Ch 6. 'How Not to Be a Terrorist': Radicalisation and Young Western Muslims' Digital Discourses (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Routledge Handbook on Radicalisation and Countering Radicalisation, 2024
With the string of attacks that struck Europe in 2004 and 2005, ‘radicalisation’ has become the primary prism for understanding the motivations that lead individuals to embrace terrorism. Terrorism as the result of a ‘radicalisation process’ is now often an unquestioned axiom and considered self-evident. But from the outset, scholars have been warning about the contentious and ambiguous nature of this new concept. This has not prevented radicalisation studies from becoming a thriving field of research, with an increasing number of scholarly disciplines involved and a widening research agenda, as well as the holy grail of many counterterrorism policies. With hindsight, however, the new idiom has been less of a conceptual breakthrough than initially anticipated. The absence of a consensus definition of radicalisation and diverging hypotheses about the nature of its drivers have fuelled several substantial conceptual disagreements, sometimes leading to febrile scholarly debates. Inevitably, these debates have direct relevance for the elaboration of policies devised to counter radicalisation.
From theorizing radicalization to surveillance practices
There are several psychological analyses of the processes of radicalisation resulting in terrorism. However, we know little about how those in authority (e.g., the police) conceptualise the psychological dynamics to radicalisation. Accordingly, we present a detailed account of an official UK counter-terrorism intervention, the Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent, designed to enlist front-line professionals in identifying and referring those at risk of radicalisation. Specifically, we report data gathered during an observation of this intervention delivered by the police in Scotland. This provides insight into the psychological model of radicalisation being disseminated in the UK and we evaluate the merits of this model in the light of current psychological theory. First, we consider how this model may overlook certain social dynamics relevant to understanding radicalisation. Second, we discuss how this neglect limits consideration of how the surveillance warranted by the official model may lead Muslims to disengage from majority group members. Our analysis points to how political psychology’s analysis of social identities and citizenship can inform public policy and practice.
( De ) Radicalization and Security Radicalization in Europe
2017
The spectacular attacks on New York City on 11 September 2001 carried out by 19 suicide bombers belonging to the al-Qaeda network kicked off the century. Other, more recent attacks in different European cities, this time claimed by the Islamic State, have made terrorist acts daily news across the globe. Despite the differences in organization (a network such as al-Qaeda or grouped by territories such as Islamic State), these youth, engaged on the path of violence in the name of jihad, are guided by the force of the singular narrative of membership in the Ummah, the world-wide Muslim community, that lends all its strength to the appropriation of an ideology and the transition to violence. They are fuelled by discourses of “humiliated Islam,” of the war in Iraq and of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and by a sentiment of revenge. By the same token, social networks, the main sites for dissemination of radical discourse and recruitment, play an important role in their commitment to the...
Radicalization in the age of Globalization
'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 counter-productive. 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. The paper moves on to argue how the current policy measures, based on a partial understanding of the phenomenon, are turning ineffective. Special attention has been given to UK's Prevent Policy to substantiate this claim. After giving a better understanding of radicalization, the paper then turns to the policy implications emanating from this nuanced understanding. The paper ends with giving a few recommendations in the light of the above argument.
Preface - Radicalisation. A marginal phenomenon or a mirror to society ?
Radicalisation. A marginal phenomenon or a mirror to society ?, 2019
A decade and a half after the introduction of the concept of radicalisation in the toolkit of counterterrorism, radicalisation remains as fraught with conceptual confusion and divergent policy prescripts as at the beginning. The same questions as in 2004 are still being raised today. What exactly do we understand by radicalisation ? What are its key drivers ? How to articulate the link between radical thought and radical action and how does religion relate to it ?
Radicalization as a Vector: Exploring Non-Violent and Benevolent Processes of Radicalization
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.
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.
Understanding Radicalisation: Review of Literature
The phenomena of radicalisation today develop and change at high speed, with their extreme forms manifested globally. The destructive dimensions of (violent) Islamist or right-wing radicalisation have become dramatically visible in Europe posing serious challenges to European societies. This literature review presents key academic conceptualisations and debates on the phenomena оf radicalisation that might lead to violence. It deals with three different forms of radicalisation, including Islamist radicalisation, right-wing as well as left-wing radicalisation. In addition, an overview is provided of current academic debates regarding the role of the internet in radicalisation processes. The review is intended to help social scientists who are entering the field of radicalisation studies navigate through the complexity of underlying processes and factors that lead different individuals or groups to adopt radical ideas and commit acts of violence. The review is particularly relevant for countries of Central and Eastern Europe where radicalisation remains understudied, although most countries in the region share histories of extremism and political radicalism.