CTS and normativity: the essentials of preemptive counter-terrorism interventions

This article critically assesses calls for “normativity” in counter-radicalisation and counter-extremism, and suggests that aligning with hegemonic narratives about securing the “pre-crime” space is problematic in a context of emancipation. Utilising interviews with a number of Prevent officials (including Channel “de-radicalisation” mentors), the article argues that when any counter-radicalisation regime is implemented, two traits are necessarily inherent: identity construction, and “concerned concern”, both of which are based on subjective speculation about an individual’s future intent. Identity construction in preemptive counter-terrorism works through prejudiced human imagination in order to normalise perceived and “risky” divergence, but which is mired in contradictions precisely because practitioners interpret risk (and therefore divergence) differently. Concerned concern is a paradoxical constitution both of support for and protection against individuals. Ultimately, in exploring these two concepts, the article critically engages with the notion that Prevent is “just another safeguarding duty”. Building on earlier critical terrorism scholarship, this discussion shows how worst-case logics apparent in national discourse are largely absent at the point of implementation, yet pejorative identity-construction and some suspicion (no matter how banalised) are implicit in any risk-managing scheme in a counter-terrorism context. These qualities are incompatible with an emancipatory agenda.