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 trueDifferent pathways and mechanisms of terrorism involvement operate in different ways for different people at different points in time and perhaps in different contexts This article explores the problems in defining radicalization and radicalism, and suggests that radicalization—and more specifically, involvement in terrorism—might best be viewed as a set of diverse processes It goes on to review several potentially promising theories that might support further study of those processes, including social movement theory, social psychology, and conversion theory Finally, it describes some possible frameworks for understanding how the processes might facilitate terrorism-related behavior This article is available in Journal of Strategic Security: http://scholarcommonsusfedu/jss/vol4/iss4/2 Journal of Strategic Security Volume 4 Issue 4 2011, pp 7-36 DOI: 105038/1944-0472441 Journal of Strategic Security (c) 2011 ISSN: 1944-0464 eISSN: 1944-0472 7 Radicalization into Violent Extremism I: A Review of Social Science Theories Randy Borum University of South Florida wborum@usfedu

/pdf/radicalization-into-violent-extremism-i-a-review-of-social-zgmrk5yn6x.pdf

Radicalization into Violent Extremism I: A Review of Social Science Theories

Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review

Since 2004, the term ‘radicalisation’ has become central to terrorism studies and counter-terrorism policy-making. As US and European governments have focused on stemming ‘home-grown’ Islamist political violence, the concept of radicalisation has become the master signifier of the late ‘war on terror’ and provided a new lens through which to view Muslim minorities. The introduction of policies designed to ‘counter-radicalise’ has been accompanied by the emergence of a government-funded industry of advisers, analysts, scholars, entrepreneurs and self-appointed community representatives who claim that their knowledge of a theological or psychological radicalisation process enables them to propose interventions in Muslim communities to prevent extremism. An examination of the concept of radicalisation used by the industry’s scholars shows its limitations and biases. The concept of radicalisation has led to the construction of Muslim populations as ‘suspect communities’, civil rights abuses and a damaging fai...

Radicalisation: the journey of a concept

This article interrogates the production of the ‘radicalisation’ discourse which underpins efforts to govern ‘terrorism’ pre-emptively through the UK's PREVENT strategy. British counter-terrorism currently relies upon the invention of ‘radicalisation’ and related knowledge about transitions to ‘terrorism’ to undertake governance of communities rendered suspicious. The article argues that such conceptions make terrorism knowable and governable through conceptions of risk. Radicalisation knowledge provides a counterfactual to terrorism—enabling governmental intervention in its supposed production. It makes the future actionable. However, while the deployment of ‘radicalisation’ functions to make terrorism pre-emptively governable and knowable, it also renders PREVENT unstable by simultaneously presenting ‘vulnerability indicators’ for radicalisation as threats to the wider collective—these conducts are framed as both ‘at risk’ and ‘risky’, both vulnerable and dangerous. This instability speaks to ad hoc production of the radicalisation discourse by scholarly and policy-making communities for the governance of terrorism through radicalisation knowledge. This article analyses the production of the radicalisation discourse to explore its performance as a form of risk governance within British counter-terrorism.

/pdf/counter-terrorism-and-the-counterfactual-producing-the-n0uivqis0y.pdf

Counter-Terrorism and the Counterfactual: Producing the ‘Radicalisation’ Discourse and the UK PREVENT Strategy:

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.

The radicalization puzzle: a theoretical synthesis of empirical approaches to homegrown extremism

The ubiquity of use of the term “radicalization” suggests a consensus about its meaning, but this article shows through a review of a variety of definitions that no such consensus exists. The article then argues that use of the term is problematic not just for these reasons, but because it is used in three different contexts: the security context, the integration context, and the foreign-policy context. It is argued that each of these contexts has a different agenda, impacted in the case of the integration agenda by the rise of European “neo-nationalism,” and so each uses the term “radical” to mean something different. The use of one term to denote at least three different concepts risks serious confusion. The proposed solution is to abandon the attempt to use “radicalization” as an absolute concept.

The Concept of Radicalization as a Source of Confusion

In a book that is evidently aimed at a general readership, but that does have a scholarly apparatus, John Mueller argues forcefully that America has consistently overestimated national security thr...

John Mueller. Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them

PROLOGUE LIST OF MAIN CHARACTERS THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRADITIONALISM 1. Traditionalism 2. Perennialism 3. Gnostics, Taoists and Sufis TRADITIONALISM IN PRACTICE 4. Cairo, Mostaganem and Basel 5. Fascism 7. Fragmentation TRADITIONALISM AT LARGE 7. The Maryamiyya 8. America 9. Terror in Italy 10. Education TRADITIONALISM AND THE FUTURE 11. Europe after 1968 12. Neo-Eurasianism in Russia 13. The Islamic World 14. Against the Stream

/pdf/against-the-modern-world-traditionalism-and-the-secret-myo02kcp0p.pdf

Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century

Against the Modern World

This article examines the causes of terrorism at a global level. It also reexamines the chronology of terrorism since the nineteenth century. It argues that local causes cannot explain global waves, and that while ideology is a necessary ingredient in causing terrorism, it does not explain it. The article proposes that the most important cause of global waves of terror is the inspiring example for radicals everywhere of what are, or appear to be, successful uses of terrorist strategies. This hypothesis is tested in the context of a reevaluation of David Rapoport's chronology of global waves of terrorism. The article argues for different periodization, and for labeling the waves as Italian, German, Chinese, and Afghan.

Mark Sedgwick

Papers

The Concept of Radicalization as a Source of Confusion

John Mueller. Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them

Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century

Against the Modern World

Inspiration and the Origins of Global Waves of Terrorism