By Marcello Tomasina
International Counter Terrorism Youth Network
Introduction
A terrorist does not arise in a vacuum, rather he is the outcome of non-linear interactions within a radicalized environment. As attacks and foiled plots continue to jeopardize national security, radicalizations pathways have fluidly adapted to different scenarios, providing human capital to contemporary terrorism and political violence. In order to thwart this threat, scholars and policy analysts have increasingly invested in the field of preventing violent extremism (hereinafter PVE), chiefly trying to unfold the homegrown terrorism dilemma.
The controversy in defying radicalization trajectories, which lies in the terrorists’ mirroring strategy of “conquering hearts and minds”, , finds its preeminent conundrum in the relation between extremism and radicalization. As illustrated by Hafez and Mullins (2015), earlier attempt to reveal “terrorist personalities” have largely been abandoned, with little validity found in explanations of terrorism based on a high level of psychopathology (Crenshaw, 1981; Ruby, 2002), economically deprived backgrounds and little education (Atran, 2003) or demographic and socioeconomic factors (Ehrlich & Li, 2002).
Considered the “lack of understanding or consensus on what motivates an individual to become a terrorist and engage in violent acts” (Borum, 2011), social scientists has progressively shifted toward a holistic approach. Markedly, radicalization is now perceived as the result of a process of increasing commitment, influenced by background, trigger and opportunity factors. A pathway build on multi-determined and multiple driven factors, where “ideologies are develop within the human ecology of nested contexts and systems” (Borum, 2011) and different pathways could lead to radicalization.
Extremism and Radicalization: Three pathways for homegrownterrorist actors
During the past decades, how to conceptualize radicalization has been extensively debated. Currently, the international community reached a quasi-agreement over its definition as “a graduate process that entails socialization into an extremist belief system that sets the stage for violence even if does not make in inevitable” (Hafez, 2015).
More extensively, it is described as “a social and psychological process of incrementally experienced commitment to extremist political or religious ideology, a nonlinear phenomenon that emerges out of a convergence of several predisposing risk factors” (Horgan, 2003); a “random and decentralized network dynamics (Sageman, 2008); or socio-political and psychological mechanisms at various level of analysis (McCauley and Moskalenko, 2011).
While a consensus was reached on the holistic dimension of radicalizations, the abandonment of the “terrorist profiling” left a conundrum over the pathways leading from the “zero-point”, an initial stage of non-action defined by cognitive opening to extremist beliefs, to the “final stage”, the violent act. In an attempt to fill this vacuum, three prominent models were created to describe how violent ideologies are adopted and translated into justification for violence: Ehud Sprinzak’s “Process of Delegitimization”; Mohammed Hafez and Creighton Mullins’ “Radicalization Puzzle”; Fathali Moghaddam’s “Staircase to Terrorism”. On one hand, these theories were developed on the common assumption of a progressive commitment and increasing engagement observable in changing overt behaviours; on the other hand, they respectively explained these interactions as either the result of a narrowing psychological path or the present of existent trajectories.
The Stage, The Puzzle and the Staircaise
The “three-stage process of delegitimation” was developed by Ehud Sprinzak in the 90’s, as result of his work on the psychopolitical formation of extreme left terrorists groups such as Weathermen. According to the author, homegrown actors are “involved in a ‘barbaric’ dehumanization of the existing social structure to an ideological, cultural and moral level” (Sprinzak, 1998). These action are consumed in a radical Mileu, and experience in political terms as an ideological phenomenon originated by a crisis of confidence,6 followed by a conflict7 and later by a crisis of legitimacy”.8 The peculiarity of Sprinzak’s analysis lies in the psychopolitical approach to terrorism, described as a non-suis generis phenomenon.
In his view, radicalization occurs as the result of a combination of psychological perceptions over legitimization and authority of the ruling order, reflected by the groupthinking identity dynamics. While the predominance of the political sphere chiefly contributes to understand the antagonistic environment proper of violent political groups, the model suffers from methodological limitations when applied to modern hybrid organizations. Developed in the 90s, the “three-stage process of delegitimation” does not account for decentralized pathways occurring as result of the new media and online radicalization.
The “Radicalization Puzzle” was developed by Mohamed Hafez as theoretical synthesis of empirical studies on homegrown terrorist in the United States. According to the author, the field of radicalization was undergoing “appreciable theoretical and empirical advantages, […] while it continues to suffer from reliable evidentiary foundations” (Hafez, 2015).
