Exploring the Theories of Radicalization

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.

2008

This concise Report was prepared to outline the current state of academic research on violent radicalisation. Radicalisation to any form of violence, including terrorist violence, is a gradual or phased process. The Report finds that there are remarkable similarities between radicalisation to current Islamist or jihadist terrorism and radicalisation associated with left-wing, right-wing or ethno-nationalist terrorism in Western Europe since the 1960s. The Report also concludes that radicalisation leading to acts of terrorism is context-specific. Past and present waves of violent radicalisation which lead to terrorism among mainly young people share certain structural features. There is not any single root cause for radicalisation leading to terrorism but a number of factors may contribute to it. Precipitant (‘trigger’) factors vary according to individual experience and personal pathways to radicalisation. Personal experiences, kinship and bonds of friendship, as well as group dynamics are critical in triggering the actual process of radicalisation. Ideology appears as an important and constant factor in the radicalisation process towards terrorism, but the espousal of a particular ideology alone does not guarantee that radicalisation towards terrorist violence will ensue.

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.

Perspectives on Terrorism, 2012

Keeping up-to-date with new research on terrorism can be challenging for both academic and non-academic researchers, with a multitude of books, articles and reports of varying degrees of quality being produced continuously. Andrew Silke noted that the publication of books on terrorism nearly jumped tenfold after 9/11, from 150 titles in 2000 to 1108 the following year, and 1767 in 2002 [1]. If one searches for books on terrorism with www.amazon.com one decade later, one gets over 30,000 results and the sub-genre 'radicalisation' already produces in excess of 300 books. Research on radicalisation took off in 2004 in response to the blowback from the American intervention in Iraq the year before. The London bombings in 2005 generated further interest in the phenomenon of "homegrown terrorism", where apparently self-starting cells of radicalising individuals mobilized against their host countries with little or no material support from foreign terrorist entities. This has created a whole new field of empirical inquiry.

The Expert Group on Violent Radicalisation was set up by a European Commission Decision of 19 April 20061 to provide policy-advice to the European Commission on fighting violent radicalisation. The members of the Group and its Chairman were subsequently appointed ...

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.

The 7th Annual INTERPA Conference, 2018

The examination of studies on radicalization reveals that international major events have shaped the related research and studies. For instance, prior to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, terrorism studies had been rather marginal area of study in various disciplines such as sociology, social psychology, and political science but after the 9-11, terrorism researchers and experts became celebrities overnight (Maskaliunaite, 2015). London bombings in July 2005 is another example, after which “radicalization” became a new buzz word as officials and public were wondering how four seemingly ordinary British citizens turned into suicide bombers and targeted civilians. Given that there are many attacks around the World, it is not surprising that after each attack policy makers and security services have been turning to researchers and experts to understand why such events are taking place in order to explore the ways to prevent future incidents from happening. Public also seeking answer to the question of “why do they hate us?”. Terrorist attacks are mainly carried out by radical individuals and that many of these individuals act in terrorist groups, but there are some questions still remain unanswered such as “whether all radicals are terrorists?” and “how to deal with different type of radicalization?”. I argue that psychological perspective on process of radicalization may assist the policy makers and public answer some of the above questions. The objective of this paper is threefold. Firstly, examining the concept of radicalization, in order to provide operational definition of radicalization. Secondly, summarizing process of radicalization based on individual variables and group-level decision making strategies along with the wider political and social context in which radicalization occurs. Thirdly, reviewing the two pyramids model (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2017) in order to provide a practical framework for the examination of political radicalization. Keywords: psychology of radicalization, relative deprivation, terrorism, two pyramids model of political radicalization, terror management theory, social identity theory

Workshop: The Narrative of Islamic violence in History. Creation, artifice and reality, 2018

Narratives that consider Islam as a violent religion have been reinforced in recent times by the rise of jihadism, i.e. those radical Islamist movements that advocate the use of violence through a distorted concept of jihad. At present, jihadism represents a global movement with a considerable popular base of followers even in secular Western societies. One of the characteristics of jihadist organizations is their ability to commit attacks in these Western societies, either directly and deliberately or through inspiring and encouraging the creation of autonomous cells. This fact, on the one hand, has led the respective governments to declare jihadist terrorism as one of the main threats to security. But, on the other hand, it has also contributed to the association between Islam and violence, a tendency that, although clearly erroneous and unjust, often becomes inevitable. However, recent research suggests that the process of violent radicalization of jihadist nature that some individuals experience in Western societies does not differ essentially from other processes based on political or nationalist ideologies. If this hypothesis is confirmed, the different political, religious, etc. contexts where the process of radicalization takes root would lose relevance in favor of the individual and the interpretation he makes of each of them. In other words, the arguments that support the consideration of Islam as a violent religion would lose weight in favor of the misuse, intentional or not, that some individuals make of religion to satisfy their own ends.

'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.