Closure through Resilience: The Case of Prevent

Phil Edwards

Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 2016, vol. 39, issue 4, 292-307

Abstract: This article argues that systemic resilience in the face of terrorism is best conceptualized as a response to disruption of the political sphere, brought about by the forceful incursion of a would-be political actor. The ideological negotiation required to deal with political disruption is related to the “cycle of contention” model: engagement may take inclusive or exclusive forms, with consequences for the openness and hence the future resilience of the system. When the arguments used to support the British government's “Prevent” counterradicalization initiative are analyzed in these terms, the engagement is shown to be emphatically exclusive.

Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1057610X.2016.1117326 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:uterxx:v:39:y:2016:i:4:p:292-307

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/uter20

DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2016.1117326

Access Statistics for this article

Studies in Conflict and Terrorism is currently edited by Bruce Hoffman

More articles in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().