Radicalisation and the Limits of Nordic Exceptionalism

The Nordic countries are frequently framed as models of humane governance, social trust, and democratic cohesion—an idea often captured by the notion of Nordic exceptionalism. These narratives circulate globally through cultural imaginaries of equality and welfare, as well as through scholarly claims about inclusive penal and social policy. Yet exceptionalism is not merely descriptive; it functions as a framework for organising belonging. When democracy is narrated as uniquely cohesive and morally superior, the boundary between “citizen,” “community,” and “threat” becomes a central site of governance. This paper examines how Nordic National Action Plans (NAPs) against radicalisation and violent extremism in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden produce particular forms of citizenship and belonging. It argues that these policy narratives mobilise the imaginary of exceptionalism to render certain bodies, communities, and practices as incompatible with the democratic “we.” The paper asks two questions: (1) How is radicalisation constructed as a threat in the Nordic context? and (2) How does the narrative of Nordic exceptionalism shape these constructions? The analysis identifies three interlinked narrative themes. First, radicalisation is framed as a threat to an exceptionally vulnerable democracy, where legal tolerance of extremist beliefs coexists with moral exclusion of those cast as incompatible with “our” way of life. Second, immigration and asylum operate as a quiet grammar of radicalisation governance. Through spatial categories and institutional placements, specific communities become narratively available as risk subjects without necessarily being named as such. Third, welfare institutions are positioned as frontline sites of preventive governance. Everyday encounters of care (such as a dentist visit) are reworked into points of surveillance, referral, and risk management. The paper argues that Nordic exceptionalism is not only a story about humane and egalitarian governance; it is also a narrative resource through which exclusion and pre-emption are made compatible with the self-image of liberal democracy. In this way, the governance of radicalisation offers a window onto how citizenship, belonging, and subjecthood are being recalibrated in turbulent times.