With this in mind, Hafez developed an empirical model to analyse the converging factors involved in radicalization within jihadism as a mobilizing political ideology. His researches resulted in the definition of specific trajtories to radicalization, respectively shaped by four dimensions: grievances, networks, ideologies, enabling environment and support structures. On the positive side, the empirical evaluation of these trajectories allowed the author to correlate on a local and global scale the impact of both psycho-social dynamics and environmental conditions on personal and group interactions. On the negative side, the results only provided an insight on highly influencing variables as standalone factors. As result, the model is limited in his effectiveness to address the continuum of commitment, internalization and affiliation to radical narratives.
The “Staircase to Terrorism” was developed by Fathali M. Moghaddam as a theoretical framework to provide a more in depth understanding of terrorism. According to the author, the radicalization process resembles a six-floor staircase, where each floor represents a particular psychological stage leading from inaction to execution of the violent act. Respectively, each floor is described as: psychological interpretation of material conditions,perceived options to fight unfair treatment, displacement aggression, moral engagement, solidification of categorical thinking, and the perceived legitimacy of the terrorist organization and the terrorist act of sidestepping inhibitory mechanisms.
Why a Staircase to Terrorism: a three models comparison
The radicalization trail does not occur from a linear process, nor is the outcome of a unique set of variables or psychological inclinations. As described by Sprinzak’s and Hafez’s, the antagonistic relation between a subject and the political environment, foster by psychological trajectories are the bedrock for any story of radicalization. Nevertheless, the coexistence of these variables per se is not sufficient in leading a subject from a “point-zero” to an act of violence.
Via the metaphor of a staircase, Moghaddam describes the subjective dimension of the radicalization pathway, a narrowing psychological process from inaction to action. Within the “staircase to terrorism”, each steps leverages on different variables (i.e perceived level of deprivation and fairness, egoistical deprivation, procedural justice and normality, etc…)19 to force the subject to a keener degree of commitment. The first three “floors” are characterized by ideological permeation without a moral and pragmatical involvement. Differently, the last two, are defined by keen internalization of the extreme radical ideologies, opening the subject to recruitment and operational involvement.
From an operational and analytical point of view, the holistic approach of the “staircase to terrorism” provides the most effective insight among the models assessed. On the positive side, Moghadam was able to combine variables and trajectories from previous theories while addressing specific stages within radicalization. At the same time, the definition of specific tames frame within this process opens to the creation of policies specifically address for different levels of commitment. On the negative side, the one-person analysis confined to role of the pairs to the “in/out group” identity formation and the pragmatical contribution in radicalizing and supporting the violent acting out.
Conclusion
At the time of writing, the field of counter terrorism is hobbling through a theoretical and operational dichotomy. On one hand, practitioner and scholars proved to be unable to reach an agreement over the definition of terrorism, its modus operandi, structure and evolution.
On the other hand, there is a consensus over the keen threat posed by violent extremism and radicalization to western societies. In this situation, scholars are called to shed light on the dynamics of terrorism in the effort of providing tools to thwart this threat.
On the other hand, there is a consensus over the keen threat posed by violent extremism and radicalization to western societies. In this situation, scholars are called to shed light on the dynamics of terrorism in the effort of providing tools to thwart this threat.
As previously described, Sprinzak’s paradigm was ahead of its time in defining trajectories, rather than profiles, for radicalization; on the other hand, the nature of hybrid organizations and the introduction of new media has sensibly outdated some of its conclusions. Differently, Hafez’ and Moghaddam’s theories were built for a globalized form of political violence, in which terrorism is understood as a multi-driven and multi causes phenomenon interacting at any societal level.
With this in mind, Hafez’s frame has its strength on the empirical validity of its findings, which provide a flawless description of variables and trajectories, background and triggering factors of radicalization. On the opposite, Moghaddam’s “Staircase to terrorism” offers a unique insight within a subject’s radicalization process, accounting for the internal psychological bargain leading to a final violent act. As described by the author, “the metaphor direct us to build a solid foundation of contextualized democracy so that there will be minimal incentive for individuals to climb to higher floors and join terrorist organizations.” (Moghaddam, 2015)
In conclusion, the analysis presented advocates for the need to overcome theoretical conundrums in defining the different dimensions of terrorism in favour of policy oriented studies. As shown by the comparison between Moghaddam’s and Hafez’s models, while quantitative investigations could bring unique benefits to the cause, their outcome may be necessary but not sufficient to bring light on how terrorism unfolds on the field.
Reference:
No comments:
Post a Comment