The word radical has a number of meanings, one of which involves "getting to the root of the matter." This analogy is helpful in focusing attention on the key characteristics of the term, and on its various usages within social science. When people talk about "radicals," they mean those who take ideas and concepts back to first principles. They are those who are unafraid of laying bare what is hidden, subterranean, or uncomfortable to discuss. Radicals do not mind upsetting the status quo, received wisdom, or "common sense" conceptions of any kind. To talk about radicalism is therefore to talk about the belief systems of radicals. Yet what is it that characterizes radicalism, and how does this impact our understanding of knowledge generally?
As is clear from the above, radicalism is not a concept that denotes a particular set of ideas or a particular approach, in the manner of many other terms in the lexicon of social science. When one discusses Marxism, it is clear that this relates to the word and ideas of Karl Marx and his many followers. The same cannot be said of radicalism, which is a concept that is positional or contextual. Whether a given ideology or stance can be regarded as radical depends on where it stands in relation to dominant or "accepted" ideas. Thus a "radical conservative" (if this is not an oxymoron) is someone whose radicalism is defined in relation to dominant conservative ideas. He or she wishes to get to the "root" of conservatism, or of the problems discussed by conservatives. Radical conservatism is therefore not inherently radical, it is only radical in relation to other conservative ideas. Likewise, radicalism only exists insofar as there are ideas that are mainstream, orthodox, and widely accepted.
Radicalism can also be regarded as contextually dependent. In other words, whether a set of ideas is radical depends on the context in which these ideas are being offered or pursued. Many ideas that were once perceived to be radical have, over the course of time, come to be regarded as mainstream. Thus, radicalism should be understood less as a description of a core orientation of the kind associated with labels such as "Marxist," "liberal," or "conservative," and more as a set of ideas that is inclined to query orthodoxy, whether it be secular, religious, social, or scientific. A starting point of this article is thus the contention that radicalism does not denote a particular set of ideas or arguments, but rather any ideology or position that takes issue (or appears to take issue) with settled, accepted or otherwise mainstream views. Some examples will help to clarify the above.
RADICALISM AS POSITIONAL AND CONTEXTUAL
As mentioned above, radicalism does not denote a particular set of ideas or arguments, but any argument that takes issue with accepted positions, however defined. In this positional sense, radicalism can be mapped in terms of certain well-known debates. To take an obvious starting point, Darwin’s account of evolution was once regarded as radical (as well as absurd and despicable) by mainstream commentary. However, from the late nineteenth century onward, more and more scientists in the West began to hold Darwinian views. A great deal of the evidence, from a wide variety of scientific and social scientific investigations, seemed to support the view that evolution takes place over very long periods of time and can be adduced to random genetic mutations. Darwinism, therefore, once a radical and heretical doctrine, became mainstream science. Likewise, those who opposed Darwinism, such as Christians and other religious groups, were once in the majority, but over the course of a century or so they became "minoritarian" in relation to issues in basic science. One might ask whether Darwinism or intelligent design should now be regarded as the more radical position. This is a moot point, however. In areas or communities that are deeply committed to a deist view of the universe, Darwinism remains a radical doctrine to be combated wherever possible. To Darwinists, the claims of creationists are radically conservative.
It is often held that radicalism is necessary because progress is impossible without challenges to orthodoxy. Thus, philosophers of science frequently reserve a special place for radical ideas as necessary, and indeed desirable. This usually comes with the caveat that radicals submit to the norms of falsification and experimentation. Radicalism can be good if it is seen to be in tune with the general tenor of scientific understanding, but it is less so when it appears to take issue with a certain set of expectations. Albert Einstein’s radicalism is useful on these terms, for example, but Sigmund Freud’s is less so, at least according to figures such as the philosopher Karl Popper (1902—1994). Those who oppose such a conventional view of scientific progress, such as Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998) and Paul Feyerabend (1924-1998), are themselves regarded as radicals by philosophers of science and social science because of their insistence on the relativism of knowledge claims. This kind of radicalism equates to the view that science does not deserve the special status many accord it, for it is merely one kind of "narrative" to set alongside other narratives—such as "Creationism"—that claim to offer privileged access to the true nature of things.
FROM SCIENCE TO IDEOLOGY
More generally, there have always been radical views that have challenged or undermined the mainstream. The twentieth century, for example, is often noted for the variety and impact of unorthodox, extreme, and nonmain-stream views that surfaced during this period. To illustrate the way in which radicalism is context-dependent, the century can be divided up into four periods: the interwar years; the postwar era up to the oil crisis of the mid-1970s; the period of conservative preeminence to the fall of the Berlin Wall; and finally the period of the "Post-Cold War Order," which carried over into the twenty-first century. Traversing a century of radicalisms will illustrate the changes in the nature and form of radicalism from modernity to what is often termed "postmodernity" or a "second" modernity.
