DescriptionSince 2014, medico-social structures have been integrated into the prevention of radicalisation, placing them in a position of tension between security-oriented logic and their support mission. While this collaboration aims to ensure a continuum between prevention and repression, it raises ethical dilemmas for professionals concerned with preserving their autonomy and their ethical framework. In response to the Islamophobic biases underpinning this policy framework promoted by state institutions, these actors have developed a clinical interpretation of radicalisation. By linking it to psychological distress and individual vulnerabilities, they seek to distance themselves from repressive logics by promoting a therapeutic and educational approach. However, this reframing is not without contradictions: although these structures reject a repressive approach, they accept referrals based on religious or cultural markers, thereby contributing to the expansion of surveillance and the perpetuation of a framework they nonetheless consider problematic. Dependent on public funding, these institutions are compelled to navigate security expectations while asserting a social prevention role. This paradox reveals a hybridisation of medico-social practices, where support becomes a tool for regulating behaviours perceived as deviant. This evolution raises questions about the role of the medico-social sector within public policy: while claiming to move beyond a security-oriented framework, these structures paradoxically reinforce its effects, contributing to the normalisation of increased surveillance under the guise of care and prevention.Related topicOtherLinkRead the document
