Extremism and Radicalization: What makes the difference? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Radical Beliefs and Violent Behaviour in 'De-radicalisation' Scientific insights for policy
This chapter aims to show how radical beliefs and violent action relate to each other. It summarises the current landscape of academic research that has, in different ways, attempted to identify the causes of terrorist action. In showing the current trends, areas of consensus and areas of dispute, the chapter aims to show the complex relationship between drivers based on ideas, ideologies and beliefs and drivers based on other factors. Terrorists, like normal people, are influenced on a number of different levels and in ways that they do not always realise or acknowledge themselves. Whether through social ties, the power of counter-culture, or the desire to seek thrills, status or recognition, the story of why people undertake political violence is more complex and subtle than simply a question of belief.
The Psychology of Extremist Identification
European Psychologist, 2021
Following the September 11th terrorist attacks in the United States, policy approaches to extremism have mainly focused on understanding the dynamics of religious-based extremism, such as Al-Qaeda and other violent Jihadist/ Islamist groups. Predominantly, the emphasis has been on mapping individual pathways into these particular forms of extreme mobilization. Attacks in Paris, Brussels, and Manchester, as well as in North Africa, Somalia, and Yemen confirm the value of this work in light of the continuing dominance of the security challenges posed by radical Islam, not least in relation to the rise of the so-called Islamic State, or ISIS. The large number of incidents in Europe and elsewhere have resulted in calls for counter-strategies to be modified or expanded, but also for greater resources to be devoted to understanding other forms of extremism, particularly those associated with extreme far right responses or ethnic nationalist ideologies. The economic crisis and its policy responses, along with migration, integration and asylum policies, have affected the relationship between populism and extremism in a fundamental and encompassing manner. The electoral successes of populist, Eurosceptic, and far right parties confirm such tendencies, showing the capacity of extremist discourses to mobilize constituencies against vulnerable groups (e.g., ethnic minorities and immigrants), other countries, and international institutions. Various versions of cultural nationalism have underpinned such mobilization, marked among other things by xenophobia, anti-Semitism, misogyny and Islamophobia, in turn fueling violence. The January 6, 2021 attack at the United States Capitol adds to this picture and lays bare a number of issues related to disinformation, polarization, and the challenge to democratic institutions. This special issue aims to widen the analysis of extremism to account for the unresolved puzzles that continue to plague practitioners, policy makers, and academics alike:
Radicalization into Violent Extremism I: A Review of Social Science Theories
2011
Abstract In discourse about countering terrorism, the term" radicalization" is widely used, but remains poorly defined. To focus narrowly on ideological radicalization risks implying that radical beliefs are a proxy—or at least a necessary precursor—for terrorism, though we know this not to be true. Different pathways and mechanisms of terrorism involvement operate in different ways for different people at different points in time and perhaps in different contexts.
'De-radicalisation' Scientific insights for policy
2017
This chapter aims to show how radical beliefs and violent action relate to each other. It summarises the current landscape of academic research that has, in different ways, attempted to identify the causes of terrorist action. In showing the current trends, areas of consensus and areas of dispute, the chapter aims to show the complex relationship between drivers based on ideas, ideologies and beliefs and drivers based on other factors. Terrorists, like normal people, are influenced on a number of different levels and in ways that they do not always realise or acknowledge themselves. Whether through social ties, the power of counter-culture, or the desire to seek thrills, status or recognition, the story of why people undertake political violence is more complex and subtle than simply a question of belief.
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.
Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 2015
Why and how do individuals come to embrace extremist ideologies? We summarize the most recent empirical literature on the causes and dynamics of radicalization. We propose a theoretical synthesis based on four factors that come together to produce violent radicalization: personal and collective grievances, networks and interpersonal ties, political and religious ideologies, and enabling environments and support structures. We propose adopting a "puzzle" metaphor that represents a multifactor and contextualized approach to understanding how ordinary individuals transform into violent extremists. Video of article can be found here: https://www.chds.us/ed/items/2253
State, Society, and National Security: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century, 2016
Our understanding of how people become involved in terrorism and violent extremism has transformed since the turn of the century. That transformation occurred at the same time that ‘radicalisation’ took over as the dominant framework for considering questions around terrorist psychology, motivation and recruitment. Today, radicalisation is typically seen to refer to a complex and dynamic process which results in individuals coming to embrace a violent ideology in support of a political or religious cause. The concept of radicalisation has become an almost universal element in contemporary efforts to understand and combat terrorism. This chapter outlines the rise and development of theoretical models and research on radicalisation. It highlights some of the major research breakthroughs but also focuses on where very significant gaps remain in our understanding. The chapter cautions that we need to be careful in terms of how we think about the broader role of radicalisation. A subtle – and dangerously unquestioned - assumption has spread that ‘radicalisation’ as a phenomenon is the major root cause of terrorism. When different radicalisation models are used to design or justify a variety of counter-terrorism policies and programmes, care is needed to look beyond the headline banner of radicalisation and pay attention to the factors identified within those models as key drivers.
The Radicalization Puzzle: A Theoretical Synthesis of Empirical Approaches to Homegrown Extremism
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 2015
Why and how do individuals residing in relatively peaceful and affluent Western societies come to embrace extremist ideologies that emanate from distant places? We summarize the most recent empirical literature on the causes and dynamics of radicalization, and evaluate the state of the art in the study of Islamist homegrown extremism in the West. We propose a theoretical synthesis based on four factors that come together to produce violent radicalization: personal and collective grievances, networks and interpersonal ties, political and religious ideologies, and enabling environments and support structures. We propose adopting a "puzzle" metaphor that represents a multifactor and contextualized approach to understanding how ordinary individuals transform into violent extremists. We concluded with three recommendations to strengthen the empirical foundations of radicalization studies.