Arun Kundnani is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University. He is the author of The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror (Verso, 2014) and The End of Tolerance: Racism in 21st Century Britain (Pluto, 2007). A former editor of the journal Race & Class, he has been an Open Society fellow and a scholar-in-residence at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, New York Public Library. Despite the consensus that radicalization and violent extremism are a major threat to political, economic and social security of contemporary societies, the debate about what precisely is radicalization continues to remain plagued by a significant degree of conceptual confusion. What do you see as the most pressing conceptual problems associated with radicalization and violent extremism? In Eqbal Ahmad’s 1998 lecture “Terrorism, theirs and ours,” the legendary Pakistani scholar and activist demonstrated that, in official US literature on terrorism, definitions of the term are necessarily vague, the word’s use is selective and inconsistent, terrorism’s causes are left mysterious, and yet terrorists can be named with complete certainty. The word is bent out of shape for a purpose: in order that certain kinds of political violence be highly visible, the subject of moral outrage, a threat to civilization itself, while other forms of violence – those carried out by, for example, the Ku Klux Klan, the Contras, the Pentagon, or the CIA – are hidden. The conceptual problems with the terms “radicalisation” and “violent extremism” are essentially the same as what Ahmad described with respect to the term “terrorism” (Ahmad 2006). As with “terrorism,” when closely examined, the terminology of “extremism” and “radicalisation” reveals itself to be, in Nietzsche’s phrase, a “mobile army of metaphors” that is “rhetorically intensified, metamorphosed, adorned, and after long usage seems to a nation fixed, canonic, and binding.” (Nietzsche 1954, p. 46–7) The point is that the conceptual

中文翻译：

---

激进的好，坏和丑陋：Arun Kundnani访谈

Arun Kundnani是纽约大学媒体，文化和传播学的客座助理教授。他是《穆斯林来了！伊斯兰恐惧症，极端主义和国内反恐战争（Verso，2014年）和《宽容的终结：21世纪英国的种族主义》（冥王星，2007年）。他曾是《种族与阶级》（Race＆Class）杂志的编辑，曾担任开放社会研究员，并在纽约公共图书馆的朔姆堡黑人文化研究中心任驻学者。尽管人们普遍认为激进化和暴力极端主义是对当代社会政治，经济和社会安全的主要威胁，但关于激进化到底是什么的争论仍在很大程度上困扰着概念上的混乱。您认为与激进化和暴力极端主义有关的最紧迫的概念问题是什么？在Eqbal Ahmad 1998年的演讲“恐怖主义，他们的和我们的恐怖主义”中，这位传奇的巴基斯坦学者和激进主义者证明，在美国官方的恐怖主义文献中，该术语的定义必然含糊不清，该词的使用具有选择性和前后矛盾，恐怖主义的起因不为人知。 ，但可以完全确定恐怖分子的名字。这个词的变形是有目的的：为了使某些类型的政治暴力高度可见，道德上的愤怒主题是对文明本身的威胁，而其他形式的暴力-例如由Ku Klux Klan，Contras，五角大楼或CIA都被隐藏了。术语“激进化”和“暴力极端主义”的概念性问题与艾哈迈德就“恐怖主义”一词所描述的本质上是相同的（Ahmad 2006）。与“恐怖主义”一样，在仔细研究后，用尼采的话来说，“极端主义”和“激进化”的用语表明自己是“隐喻的流动军队”，“经过反复地修辞，变态，装饰和长期使用”在一个固执，规范且具有约束力的国家看来。” （Nietzsche 1954，p。46-7）关键是概念 装饰，并且在长期使用之后，似乎对这个国家是固定的，规范的和有约束力的。” （Nietzsche 1954，p。46-7）关键是概念 装饰，并且在长期使用之后，似乎对这个国家是固定的，规范的和有约束力的。” （Nietzsche 1954，p。46-7）关键是概念