all radicals are extremists".


Not all radicals are extremists. Not all extremists are radicals.

Andrew

[SMadsen]

As far as the actual meanings of the words, I'll have to agree with Andrew *)

Radicalism seems to be a trait of ideology. It's about ways to think. An inward thing. Extremism seems to be a result of ideology. An outward thing. About ways to act, as Andrew says, at the very edge of or beyond societal norms.

As such, no one needs to act or display their ideas, no matter how radical they are. But I wonder if an enactment of ideas doesn't require a certain amount of adherence to the ideas themselves. The question therefore seems to be if ideas that result in extremist acts are always considered radical (often, I think, it's quite other things than the face value of ideas that trigger extremist behavior, - things like racism, for instance, always seem to stem from certain kinds of personal problems).


*) Except for the part about the terrorist definition. A terrorist is certainly an extremist but an extremist is not a terrorist, per se.

[Michael]

The more I think this over, the more I'm finding the two terms to be very difficult to discern in actual practice.

Certainly the etymology of the words is relevant, but we must also decide whether or not one is looking for a theoretical or philosophic meaning of the words, or the wide variation of usage in popular culture.

For example, take 'off-road biking' (cycling) to mountains and cliffs, or helicopter skiing... are these sports 'extreme' sports or 'radical' sports?

I think its important to recognize that some words can have a 'correct' theoretical meaning and yet have a multitude of other meanings when used in other contexts. Certainly the field of chemistry uses a precise term of "radical" as well.

That is to say, I think the terms can be defined clearly, but only in respect a particular context. :)

P.S. I also think it is important to note the "ism" at the end of each word. That which is 'radical' might not be a product or associated with 'radicalism'. That which is 'extreme' might not be 'extremism'.

[Donkey]

One of the things i actually retained from my minor in classics (with some dabbling in the ancient greek language) was to always look at the etymology of a word to discover its original meaning. From there I can get a sense of how the word is used today.... so....

I chose http://www.etymonline.com/index.php for my definitions.

Radical.

Ironically, this means 'root'. (from radish.). "Radical" is about things like fundamentalism, ideology, simplicity, originality, purity, primality.... The radical is an ideologue.

Extreme.

This means the 'outermost'. "Extremist" is fairly self explanatory. It is about people who are and act from the very outside of societal norms. The Extremist is (using today's language) a terrorist.



Some possible examples of radicals, extremists, and 'radical extremists'.

Darwin, Galileo, Einstein, Beethoven, Ghandi, Marx, MLK, Thoreau, (to name only a few) could be considered radicals but probably not extremists. They all presented society with ideas that challenged the entrenched and normally indisputable truths held by society at the time. In other words, they challenged the 'root' of society.

Abortion clinic bombers, death squads, people who protest gay funerals, suicide bombers, david koresh, jim jones, mcveigh (to name only a few) could be considered extremists. But probably not 'radicals'. They seek to change society from the outside of what would normally be considered acceptable behavior. They do not challenge anything fundamental about societal beliefs or truths, they really just piss people off.

However, there also exists what might be considered "radical extremists".

Islamicists, Neo-Conservatives, Zionists, numerous religious figures and institutions throughout history, (to name just a few) could be considered radical extremists.

Ultimately the original thesis posed in this thread was that radicalism is a 'means', and extremism is an 'end'. IMO, this was the right track, but it is actually the opposite. Radicalism is actually the 'ends', extremism is the 'means'.

Andrew
Interesting. Though I feel as if the modern meanings, and therefore the meanings under which I was operating, may mean something slightly different, especially depending on the context.

I guess when I think of "Radical" I think of someone taking action by means that are very different from the normal mode of getting things done. Perhaps this speaks to the etymology. Radicals are people who are willing to resort to extreme (dammit) measures?

When I think of extremists I think of people who are so far outside societal norms (on the extremes) to the extent that their essentially incompatible with any standard concept of society.

Neither radicals nor extremists need necessarily be violent. Fred Phelps would be an extremist who is not violent. Pacifists in the face of violence would be radicals...

Ok, these two words seem to be running circles in my head now. The more I try to parse them, the more confused I get. Though I guess that's why I brought it to the big guns in the first place. ;)


(I'm tempted to just say that "Extremist" is the pejorative of "Radical" and go about my business. :p )

[SMadsen]

(I'm tempted to just say that "Extremist" is the pejorative of "Radical" and go about my business. :p )
That might not be such a wrong thing to say :)

[Michael]

I've been giving this topic some thought over the last few days. One thing that I just can't get past is the way the terms are almost interchangeable in common or popular usage.

