Psychological Approaches to Radicalisation

Author: Dr. Ayşenur Benevento, ERC PRIME Youth Project Post-doc Researcher, European Institute, İstanbul Bilgi University

The purpose of this blog post is to investigate psychology’s foundational theories (Psychoanalytic, Cognitive, Behaviourist, and Socio-Cultural ) and seek how they have (or might have) contributed to the study of radicalisation from a psychological perspective. In order to understand more about how psychology approached the concept of radicalisation, which literally means going back to the roots, I will attempt to delve deep into the main theories of psychology.

How Psychology Theorizes and Studies Processes of Change

I would like to establish two points about radicalisation before starting to focus on psychological theories. Firstly, the term radicalisation refers to a process rather than to a static state. Here, radicalism is not considered as a final end point which individuals arrive at. If radicalisation is recognized as a process then learning about how psychology has approached processes involving behavioural, emotional and cognitive change might be helpful in theorizing the phenomenon further. Second, radicalism does not always involve behaviour, let alone a violent one. Only a few individuals who radicalise participate in violent behaviour as there exists a distinction between accepting radical ideas and actively participating in violent acts as a result of those ideas (Bjorgo & John, 2009; Fraihi, 2008: Wilner & Dubouloz, 2010). Many models about radicalisation claim that radicalisation is a process through which individuals become increasingly motivated to use violent means to achieve the change they desire in society and politics. Given the increasing statistics of violent extremist and terrorist actions in the past 30 years in global world, understanding “what goes on before the bomb goes off” has become very intriguing for social scientists to respond to what has been accepted as a global problem. The following sections will select the four psychological schools of thought - Psychoanalytic, Cognitive, Behaviourist and Socio-Cultural – to assess and inform theories of radicalisation in light of these two arguments.

Psychoanalytic Approach

Theoretically, the psychoanalysis is not interested in studying the `normal’ and always works backwards, which means that the work starts from what is considered as an undesirable human thought, behaviour or emotion as the end of the process. Generally speaking, violent thoughts, emotions and behaviours are considered damaging both for the owner of such thoughts, emotions and behaviours and the ones being impacted by them directly. In the meantime, for a thought, emotion or behaviour to be considered abnormal one other condition is for them to be rare among other humans. Thus, according to the psychoanalytic approach, when they take violent forms, radical thoughts, emotions and behaviours might be identified as abnormal. Given that violent radical activity can be clearly defined as a form of ‘abnormal’ activity, the psychoanalytic approach has had much to contribute to the understanding of violent radicalisation. By this logic, the claim that - not all radicalisation is bad – would not be accepted by the researchers who ground their work on psychoanalytic theory. Thus, many who claimed to have studied radicalisation from psychoanalytic lenses (Adorno et al. 1950; Lifton 1961; Post, 1998; Rogers et al., 2007; Silke, 2003; Strenger, 2015; Taylor 2004) had to suggest that extremists and terrorists are psychologically abnormal and that radicalisation process can be understood by studying extremists and terrorists.

Psychoanalytic literature might be important in its complementarity to cognitive and social psychological models of political violence, especially in considering the unconscious and symbolic aspects of intergroup political and ideological conflicts and in providing a template for clinicians who may encounter early signs of radicalisation in patients (e.g. increased levels of anger towards specific groups of people, extreme belief in conspiracy theories and paranoia, etc.) before any organizational affiliation and tactical measures take place (Cohen, 2019). However, over the years, psychoanalysis and its applications have been strongly criticised for being unscientific and not sensitive to diversity of human contexts. Unfortunately, many researchers and ‘experts’ who suggest that terrorists are psychologically abnormal tend to be the ones with the least amount of contact with actual terrorists compared to those with direct contact who find that suggestions of abnormality do not stand up to close examination (Silke, 1998). Trying to be established as a hard science that relies on empirical evidence, modern psychology has denied psychoanalytic theory, which is very case based and insufficient to draw generalizable conclusions applicable to many individuals.

Cognitivist Approach

Cognitivist theories in cognitive psychology investigate mental functions and processes of human mind. These theories aim to explain how individuals learn and adapt to new environments, and constraints, construct the world, and apply their knowledge. Perhaps one important claim all constructivists have is that humans have the ability and power in deciding how to construct their understanding. In other words, they do not passively process whatever information and opportunity they are being provided, but instead, they direct and attend their own perceptions with a purpose, which is to understand the reasons behind their observations.

