The word radical derives from the Latinradix ("root") and Late Latinrādīcālis ("of or pertaining to the root, radical"). Historically, political use of the term referred exclusively to a form of progressiveelectoral reformism, known as Radicalism, that had developed in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. However, the denotation has changed since its 18th century coinage to comprehend the entire political spectrum, though retaining the connotation of "change at the root".[1]
Throughout the 19th century, the concept of radical politics broadened into a variety of political notions and doctrines. Party politics in England began to favour moderate positions, marginalising other movements into more politically aggressive factions.[citation needed] As open advocacy of republicanism was illegal in France following the Napoleonic Wars, Radicals emerged under similar reformist ideals as their British counterparts, though they later branched out to form the Radical-Socialist movement with a focus on proletarian solidarity.[3][4] With the rise of Marxism, the notion of radical politics shifted away from reformism and became more associated with revolutionary politics.[3]InUnited States politics, the term is used pejoratively among conservatives and moderates to denote political extremism,[3][5] with the 19th-century Cyclopaedia of Political Science describing it as "characterized less by its principles than by the manner of their application".[6]
The common feature to all radical political forms is a view that some fundamental change is required of the status quo. For an array of anti-capitalist forms, this manifests in anti-establishment reactions to modern neoliberal regimes.[1]
While social conditions exist "that are vulnerable to criticism and protest; ideology exists to protect these social conditions from attack by those who are disadvantaged by them."[8]
"Ideology conserves by camouflaging flawed social conditions, giving an illusory account of their rationale or function, in order to legitimate and win acceptance of them."[8]
This view reflects "a consensus among radicals of all stripes on the role of law as a dissembling force to safeguard the unjust relations of the status quo."[8] This radical critique of ideology is especially prominent within post-leftism.[9] In addressing specific issues, some radical politics may completely forgo any overarching ideological plan.[1]
Astrid Bötticher identifies several differences between radicalism and extremism, among them in goals (idealistic vs. restorative, emancipatory vs. anti-democratic), morals (particular vs. universal), approach towards diversity (acceptance vs. disdain), and use of violence (pragmatic and selective vs. legitimate and acceptable).[10]
^Hayward, J. E. S. "The Official Philosophy of the French Third Republic: Leon Bourgeois and Solidarism". International Review of Social History.
^Sanders, Mike, ed. (2001). "General Introduction". Women and Radicalism in the Nineteenth Century. p. xix. ISBN0-415-20526-3. Retrieved 18 September 2020. Conservatives frequently deployed 'radical' as a blanket term of abuse
^Block, Maurice (1893). "Radicalism". Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States. p. 492.
^Short, Clare (2009). "The Forces Shaping Radical Politics Today". In Pugh, Jonathan (ed.). What is Radical Politics Today?. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 59. ISBN9780230236257. For example, Mrs Thatcher was radical, the British National Party is radical and Hitler was radical.
^ abcSypnowich, Christine (2001-10-22). "Law and Ideology". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.).