Take fashion for an example - many 'fashionistas' would describe their passion as "extreme" but assert that it is not radical. However, I'd assert that the 'end' (funky clothes for example) is radical (compared to the norm) and not at all extreme. Going naked would be extreme. In this respect, radical is all about the 'end' and the 'extremism' is in the 'means' not the 'end' (as it were).

In such cases, the definition of 'radical' and 'extreme' is always relative to some undefined 'norm'. Indeed, I'm reminded of some old 'skater-lingo' to describe a particularly impressive move as "radical" when in fact, the move could easily be described as "extreme" given that it is at the extreme end of 'possible moves' on a skateboard. But then, the move is also 'radical' if the majority of skateboarders don't do the move. If perhaps a majority of skateboarders did that particular move, it would still be 'extreme' as a 'highly dangerous move', but would no longer be 'radical' if everyone was doing it all the time. In such a case, the 'un-radical norm' could be an extreme.

That being said, Donkey did specify both terms with "isms" suggesting that he's specifically addressing the terms with respect to ideology and as such, how fashionistas or skateboarders use the terms might be considered to be somewhat beside the point.

With respect to ideology, I think one can meaningfully make the 'means/ends' distinction between the terms radicalism and extremism, but one must be aware that these terms can't be taken as ideologies themselves and that the terms are entirely and always relative. They really seem to be only useful terms as descriptors of particular factions or ideas of any given ideology.

[Michael]

(I'm tempted to just say that "Extremist" is the pejorative of "Radical" and go about my business. :p )
That won't work as a rule.

In so far as religious fundamentalism is 'religious extremism', I believe that a Christian fundamentalist might consider "extremism" in the name of God to be quite admirable (and non-perjorative) and yet to be called a "radical" (in religious matters) is far more perjorative.

My point is that the two terms are entirely and always relative. They require a reference point to have substantive meaning.

[The Drunk Guy]

Radiremism. That's my solution. Spread the word. ;)

[Michael]

Radiremism. That's my solution. Spread the word. ;)
I prefer extradicalism - it flows off the tongue much better! :D

[The Drunk Guy]

I prefer extradicalism - it flows off the tongue much better! :D
Extra-dick-a-lism? haha

[Donkey]

With respect to ideology, I think one can meaningfully make the 'means/ends' distinction between the terms radicalism and extremism, but one must be aware that these terms can't be taken as ideologies themselves and that the terms are entirely and always relative. They really seem to be only useful terms as descriptors of particular factions or ideas of any given ideology.
I would certainly agree with this. I think people sometimes use them as such for pathos reasons, but they serve only to add depth to another ism (or sport, or whatever, as Michael was pointed out in the snipped part).
That won't work as a rule.

In so far as religious fundamentalism is 'religious extremism', I believe that a Christian fundamentalist might consider "extremism" in the name of God to be quite admirable (and non-perjorative) and yet to be called a "radical" (in religious matters) is far more perjorative.

My point is that the two terms are entirely and always relative. They require a reference point to have substantive meaning.
As a strict rule, no. Though I would question whether there is a significant number of fundamentalists who would refer to themselves as extremists. I would say that that term generally is reserved for the "other side."

I agree, though, that radical is probably used, or at least seen as a negative sometimes. In our culture I believe that there is an odd obsession with/devotion to the maintenance of the status quo. :erm:

[Dominick]

I've been called both and I don't see any problem with either of the words.


radical
1 relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something -> innovative or progressive
2 (of surgery) thorough and intended to be completely curative
3 advocating thorough political or social reform; politically extreme
4-8 the use in mathematics, etymology, music, botany and slang

while

extreme
1 very great -> not usual; exceptional -> very severe or serious
2 far from moderate, especially politically
3 furthest from the centre of a given point


None of these definition of either word give me reason to evade either label. Politically it's nothing more than a localization of ideas. I see no reason to interpret them in a pejorative manner.

[Michael]

I've been called both...
That would make you an extradical for sure then! :D

[Donkey]

That would make you an extradical for sure then! :D
I think it would make him "gnarly."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gnarly

These kooks have no idea what GNARLY is. Gnarly is when you've gone beyond radical (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=radical), beyond extreme (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=extreme), it's balls out danger, & or perfection, & or skill or all of that combined.

[Michael]

I think it would make him "gnarly."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gnarly
:rofl:

Btw, you could have just posted the word gnarly and clicked on the "U" symbol - we've got the UrbanDictionary BBCode here. :)