A Response to Rik Peels’ “Cognitive and Behavioral Radicalization: An Explanatory Split?”

The explanatory split principle emphasizes the extent to which individuals can be cognitively radicalized but not behaviorally radicalized, and vice versa. In his Cognitive and Behavioral Radicalization, Rik Peels distinguishes between ‘restricted’ variants of this principle that focus on cognitions and behaviors specifically pertaining to violence, and ‘general’ versions that consider a broader set of cognitions and behaviors. He then presents a series of arguments designed to demonstrate that the latter interpretations are ‘untenable.’ This response article highlights several notable issues with Peels’ thesis, including that he misrepresents the existing literature, overlooks the need for narrow concepts, and downplays the importance of local contexts. However, the most important problem is the pronounced intellectual gap between Peels’ own recognition that his arguments mostly remain hypotheses, and his far more forceful conclusion that the general principle is ‘untenable’ and ‘does not hold.’ Nevertheless, I intuitively agree with many of Peels’ arguments, and I hope he accepts the challenge to more convincingly demonstrate his thesis in future publications.