In terms of radicalisation literature, what endpoint forms the focus of analysis has important implications for the study of cognitive radicalisation. What changes happen in the way individuals think that we might consider important to track down in radicalisation process? First of all, we must remember that cognitivists must believe that all action – moderate, angry, very angry and even violent – is the product of reasoning. Because we can track thinking process through actions and their expressions, what people do and how they express their thoughts may be the only sources of information for researchers to examine cognitive processes of radicalisation. Once we accept radicalisation as a way to express their views (Kaya, 2020), we start arguing that freedom of speech is absolute and that individuals can express their views, even violent ones, as long as they do so by peaceful means. Such Anglo-Saxon approach, as Neumann (2013) argues, does not see extremist beliefs as endpoint and problematic. The endpoint, then, would be any perception or belief that would indicate a way of thinking that is more distinct than the rest. For instance, an expression rejecting the democratic principles in a democratic society is neither violent nor forbidden but could indicate a form of radicalisation. There exists a disagreement whether it is thought or behaviour that constitutes a threat, and whether non-violent radicalism is, or is not, a threat (Sedgwick, 2010). A cognitivist, then must decide what constitutes as distinct way of thinking or action that might affect others negatively and then search factors (e.g. age, gender, religious beliefs, ideologies, etc) contributing to them. In reality, however, I observed that many psychologists who approached the topic of radicalisation from cognitive perspective consider radicalisation as a process that leads to violent behaviour which then needs to be combatted.

The current literature tends to criminalise or pathologize political beliefs or dissent, even though freedom of thought is considered to be an inviolable human right in democratic and pluralistic contexts (da Silva et al., 2019). The end point, the last stage of the thinking process, is considered as the very last rationale behind violent behaviour. Thus, it is safe to say that the existing literature does not seem very open minded about accepting radicalisation as a way of thinking despite the very thing that it studies: how mind works.

Behaviourist (Learning) Approach

Behaviourism is grounded on the idea that psychology could become just as scientific as physics, chemistry, and other hard sciences by ignoring the subjective reports of conscious experience and focusing on observable (and sometimes unobservable, such as thoughts and feelings) behaviour. This approach offers no space for agency of individuals but only accounts for factors that “force” them to push toward or withdraw from a behaviour. A behaviourist must believe that all action – moderate, angry, very angry and even violent – is the product of outside forces.

Scholars who support a more deterministic and behaviourist approach claim that radicalisation and deradicalisation are mirror images of each other, and the processes that support deradicalisation reverse those that promote radicalisation (see, Kruglanski, et al., 2014). Although this position was challenged in the literature (e.g. Gøtzsche-Astrup, 2018; Horgan, 2009), it is no wonder that deradicalisation programs are all based on the behaviourist approach, which aim to decrease individuals’ commitment to ideological goals and pursue alternative objectives to the ones they have learned previously. Not only does such “evidence based” programs might close the space for important debates about issues which are causing understandable frustration among radicalized individuals, but it also means that authorities tend to respond only to those deemed moderate voices or the usual suspects (Briggs, Fieschi & Lownsbrough, 2006).

Socio-Cultural Approach

According to this approach, human psychology can be explained only in terms of its social, historical and cultural context. Human mind is not inside the skull anymore and it could be understood by looking at its involvement in the world. History, philosophy, politics and economics also have major influence on the ways individuals experience processes of change. Socio-cultural approach, therefore, claims that there is no such thing as a unique, inevitable or desirable endpoint of cognitive, behavioural or emotional change for every culture, every context and for every individual.

There are some scholars who acknowledge that pathways into radicalisation are multilevel and involve layers of factors, including intra-individual, community-based, and contextual with global ideological forces (e.g., Ferguson & Binks, 2015, Ferguson & McAuley, 2019; Ranstorp, 2016). In addition, while many radicalized individuals share similar experiences, there exists research accounts that show no direct link between becoming ideologically and politically radicalised and engaging in extremist violence (e.g. Della Porta & La Free, 2012; Ferguson & McAuley; 2019). Such accounts that challenge the previously confirmed constructs must urge researchers to forego positivistic and normative claims. Twenty-first century psychology requires critical thinking about the discipline’s foundations, along with robust and sensitive analysis of how individuals in different contexts experience the radicalism process.

The importance of comprehensive and culturally sensitive approach for the study of radicalisation is also crucial for the implications the research might have in integration efforts. To date, research-led and government-led initiatives address the challenge of integration through a combination of education, training, religious and cultural dialogue that help small community members integrate into majority societies. A research or government-led initiative that is deaf to the socio-cultural norms and the local economic and political realities not only have little chance to be accepted by individuals who already have high perception of grievance but also might widen the trust gap between those individuals and authorities. Therefore, a socio-cultural approach might also have a lot to offer to those who plan to move beyond understanding the radicalisation process in a unique context and study patterns of differences and similarities with others who share similar characteristics.