In the interwar years (1918-1939), the world witnessed an astonishing burst of radicalism, radical parties, and radical politics. This was due to a number of factors, principally the impact of war, the rise of capitalism, and the perceived shortcomings of individualism. The radicalism of the Russian Revolution came out of a deep discontent with the inherited monarchic order. Bolshevism promised a world without hunger, hierarchy, or war, and a world without capitalism, individualism, or imperialism. The rise of Hitler owed a great deal to similar sentiments, although it translated into a different set of demands. Nevertheless, radicalism in this period meant collectivism, as opposed to individualism; state control, as opposed to the free market; and universalist claims, in the name of "proletarian internationalism" or Aryan superiority. The individual counted for little when compared with the needs of the class or the race. This common set of characteristics offered commentators such as Hannah Arendt, Karl Popper and Carl J. Friedrich license to roll up these otherwise diverse radicalisms into one overarching phenomenon: "totalitarianism." This was a radicalism that threatened the annihilation of prevailing orthodoxy, whether characterized as liberal or conservative.
In the postwar period (1945-1975) the dominant or mainstream ideology in most Western states was that associated with the work of the British economist John Maynard Keynes. The "postwar consensus" insisted on the growth of the public sector or welfare state, the extension of basic rights and liberties (as announced in the UN Charter), and the pursuit of policies of growth through the management of demand. Social-democratic or welfare-state thinking became dominant across the developed world.
In terms of political ideas and positions, "radicalism" at this point referred to two main tendencies: those who were opposed to Keynesian because it was too statist, and those who argued that it was not statist enough. With regard to the former, the period is noted for the emergence of neoliberal ideas associated with figures such as Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman and, later, Robert Nozick. Their radicalism consisted in the suggestion that the welfare state was despotic and heralded the end of choice, the end of the individual’s control over his or her fate, and the elimination of the entrepreneurial and risk-taking characteristics upon which economic growth depended. The state should give way to the market, they believed, not the other way around. At the same time, considerable interest developed in models of socialism that radicalized the terms of the postwar consensus while also seeking to avoid the perils of communist dictatorship. Multiple left-wing radicalisms emerged and flourished (e.g., The Frankfurt School, situationism, Maoism, "humanist Marxism"), reflecting the "postmaterialist" discontent with both Western and Eastern society that was to be such a feature of the late 1960s.
Other kinds of radicalism arose in this period out of the desire for "liberation," particularly liberation from racism, colonialism and, "patriarchy." Antiracism became a powerful current and gave birth to a number of radical groups and figures across the developing and developed world, including the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, and various figures in the civil rights movement, such as Martin Luther King Jr. Anticolonial or postcolonial demands were articulated in the work of writers such as Paolo Freire, Frantz Fanon, and Jean-Paul Sartre, while radical anticolonial movements swept the globe, led by figures such as Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh. For feminists, the problem was the "patriarchal" assumptions of mainstream political theories and practices. "Radical feminism" spared little in its critique of the exclusionary and demeaning character of patriarchal practices. Women had to assert not equality, but their difference from men. This entailed developing novel and inclusive strategies in relation to oppressive discourses wherever they were found.
The oil crisis of 1973 and 1974 was followed by a period of conservative preeminence, which put into relief what was at stake in these ideological battles and allowed advocates of what had been regarded as a deeply radical position to win support in the mainstream. In a matter of a decade, neoliberalism moved from being a deeply heterodox and radical position to being "common sense"—as described by prominent advocates such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Orthodoxy now shifted away from being protective of public services and demand-fuelled economic growth, moving toward a position hostile to the welfare state, "dependency culture," and public spending. This, in turn, encouraged a new set of radicalisms highlighting the perceived shortcomings of the prevailing political orthodoxy. Chief among these was the emergence of environmentalism. Associated with figures such as James Lovelock, who developed the "Gaia hypothesis," E. F. Schumacher and Ivan Illich, environ-mentalism was a response to the oil crisis and the perception that there were structural "limits to growth." The problem was not too little market, as advocated by the neoliberals, but too much. In particular, there was too much unfettered market activity in relation to scarce natural resources.
There was also a change in the morphology of radical activism during this period, coinciding with the decline of the mass party in the wake of the emergence of so-called new social movements. These movements were much more diffuse than mass parties, less ideological, and often very radical. This radicalism expressed itself in terms of a rejection of mainstream political processes in favor of "direct action" or DIY (do-it-yourself) practices.
