Alienated radicals and detached deviants: what do the lessons of the 1970 Falls Curfew and the alienation–radicalisation hypothesis mean for current British approaches to counter-terrorism?

Abstract

British counter-terrorism policy-makers are at the centre of two inherently problematic debates. First, there is the debate regarding the worthiness of incorporating theoretical and historical discussions into the policy-making process, and second, there is the discourse surrounding the nature of alienation and how this affects counter-terrorism as a whole. This article seeks to demonstrate how the empirical base provided by theoretical and historical discussions is not only of benefit to but also a necessity in the policy-making process. Although critical theoretical discussions and ‘problem-solving’ techniques may appear to be polar opposites, the observations of theorists such as Dryzek (1987) suggest that in reality the two approaches are often interdependent. Comparing the alienation–radicalisation hypothesis with the 1970 Falls Curfew, this discussion suggests that current approaches to counter-terrorism need to take into account the radicalising affect of alienation both for communities and for state forces. By learning the lessons of the Falls Curfew, we can see that making communities the focus of counter-terrorist initiatives is not enough and that there needs to be a partnership process between state and non-state actors. Looking at the Curfew through this framework, this article critiques current counter-terrorist policies and shows that if integration is the ultimate aim of these policies then it needs to come from both sides that and discussions of counter-terrorism, both academic and political, need to recognise this.

Keywords:

• terrorism
• counter-terrorism
• Britain
• alienation
• radicalisation
• Falls Curfew

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Prof. John Flint, Dr. Marie Breen Smyth, Máiréad Enright, Dr. Fiona de Londras and Sioned Pearce for their help and support with this article.

Notes

1. Following on from the writings of theorists such as Schwartz and Seeman, this article shall use the terms ‘detachment’ and ‘alienation’ interchangeably but accepts that future discussions will need to explore this further.

2. The Marxian definition of alienation as the antithesis of unalienation is also sustained by Finifter. His study, ‘Dimensions of Political alienation’ (1970), conceptualises alienation as one end of a continuum whose opposite extreme is defined by the concepts of support or integration. Attempting to outline a conceptual framework within which political alienation can be analysed, Finifter's examination builds upon this contrast.

Notes on contributor

Deirdre Duffy is a Research Associate in the International Centre for Public and Social Policy (IcPSP) at the School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, University of Nottingham. Previously she was a Research Associate and member of the Housing team at the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR), Sheffield Hallam University. Most recently she has conducted research for the Housing Corporation, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and the European Commission. She has produced a number of academic journal articles and conference papers on issues relating to community engagement, youth policy and regulation, and the needs of vulnerable groups.