Les travaux sur l’étiologie de la radicalisation en lien avec l’islam posent la question de la prise en charge des individus qui ont adhéré à l’idéologie dite « djihadiste ». Cet article propose une analyse qualitative du processus de radicalisation d’Hamza, 15 ans, pris en charge par le Centre de Prévention Contre les Dérives Sectaires liées à l’Islam (CPDSI) suite à plusieurs tentatives de départ sur zone et d’une mise en examen pour préparation d’attentat sur le sol français. L’analyse du discours implicite d’Hamza permet de mettre en évidence la manière dont les recruteurs « djihadistes » ont adapté leur stratégie de communication à ses aspirations cognitives et émotionnelles, au moyen d’un triptyque dimensionnel à la fois émotionnel, relationnel et cognitivo-idéologique, pour lui faire miroiter un motif d’engagement qui lui corresponde. L’analyse du suivi de ce jeune montre la nécessité de l’interdisciplinarité des professionnels afin de se mettre en miroir du discours « djihadiste » pour dénouer ce qu’il a noué, sans réduire le jeune radicalisé à un statut (auteur ou victime), dans un champ spécifique (psychologique, social, politique ou religieux) et dans une dimension donnée (émotionnelle, relationnelle ou idéologique) car cela reviendrait à nier l’existence d’autres possibles, à cliver notre perception et à entrer dans le jeu de Daesh en adoptant, nous aussi, une vision binaire du monde. Face à la rigidité de la pensée radicale « djihadiste », tout l’enjeu des professionnels est donc de mettre à l’épreuve leur souplesse d’esprit pour optimiser leur pratique de prise en charge dans le domaine de la sortie de radicalisation violente.

This article offers a qualitative analysis of the radicalization of Hamza, 15 years old, supported by the Prevention Center against Sectarian Drift related to Islam (CPDSI) after several attempts to leave the country and to prepare an attack in France. The premise of the CPDSI's multidisciplinary team relies on the postulate that the reason for the young person's commitment has to be retrieved to help him or her disengage. The specificity of the CPDSI relied on the access to the implicit discourse of the young people who were treated in charge. Thus, it allowed an access to the ideals the recruiters offer to youngster during the process of radicalization (elements that they were not necessarily aware of at the time but they gradually raised awareness throughout their follow-up), from the study of recruiters’ conversations, the arguments they used, the videos they exchanged, but also the analysis of their life course, of their ideals before their radicalization, of the traumatic experiences that they have through and the interviews with their relatives. In other words, we tried to collect data on what basically conditioned the commitment of the young people we followed, starting from the premise that to be authoritative, a speech has to make sense’. It is in particular from the discrepancy between the explicit discourse formulated by “jihadist” recruiters and the implicit motivations of young recruits that the CPDSI was able to build its method of disengagement.

The study shows that the whole process of radicalization is the result of the interaction of 3 cumulative approaches: emotional (the approach of ISIS is a source of anxiety, based notably on the exacerbation of national dysfunctions, conspiracy theories and decontextualized Qur’anic verses), relational (the group becomes a substituted family where the bonds are fusional and protective; Hamza distanced himself from his kinship system to regenerate himself through a new imaginary, sacred and fantasized filiation) and cognitivo-ideological (the discourse presents the application of the divine law to obtain a better self and a better world). The contemporary “jihadist” discourse can be distinguished by its capacity to individualize or to personalize its offers, proposing, for example, through the Internet, diversified patterns of engagement that resonate with the different psychological, political and social profiles of young people: what Hamza seems to have found within the “jihadist” group is a quick and effective way to answer a problem of unresolved mourning of his grandfather who symbolized his history and his memory. Here is a transition between his personal ill-being linked to the experience of mourning and adherence to a collective ideology related to Islam. Indeed, Hamza is convinced that his ill-being, even brief, will be settled by his adherence to the proposed ideology, the only one able to give meaning to what he just lived and allow him to live with. These approaches bring a cognitive change in Hamza: he redefines himself, redefines others, and redefines his vision of the world. Several transformations of the psychic state of Hamza take place. The vision of the binary world transmitted by the group “jihadist” reassures Hamza because it allows him to categorize his environment, which, simply said, is the place of “good” and “bad guys”. Violent radical ideology needs to stagger its values to build a human hierarchy, which will then allow a shift to lived violence as the only way out. We see how, to make himself useful, Hamza no longer has to help the widow and the orphan but has to kill all those who do not save with him the widow and the orphan. This young man goes from a massive fear of death to a death wish. The perpetrator/victim status is reversed: members of the “jihadist” group are considered by Hamza to be the victims of the global conspiracy against Islam and the persecution against Muslims. Conversely, he considers the victims of Daesh abuses responsible for the persecution of his group. The fact that Hamza is no longer able to be moved by the violent videos, nor to feel empathy for the victims of the attacks illustrates that this young man is doubly dehumanized. He himself no longer feels anything and he no longer considers “the others”, his future victims, as human beings in their own right. This step allows us to understand the difference between the implicit (search for compensatory solution to calm his anxiety) and the explicit (binary speech related to the ideology of Daesh).

The analysis of the follow-up of this young person shows the necessity of the interdisciplinarity of professionals in order to mirror the “jihadist” discourse to untie what it did, without reducing the young radicalized to a status (author or victim), in a specific field (psychological, social, political or religious) and in a given dimension (emotional, relational or ideological) as this would deny the existence of other possibilities. Faced with the rigidity of the radical “jihadist” thinking, the challenge for professionals is to test their flexibility of mind to optimize their practice of follow-ups.