This article offers a socio-semiotic analysis of Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE) policies, arguing that they function not only as security measures but as classificatory dispositifs that reshape the semantic boundaries of democratic legality. In response to the individualisation of contemporary violent extremism, European states have progressively shifted from repression to prevention, extending governance into the anticipatory regulation of subjectivities. Drawing on Foucault’s concept of governmentality and Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power, the article interprets radicalisation theory as a technology of classification that translates political conflict into vulnerability, vulnerability into risk, and risk into an object of administrative intervention. This semantic chain does not necessarily criminalise dissent, but it rearticulates the distinction between radicality and violence through probabilistic and pre-emptive logics. The rule of law is thus confronted with a structural transformation: legality increasingly coexists with risk-based governance that operates prior to unlawful conduct. The article further situates this preventive paradigm within the broader infrastructures of surveillance capitalism, where predictive profiling and behavioural modulation intensify the governance of possible futures. The tension between freedom and security therefore emerges as a semiotic and institutional reconfiguration of democratic conflict. The central question becomes whether preventive democracies can preserve the irreducible openness of political subjectivity while governing through anticipatory classification. Taking inspiration from the film (and novel) “Minority Report”, in the paper such dilemma is defined “Anderton Dilemma”.
Francesco Antonelli (Sat,) studied this question.