Radical politics denotes the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform.[1] The process of adopting radical views is termed radicalisation.
The word radical derives from the Latin radix ("root") and Late Latin rādīcālis ("of or pertaining to the root, radical"). Historically, political use of the term referred exclusively to a form of progressive electoral reformism, known as Radicalism, that had developed in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. However, the denotation has changed since its 18th century coinage to comprehend the entire political spectrum, though retaining the connotation of "change at the root".[1]
History
editThe Oxford English Dictionary traces usage of 'radical' in a political context to 1783.[2] The Encyclopædia Britannica records the first political usage of 'radical' as ascribed to Charles James Fox, a British Whig Party parliamentarian who in 1797 proposed a 'radical reform' of the electoral system to provide universal manhood suffrage, thereby idiomatically establishing the term 'Radicals' as a label denoting supporters of the reformation of British Parliament.[3]
Throughout the 19th century, the concept of radical politics broadened into a variety of political notions and doctrines. Party politics in England began to favour moderate positions, marginalising other movements into more politically aggressive factions.[citation needed] As open advocacy of republicanism was illegal in France following the Napoleonic Wars, Radicals emerged under similar reformist ideals as their British counterparts, though they later branched out to form the Radical-Socialist movement with a focus on proletarian solidarity.[3][4] With the rise of Marxism, the notion of radical politics shifted away from reformism and became more associated with revolutionary politics.[3] In United States politics, the term is used pejoratively among conservatives and moderates to denote political extremism,[3][5] with the 19th-century Cyclopaedia of Political Science describing it as "characterized less by its principles than by the manner of their application".[6]
During the 20th century, radical politicians took power in many countries across the world. Such radical leaders included Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin in Russia, Mao Zedong in China, Adolf Hitler in Germany, as well as more mainstream radicals such as Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom.[1][7]
Positions
editStatus quo change
editThe common feature to all radical political forms is a view that some fundamental change is required of the status quo. For an array of anti-capitalist forms, this manifests in anti-establishment reactions to modern neoliberal regimes.[1]
Concept of ideology
editThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the radical concept of ideology to be that:
- While social conditions exist "that are vulnerable to criticism and protest; ideology exists to protect these social conditions from attack by those who are disadvantaged by them."[8]
- "Ideology conserves by camouflaging flawed social conditions, giving an illusory account of their rationale or function, in order to legitimate and win acceptance of them."[8]
This view reflects "a consensus among radicals of all stripes on the role of law as a dissembling force to safeguard the unjust relations of the status quo."[8] This radical critique of ideology is especially prominent within post-leftism.[9] In addressing specific issues, some radical politics may completely forgo any overarching ideological plan.[1]
Difference from extremism
editAstrid Bötticher identifies several differences between radicalism and extremism, among them in goals (idealistic vs. restorative, emancipatory vs. anti-democratic), morals (particular vs. universal), approach towards diversity (acceptance vs. disdain), and use of violence (pragmatic and selective vs. legitimate and acceptable).[10]
Even though the terms far right and extreme right are often used interchangeably, they are not the same and the differentiation is very important. Fundamentally speaking the difference between the political left and the political right, according to dutch political scientist Cas Mudde is the contrasting views of differences between individuals. The left generally believes that differences are unnatural and should be evened out to achieve equity, whereas the political right believes that these differences are natural and are either not the state's place to intervene or should even be defended/celebrated by the state. Now within the political right there are the far right and the extreme right. One of the major differences is that the extreme right actively celebrates the differences between people, supports these and believes that due to the allocation of these some people are superior to others. This belief is inherently elitist and out of it are born phenomena of white supremacy, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, xenophobia and many more forms of discrimination.
While the radical right aims to reform democracies and reject fundamental liberal values, it still exists and functions within a democratic system, or in other words, trusts the power of the people. The extreme right on the other hand is revolutionary and inherently anti-democratic. They reject majority rule; they don't trust the power of the people.[11] As previously established the far right has a tense relationship with liberal, democratic values, mainly with the protection of minorities and pluralism. [12]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ a b c d e Pugh, Jonathan, ed. (2009). What is Radical Politics Today?. Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 9780230236257.
- ^ "radical". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) "That the omnipotence of the state is not lodged, by the constitution, with the people, but with the whole legislative body in parliament assembled, was a radical doctrine of this obnoxious ministry."
- ^ a b c d "Radical (ideologist)". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 10, 2020.
- ^ Hayward, J. E. S. "The Official Philosophy of the French Third Republic: Leon Bourgeois and Solidarism". International Review of Social History.
- ^ Sanders, Mike, ed. (2001). "General Introduction". Women and Radicalism in the Nineteenth Century. p. xix. ISBN 0-415-20526-3. Retrieved 18 September 2020.
Conservatives frequently deployed 'radical' as a blanket term of abuse
- ^ Block, Maurice (1893). "Radicalism". Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States. p. 492.
- ^ Short, Clare (2009). "The Forces Shaping Radical Politics Today". In Pugh, Jonathan (ed.). What is Radical Politics Today?. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 59. ISBN 9780230236257.
For example, Mrs Thatcher was radical, the British National Party is radical and Hitler was radical.
- ^ a b c Sypnowich, Christine (2001-10-22). "Law and Ideology". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.).
- ^ McQuinn, Jason (2004). "Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind".
- ^ Bötticher, Astrid (2017). "Towards Academic Consensus Definitions of Radicalism and Extremism". Perspectives on Terrorism. 11 (4): 73–77. ISSN 2334-3745. JSTOR 26297896.
- ^ Weisskircher, Manès (2020-04-16). "Cas Mudde, "The Far Right Today"". Acta Politica. 56 (3): 587–589. doi:10.1057/s41269-020-00157-5. ISSN 0001-6810.
- ^ Castelli Gattinara, Pietro (2020-09). "The study of the far right and its three E's: why scholarship must go beyond Eurocentrism, Electoralism and Externalism". French Politics. 18 (3): 314–333. doi:10.1057/s41253-020-00124-8. ISSN 1476-3419.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
- Abcarian, Gilbert (1971). American Political Radicalism: Contemporary Issues and Orientations.
- Walter, Edward (1992). The Rise and Fall of Leftist Radicalism in America. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 0-275-94276-7.
- March, Luke (2012). Radical Left Parties in Europe. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-57897-7.
External links
edit- The M and S Collection at the Library of Congress contains materials on radical movements.