The era of the "Post-Cold War Order," which began with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, has witnessed an explosion of radicalisms in response to widespread discontent with several new orthodoxies, particularly the "Washington Consensus," associated with the extension of neoliberal policies to many different areas of economic and social activity; the idea of the "clash of civilizations," positing an inevitable conflict between cultures; and the continuing dominance of individualism and consumerism.
In the 1990s an "antiglobalization movement" emerged in response to the neoliberal ideology that had come to prominence. This involved a panoply of radicalisms—some old, some new—all responding to the perceived shortcomings of the free-market policies pursued by global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Bank. The antiglobalization movement gives witness to one of the more remarked-upon features of the contemporary period, namely the proliferation of radical currents and energies, as opposed to their crystallization within mass parties united by a single ideology. This is not to be mistaken for the "end of ideology," as long lamented by cultural commentators such as Daniel Bell, Herbert Marcuse, and Francis Fukuyama, but rather the proliferation of ideologies, some of which are radical, while others are much less so.
Samuel Huntington’s "clash of civilization" thesis is perhaps both a result and a cause of the profusion of cultural and political radicalisms across the world. This is paradoxical in the same sense that globalization is, for while globalization seems to be drawing people closer together, it also renders "local" resistance more intense and radical. Thus, key radicalisms that emerged at the start of the twenty-first century include neoconservatism and Islamic fundamentalism. Both are responses to perceived isolation and cultural embattlement: the former in defense of values associated with the imperiled Greco-Roman civilization; the latter in defense of an ever more literal reading of the Qu’ran. Each faces the other as a defensive response against incorporation into what are perceived to be homogenizing global forces beyond the control of distinct nations and cultures.
More generally, any set of ideas that challenges the supremacy of the free market, of dominant interpretations of ideals such as equality and freedom, or of the idea of the individual as preeminently a consumer will be perceived by the mainstream as "radical." In this sense, there are many sources of radicalism, including religion (and not just Islam). There has also been a rise in the influence of all manner of fundamentalisms, New Age ideas, alternative therapies and perspectives, and postmaterial ideas and ways of living that stress the need to escape from the dominant ethic and values.
FROM MODERN TO POSTMODERN RADICALISM?
In the political sense, radicalism has ceased to express itself on the same terms that marked the radical currents of the twentieth century. Radicalism had one goal during that period: the transformation of the existing world into a world that would, so it was claimed, be markedly better than the one displaced. Today’s radicalisms are rarely built from such certainties. Nor are they, in the main, built on the kinds of universalist ambitions that characterized earlier radicalisms. Instead, they are partial, sectional, particularistic, local, and fragmented. Where commentators once lamented the prospect of being engulfed by a singular countervailing radicalism ("totalitarianism"), there are now many radical currents and tendencies—some benign, and others much less so. Orthodoxy, however defined, does not have one rival but many, and radical ideas are often resolutely minoritarian. Ideas, positions, philosophies, and therapies no longer seem to harbor the ambition, once shared by the world-transforming ideologies of modernity, to transform the world itself. What they demand is a space of "difference," a space in which heterodoxy, otherness, and particular identities and positions can stand apart and flourish.
These "postmodern" radicalisms are modest, even parsimonious, in relation to the claims they make for themselves. With the "end of grand narratives," as Lyotard put it, many radical groups and movements have evidently lost or abandoned that sense of certainty that was such a hallmark of the ideologies and movements of the twentieth century. In a world of skeptics, radicalism (as expressed in the ideas of the leftist Zapatistas in Mexico, for example) can only be sustained by thin or partial affinities and affiliations, by appeals to shared "intuitions" and the desire for "dignity." This is hardly the basis for the kind of mass mobilization hoped for by yesterday’s radicals, but it seems to be enough to sustain the radicals and radicalisms of today.
In sum, radicalism is not on the wane or in danger of being made redundant by an overarching conformity to ideas and values, no matter how expressed (as per Fukuyama’s "end of history" thesis). Any such view reveals a certain naivety about the role of ideas in history. As this brief overview suggests, mainstream and conventional ideas are always faced by ideas that challenge or undermine them. Indeed it makes little sense to talk about "the mainstream" or "the conventional" without reference to ideas or positions that lie outside them. Radicalism is, in simple terms, the name given to whatever is different, challenging, or otherwise difficult to digest. As such, radicalism is just as much a feature of contemporary life as is the status quo, however defined.
