Radicalization as a Vector: Exploring Non-Violent and Benevolent Processes of Radicalization (original) (raw)
Successful radicalization posits three outcomes: extremism, terrorism or both. As these are undesirable, radicalization is understood as wholly malevolent and governments work to prevent and/or stop it. Nonetheless, a handful of scholars have recognized that the same radicalization process which results in either outcome may, theoretically at least, also have beneficial outcomes such as environmental awareness or human rights. This article explores one such outcome. Based on interviews with British Muslim aid workers (n=6) operating in Jihadist conflict zones post Arab spring and using constructivist grounded theory, it illustrates how the research participants radicalized to humanitarianism which resulted in them assisting the most plighted of Muslims by deploying to the most wanton of areas: ones commonly referred to as Jihadist conflict zones. Evidently, these destinations are shared with Jihadists and given the array of other observable similarities (socio-demographics and [pre-]mobilization behaviours), these morally opposed groups become conflated by the security services. This is further compounded by the fact that Jihadists manipulate and/or impersonate aid workers so as to funnel people and funds. To distinguish both, this article documents the benevolent pathway of the research participants and juxtaposes it to scholarly knowledge on Jihadist pathways. Socialization was revealed to be the key distinguishing feature rather than descriptive risk factors (such as ideology or moral outrage) because the process of radicalization was not found to be the start of the radicalized pathway. It concludes that benevolently radicalized Islamic groups constitute an effective means of pathway divergence for particular typologies by offering an attractive and prosocial alternative to Jihadism. This strengths-based preventative approach (“what’s right”) takes the form of a community-centric market competitor to Jihadism rather than a problem-based approach (“what’s wrong”) which only targets those at risk, but inadvertently tars the whole community in the process.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Benevolent Radicalization: An Antidote to Terrorism
Most political activism occurs within social norms and the democratic consensus, but a minority mobilize in a consciously perilous manner. When this is premised upon sacred values, one may be said to be behaviorally radicalized. Within this radicalized fringe, some stay within social norms but take them to an extreme level of self-sacrifice. This may involve risking one's life to benefit others in an objectively and consistently pro-social manner. This is referred to as aid-in-extremis, a specific form of active bystandership. A recent example includes British Muslims engaged in non-sectarian humanitarian aid for besieged civilians in Daesh controlled territory. In my thesis, these people are categorized as benevolently radicalized; they were Positive Deviants who adhere to a conditioned victim-centric prognosis. Others made a clear break and depart from the norm. This entails violence or tacit support thereof as part of their response-such as those British Muslims who joined Daesh. These people are categorized as malevolently radicalized: their deviance is overall antisocial and they adhere to a conditioned perpetrator-centric prognosis. The paradox is, both cohorts stem from the same domestic sentiment pool and use the same sacred values to undergird their morally opposed behaviors. What seems to determine the prognostic vector is how these sacred values are interpreted and this alludes to the importance of frames. Recognizing that frames are learned and that both groups are in competition for similar people, governments may proactively prevent Jihadist recruitment and sideline their narratives by buttressing the benevolently radicalized, bolstering their numbers and ensuring that their prognostic is perceived as the main moral anchor. This counter-engagement is presented as a relevant and impactful, strengths-based alternative which can constructively channel moral outrage and fulfill needs-yet it is only posited to appeal to particular type of (pre-)Jihadist activists.
Rethinking Radicalisation and Counter-Terrorist Strategies
'Radicalization' has been a keyword in the public discourse on terrorism. Yet the answer to what exactly it is, remains fuzzy. This poses a challenge not only to the scholars who aim to study it but also, to the practitioners, who aim to tackle and prevent it. Despite the ambiguities surrounding the process of radicalization, there, however, exists a set of preconceived notions about it. Islamist extremist ideology is always taken as a key factor or as a starting point in these notions. This in turn leads to faulty policy measures for tackling the problems of terrorism and radicalization, which eventually turn counterproductive. This is where the paper tries to answer its central question: 'why the current policy measures are turning out to be ineffective in tackling terrorism?' This paper attempts to bring into focus a more nuanced understanding of radicalization. By arguing that radicalization is not an individual process driven by an ideology, the paper tries to bring into focus different pathways to terrorism and how they have undergone a vast change in the era of globalization, and how that has a bearing on effective counter-terrorist strategies. The argument that this paper is trying to make is that, due to faulty understanding of what entails radicalization, the authorities are coming up with ineffective counter-terrorist policies, which lead to violations of UN Charter, Rule of Law, International law (Torture convention, Humanitarian law, Jus in Bellum) and Human Rights laws. This gives a free hand to the authorities and security forces without any repercussions or, transparency. Special attention has been given to UK's Prevent Policy, America's "War on Terror" strategy and the recent United Nations (UN) Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review, 2018 to substantiate this claim. These strategies are compared with European Union's approach to counterterrorism and radicalization, to offer a contrast. After giving a better understanding of radicalization, the paper then turns to the policy implications emanating from this nuanced understanding. Taking into consideration what Kundalini and Walzer had to say about the rules and approach towards countering terrorism, the paper ends with giving a few recommendations, in the light of its main argument about the importance of having a nuanced understanding of the process of radicalisation.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.