Conclusion

In closing, I want to note that the current literature on radicalisation is very difficult to comprehend for several reasons. It is this intervention’s claim that the biggest reason is the wide range of disciplines that have studied the topic which makes it difficult for one to approach the concept with a specialized focus. Even if one searches articles with a focus on Psychology, it is inevitable to review and include writings from different fields, focusing on different aspects of radicalisation, using variations of definitions and perspectives from, again, different fields. Second, people radicalize about different issues in different ways and variations. However, it is very difficult to decide what appears to indicate a form of radicalisation and it is often not possible to examine how one radicalises overtime. This difficulty results with many conceptual models that keep appearing in literature with little to no cross-sectional or longitudinal findings, which would be useful to document processes of radicalisation.

It is this intervention’s claim that such difficulty can be overcome by using the very core, field specific theoretical constructions that existed before the term radicalisation was politicized and Westernized. For instance, if a psychologist believes that the environment one lives in has the utmost impact on them exhibiting unwanted behaviours and thoughts, they would be expected to recommend ways for society to prevent such unwanted behaviours and thoughts. If a psychologist approaches the concept of radicalisation with internationally and culturally sensitive lenses, they would gather as much information as possible about the context their research participants are situated in. In sum, a theoretical position needs to be taken before formulating a hypothesis and designing a research study. Perhaps that is the most important conclusion that can be drawn from this intervention.

References

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Bjørgo, T., & Horgan, J. (Eds.). (2009). Leaving terrorism behind. Individual and collective disengagement. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Briggs, R., Fieschi, C., & Lownsbrough, H. (2006). Bringing it Home. Community-based approaches to counter-terrorism. London, Demos.

da Silva, R., Fernández-Navarro, P., Gonçalves, M. M., Rosa, C., & Silva, J. (2019). Tracking narrative change in the context of extremism and terrorism: Adapting the Innovative Moments Coding System. Aggression and violent behavior.

Della Porta, D., & LaFree, G. (2012). Guest editorial: Processes of radicalisation and deradicalisation. International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV), 6(1), 4-10.

Ferguson, N., & Binks, E. (2015). Understanding radicalisation and engagement in terrorism through religious conversion motifs. Journal of Strategic Security, 8(1-2), 16-26.

Ferguson, N., & McAuley, J. W. (2019). Radicalisation or Reaction: Understanding Engagement in Violent Extremism in Northern Ireland. Political Psychology.

Fraihi, T. (2008). Escalating radicalisation: The debate within Muslim and immigrant communities. Jihadi terrorism and the radicalisation challenge in Europe. Hampshire: Ashgate.

Gøtzsche-Astrup, O. (2018). The time for causal designs: Review and evaluation of empirical support for mechanisms of political radicalisation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 39, 90-99.

Kaya, A. (2020, February 21). Extremism and Radicalisation: What makes the difference? [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://bpy.bilgi.edu.tr/en/blog/extremism-and-radicalisation-what-makes-difference/

Kruglanski, A. W., Gelfand, M. J., Bélanger, J. J., Sheveland, A., Hetiarachchi, M., & Gunaratna, R. (2014). The psychology of radicalisation and deradicalisation: How significance quest impacts violent extremism. Political Psychology, 35, 69-93.

Lifton, E. J. 2007. A clinical psychology perspective on radical Islamic youth. In Islamic Political Radicalism: A European Perspective. Abbas T (ed.). Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh; 25–41.

Neumann, P. R. (2013). Options and strategies for countering online radicalisation in the United States. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(6), 431-459.

Post, J.M. (1998). Terrorist psycho-logic: Terrorist behavior as a product of psychological forces. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind (pp. 24–40). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Ranstorp, M. (2016). The root causes of violent extremism. RAN Issue paper, 4.

Rogers, M.B., Loewenthal, K.M., Lewis, C.A., Amlôt, R, Cinnirella, M. and Ansari, H. (2007). The role of religious fundamentalism in terrorist violence: A social psychological analysis. International Review of Psychiatry, 19 (3), 253–262.

Sedgwick, M. (2010). The concept of radicalisation as a source of confusion. Terrorism and political violence, 22(4), 479-494.

Silke, A. (2003). Terrorists, Victims and Society: Psychological perspectives on terrorism and its consequences. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Strenger, C. (2015). Freud's legacy in the global era. Routledge.

Taylor, K. (2004), Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control. Oxford University Press.

Wilner, A. S., & Dubouloz, C. J. (2010). Homegrown terrorism and transformative learning: an interdisciplinary approach to understanding radicalisation. Global Change, Peace & Security, 22(1), 33-51.