The UK Prevent strategy is strongly criticized: accused of racism, human rights violations, and demonization of the (Muslim) other. Outlining an original interpretation of these problems, the article draws on political theory to identify parallels between this controversy and Stanley Cavell's critique of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice. Although aiming to avoid violence, Rawls limited the “conversation of justice” in advance such that a democratic community could be deemed above reproach. Cavell claimed that this situation is detrimental in that it leaves the resentful other with no outlet to voice their grievance(s). The article argues that Prevent is problematic because it assumes the same premise as Rawls. Prevent restricts engagement between its participants through the requirement to adhere to “British values,” which excludes sectors of the UK population a priori and undermines the very democracy that Prevent purports to defend. The article rejects the Prevent strategy on these grounds. It then proposes an alternative model for counter-radicalization based on a Cavellian theorization of democracy as “Emersonian conversation”—comprising the virtues of listening, responsiveness, and a willingness to change on all sides. The article argues that Emersonian conversation provides a more effective basis for future UK counter-radicalization policy.

中文翻译：

---

无可指责：作为民主反激进化政策新模式的罗尔斯、卡维尔和爱默生式对话

英国预防战略受到强烈批评：被指控种族主义、侵犯人权和妖魔化（穆斯林）他者。本文概述了对这些问题的原始解释，并利用政治理论来确定这场争论与斯坦利卡维尔对约翰罗尔斯正义论的批评之间的相似之处。尽管旨在避免暴力，但罗尔斯事先限制了“正义对话”，从而使民主社会可以被视为无可非议。卡维尔声称，这种情况是有害的，因为它让怨恨的其他人无法表达他们的不满。文章认为 Prevent 是有问题的，因为它假定了与 Rawls 相同的前提。防止通过坚持“英国价值观，”，它先验地排除了英国人口的一部分，并破坏了 Prevent 声称要捍卫的民主。基于这些理由，文章拒绝了预防策略。然后，它提出了一种反激进化的替代模型，该模型基于卡维利式的民主理论，即“爱默生对话”——包括倾听、回应和愿意在各方面改变的美德。文章认为，爱默生式的对话为英国未来的反激进化政策提供了更有效的基础。然后，它提出了一种反激进化的替代模型，该模型基于卡维利式的民主理论，即“爱默生对话”——包括倾听、回应和愿意在各方面改变的美德。文章认为，爱默生式的对话为英国未来的反激进化政策提供了更有效的基础。然后，它提出了一种反激进化的替代模型，该模型基于卡维利式的民主理论，即“爱默生对话”——包括倾听、回应和愿意在各方面改变的美德。文章认为，爱默生式的对话为英国未来的反激进化政策提供了更有效的基础。