Radicalization

Mainstream media has markedly depicted Salafism in quite monolithic ways, giving an impression of uniformity in ideology and practice of this community. This picture has moreover been framed in particularly negative ways when destructive phenomena like transnational terrorism, violent Jihadism and radical insurgency are closely associated with the movement. I decided to study how British Salafist responses to the London 7/7 bombings have been represented. The aim has been to study how such an atrocious act with the capacity to divide society has stimulated the will to live in peace or conflict; and moreover, I aim to look at how these responses have been portrayed by Salafis themselves over against the depictions given by mainstream media. I have however chosen to focus on the visual iconographic representations of these responses because I found them intriguing: “a picture paints a thousand words.” The thesis conducts a critical discourse analysis of these visual representations of Salafist responses to 7/7.

What would a high speed collision between feminism, queer theory and accelerationism look like? Has it already happened? Or, if it hasn’t yet, what kind of futures might an accelerationist feminism/queer theory promise in a world seemingly without promises?

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 focus of this book is ultimately to present a clear and succinct view of what psychological research has revealed about terrorists and terrorism. The results are often disturbing, sometimes surprising and frequently disheartening. Perhaps most worrying of all, is the extent to which this current level and range of knowledge has repeatedly been ignored and overlooked by those tasked with the responsibility of controlling terrorism. This book aims to provide a clear, intelligent and well-informed account of what psychology has learned in the past thirty years about issues relating to terrorism. It also aims to demonstrate just how one branch of social science can provide a powerful tool for insight and guidance on one of the most challenging problems facing the modern world. 

"The advancement of a critical animal pedagogy is predicated on the examination and eradication of speciesist pedagogies. Academics who challenge these oppressive pedagogies are mapped within a spectrum of discourses that examine power, and subsequently labeled within a binary of “good scholar/bad scholar.”  The hegemonic animal welfarists enjoy the privileges of being the “good academic,” while those who adopt an anti-speciesist methodology and endorse confrontational tactics are rhetorically constructed as the latter. There are those who critique speciesism but do not support direct action, and those who do nothing with the species binary but would illegally remove a dog or cat from abusive homes. Regardless, activists and academics in support of confrontational tactics are constructed as the ideological-other and tactically “radical.” Similar to the intersectionality of systems of oppression, systems of repression intersect at the juncture of academia and activism. The experiences of leftist academics are stratified within neoliberal academic capitalism, the individualistic knowledge-as-commodity corporate university. The political landscape of dissent is manipulated through the architecture of industry-sponsored legislation. Thus, the ghettoization (symbolically and respectfully referring to the removal and isolation of Jews to an island in Venice called ghèto) of critical animal scholars coincides with the terrorization of animal liberationists. The rhetoric used to redefine dissent as terrorism in the 2006 U.S. Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act (AETA) makes no distinction between the quantitative research churned out by anarchist anti-speciesist academics and the torched leather factory in Salt Lake City, Utah—both can, in the language of the law, “damage or interfere with the operations of an animal enterprise.”  Through an interrogation of these processes, we define our roles as academics committed to defending animal liberation by whatever means necessary.

The following chapter takes on the challenge of bridging the personal with the political. It attempts to do so by interrogating an investigative tradition and praxis not yet solidified within “The Academy.”  Personal experiences, told through anecdotal tales, contextualize the terrain of academic and activist repression. We attempt to remedy the jargon-ridden theoretical groundings of this chapter with a satirical conclusion: a communiqué. The communiqué captures our disdain for oppressive pedagogies and capital-driven legislation that marginalize and silence animal liberationists. Despite the inspiring and lengthy history of animal liberation actions in the last half-century, there remains a gaping hole in academic literature on this storied past. There are a plethora of government-sponsored treaties that attempt to define property destruction and animal rescues as terrorism, and heaps of publishers anxious to print yet another animal studies paper praising the contradictory practice of “humane” exploitation. But the theoretical articulations sympathetic with animal liberation are systematically excluded through the channels of academic capitalism. Scholars face a disincentive to devote serious analytical attention to defining and defending animal liberation. This chapter, as part of the larger critical animal studies efforts, recognizes the revolutionary significance of animal liberation. Although it may make us a bit unpopular, and solidifies our typecast roles as “radical,” we unabashedly encourage and endorse the theoretically significant methodologies of animal liberation by whatever means necessary. In academia, the endorsement of both legal and illegal direct action in opposition to speciesism is certainly not smiled upon. Universities serve animal products in their cafeterias, many have animals in vivisection labs, and further use animal cadavers in medical school classrooms. Sure, other “radical” challenges to hegemony are frowned upon. But the holistic, intersectional critiques of ideology we promulgate call into question the very essence of contemporary academia: capitalism, speciesism, classism and privilege, systemic racism, gender and sexual normativity, and so on. We support a revolution that challenges all of these structures of oppression in the name of total liberation. It is not about who is labeled the most “radical” or which “radicals” are most repressed. It is about how the structure of academia marginalizes those challenging its modern-day form."

Recent scholarship has called for additional research into the role of charismatic authority in terrorist groups and the process of radicalization. However, the sociological concepts of charisma and charismatic authority are being widely misused in terrorism studies. Current radicalization research often indirectly flirts with core concepts of charismatic authority, but fails to properly tap into its analytical utility. This article proposes to begin addressing this gap in knowledge in three ways, with: (1) a synthesis of social scientific research on charismatic authority, (2) a critical analysis of how charismatic authority is being misused and overlooked in the terrorist radicalization literature, and (3) an exploration of challenges and opportunities for future research concerning charismatic authority and terrorist radicalization.

The Salafi movement presents itself as a moral guardian of Muslims in a world that, according to many, is filled with moral crisis, temptations and anti-Islam tendencies. Salafis claim that it is essential to return to the community of the pious forefathers seen as the most outstanding community of all times with the highest absolute moral standard. In this article I will show how individual participants engage with this idea of a moral community of believers yet remain vulnerable to the ambiguities and ruptures inherent in everyday life and within the Salafi movement. By exploring how Salafis passionately try to search for the ‘correct’ knowledge and strive to maintain a unity between knowledge, conviction and behavior, and the role of friendships therein, I argue that Salafism does not remain separate from the troubles of everyday but that these issues enter into and exist in Salafi thought and practice, not by being resolved but by being transformed into personal struggles. These ambiguities and ruptures may cause problems but also provide an incentive for Salafis to continuously work at the self-improvement of one’s piety, authenticity, and sisterhood and brotherhood.

Violent extremist groups from a wide variety of backgrounds have long been recognized to be making extensive use of the internet. However, assessments of the cyber-terrorist threat have often been wastefully focused on issues and concerns which do not match fully with the reality of how terrorists are currently interested in the internet or on what activities such individuals and groups are actually engaged in. Instead, the main concern has been on what terrorists might do, especially with regard to information warfare. Such a heavy focus on possibilities is misguided and overlooks the substantial manner in which the internet is already being exploited by various extremists. Rather, much more serious issues are raised by the way in which terrorist organisations are currently and demonstrably using the internet to recruit new members, generate international support, raise and launder funds, and to share information and knowledge with similar groups

This book explores how psychology can improve our understanding of terrorism and counterterrorism. The book starts by exploring the psychology of terrorists; what their motivations are, what keeps them involved in terrorist groups, and what eventually forces most to end their active involvement in terrorism. Next, the focus shifts to responding to terrorism, looking both at tactical problems (e.g. how to interview terrorist suspects), as well as more long-term strategies around bringing entire terrorist campaigns to an end.