Page 19 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 5-6: Radicalization, Violent Extremism and Conflicting Diversity, eds. Mitja Sardoč and Tomaž Deželan
P. 19
j. richards ■ a conceptual exploration of radicalisation
extreme-right of politics in an expression of violent nationalism and xeno-
phobia; or in the radicalisation of minority groups towards revolutionary,
sectarian and anti-democratic movements such as Daesh. When looking
at the problem through the macro end of the telescope therefore, radical-
isation must be conceptualised as the result of structural shifts in society.
The Micro-level Approach
However, it is pertinent at this stage to return to the troubling question
of why responses to structural factors that affect broad swathes of socie-
ty are so variable, not only between regions but right down to the indi-
vidual level. Why did structural transformations in society cause Thomas
Mair and Muhammad Siddique Khan to decide that murder was an ap-
propriate way forward, when the vast majority of their immediate neigh-
bours and associates have decided otherwise? This must mean that gener-
alisations must be taken carefully, and that context-specificity may often
be crucially important.
What this also means is that much of the analysis of the concept of
radicalisation has connected with micro-level analysis in the realms of an-
thropology, sociology and psychology, taking as a frame the closely-relat-
ed questions of how and why individuals can turn to violence.
Jeff Victoroff undertook a useful survey of theorising around ex-
tremism and radicalisation in the run-up to, and immediately post-9/11,
which identified a significant range of macro-level and micro-level the-
ories (Victoroff, 2005). Echoing Crenshaw’s triumvirate of perspectives
based on person, group and society (Crenshaw, 1981), theories have been
active in the political, sociological and psychological realms. At the mac-
ro-level, “relative deprivation and oppression theories” appear to be dom-
inant (Victoroff, 2005: p. 11), but at the psycho-social levels, theories have
abounded to include rational choice theory, identity theory, theories fo-
cusing on narcissism and paranoia, cognitive, and group process theo-
ries. Indeed, particularly after the spur of 9/11 and notwithstanding the
difficulties in defining “terrorism”, a veritable “potpourri of psycholog-
ical theories” have emerged about extremism and radicalisation leading
to terrorism (Victoroff, 2005: p. 31). Virtually all of these are somewhat
flawed in their methodological approaches and none can be taken as safe
generalisations.
With that said, one of the key intersections between the macro and
micro-levels of analysis can be seen in identity theory, and specifically in
Sheldon Stryker’s development of “structural symbolic interactionism”
(SSI). As Stryker suggests, the starting point for identity theory is that
“society impacts self impacts social behavior” (Stryker, 2008: p. 20). It
17
extreme-right of politics in an expression of violent nationalism and xeno-
phobia; or in the radicalisation of minority groups towards revolutionary,
sectarian and anti-democratic movements such as Daesh. When looking
at the problem through the macro end of the telescope therefore, radical-
isation must be conceptualised as the result of structural shifts in society.
The Micro-level Approach
However, it is pertinent at this stage to return to the troubling question
of why responses to structural factors that affect broad swathes of socie-
ty are so variable, not only between regions but right down to the indi-
vidual level. Why did structural transformations in society cause Thomas
Mair and Muhammad Siddique Khan to decide that murder was an ap-
propriate way forward, when the vast majority of their immediate neigh-
bours and associates have decided otherwise? This must mean that gener-
alisations must be taken carefully, and that context-specificity may often
be crucially important.
What this also means is that much of the analysis of the concept of
radicalisation has connected with micro-level analysis in the realms of an-
thropology, sociology and psychology, taking as a frame the closely-relat-
ed questions of how and why individuals can turn to violence.
Jeff Victoroff undertook a useful survey of theorising around ex-
tremism and radicalisation in the run-up to, and immediately post-9/11,
which identified a significant range of macro-level and micro-level the-
ories (Victoroff, 2005). Echoing Crenshaw’s triumvirate of perspectives
based on person, group and society (Crenshaw, 1981), theories have been
active in the political, sociological and psychological realms. At the mac-
ro-level, “relative deprivation and oppression theories” appear to be dom-
inant (Victoroff, 2005: p. 11), but at the psycho-social levels, theories have
abounded to include rational choice theory, identity theory, theories fo-
cusing on narcissism and paranoia, cognitive, and group process theo-
ries. Indeed, particularly after the spur of 9/11 and notwithstanding the
difficulties in defining “terrorism”, a veritable “potpourri of psycholog-
ical theories” have emerged about extremism and radicalisation leading
to terrorism (Victoroff, 2005: p. 31). Virtually all of these are somewhat
flawed in their methodological approaches and none can be taken as safe
generalisations.
With that said, one of the key intersections between the macro and
micro-levels of analysis can be seen in identity theory, and specifically in
Sheldon Stryker’s development of “structural symbolic interactionism”
(SSI). As Stryker suggests, the starting point for identity theory is that
“society impacts self impacts social behavior” (Stryker, 2008: p. 20). It
17
