Radicalized Mainstream: Turning an Oxymoron into Something Meaningful

Abstract Current debates question whether society’s mainstream is undergoing radicalization, introducing the oxymoron radicalized mainstream . In this theoretical meta-reflection, radicalization is defined as individuals’ increasing deviance from superordinate important, socially accepted norms by increasing conformity with (sub)group norms. Applying this notion to established radicalization theories, comparing social psychological and political science definitions of radicalization, similarities and differences between contextualized and decontextualized understandings are highlighted. While it seems paradoxical for the mainstream to radicalize—since logically, deviance from the norm cannot be normative—a radicalized mainstream is nonetheless conceivable in relation to a superordinate injunctive norm that prescribes what should be done but is violated by subordinate mainstream norms. Resulting from the theoretical discussion, three conceptions of radicalized mainstreams are distinguished, all understood as norms deviating from injunctive norms: (I) descriptive norms, (II) consensus-overestimating injunctive but less shared norms, and (III) norms of groups that are logically subordinate to larger norm-setting groups, as in the case of national mainstreams in relation to supranational norms.