Paper Example on Radicalization Process in Terrorism

Introduction

Terrorism, like any other aspect, needs motivation, whether internal or external. Terrorists do have internal factors leading to their actions. Some of these actions may be related to the immediate environment they live in, whereas other factors may as a result of psychological issues of an individual. Irrespective of the motivating factors, terrorism cannot be justified owing to the consequences of such terrorist activities. Various models have been identified to explain the different terrorist motivations (Moghaddam et al., 2016).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The models may be similar in some aspects and contrast in other concepts. This essay, therefore, aims at comparing and contrasting the various models that explain the motivation of terrorists. Also, the paper describes the various behavioural and psychological factors that may lead to withdrawal from terrorist activities. The text also describes the various efforts and programs that are effective in disengaging a terrorist from multiple terrorist activities. Below is a description of the different radicalization models.

Sagemen’s Four Prongs Model

Sagemen presents the view that radicalization is essentially a theological and physiological process that occurs in various stages. In these stages, an individual gradually transforms from a remarkable individual to a terrorist who can carry out terrorist attacks. In each of the steps, an individual undergoes behavioural, psychological and theological changes. The first stage in this model is the pre-radicalization phase in which the individual has not been exposed to the Jihadi-Salafi Islam. The self-identification stage comes second, and this stage causes a radical change within an individual. It is the stage where a person begins to learn about Salafi Islam due to cognitive opening (Wilner & Duboilouz, 2016).

As a result, there is a breakdown of identity and concurrent identification with like-minded people. Various changes can be observed within an individual at this stage. Some of such changes include alienation from a former life and forming groups with like-minded individuals to strengthen their dedication to Salafi Islam. Giving up activities that are not in line with Salafi Islam, including smoking and adopting Salafi laws such as wearing traditional Islamic clothes is another behaviour change.

Indoctrination which is the third stage in the model involves the intensification of beliefs adopted during the self-identification phase. An individual aligns with the ideologies identified within the formed groups. A person entirely behaves in the ways dictated by Salafi Islam and depends on the newly formed groups as the ideal reference.

Jihadism is the final stage an individual goes through when becoming a terrorist. In this stage, the individual accepts his or her responsibility to take part in jihad activities (Rousseau et al., 2017). It is in this stage that an individual can accept the responsibility of being a suicide bomber as a true jihadist. The steps can be considered a funnel through which a person becomes a terrorist as his or her belief becomes more radical, thus considered to be a radicalization process.

The model can, therefore, be adopted in the prevention of terrorist activities. This can be achieved through the early identification of the radicalization incubators. Identification of such incubators can be achieved through the observation of behavioural changes and the identification of groups in the radicalization phase (Stephens et al., 2019).

However, such actions may be brutal since some of the groups may appear to be ordinary people socializing in cafes, social platforms and even mosques. This model takes into consideration the spiritual aspect where an individual acts on perceived religious beliefs and the psychological element where a person acts about the change in psychology.

Moghaddam Staircase to Terrorism

As opposed to the four-prong model, this model explores only the psychological aspects that lead to terrorism. The model consists of six floors that describe the various individuals within a demographic. The ground floor of the model represents all members of the society who perceive their living conditions to be fair. As long as the individuals continue to consider their lives to be fair, they remain on the ground floor (Jensen et al., 2020).

However, some individuals view their living conditions to be fair and explore the various aspects of the environment to better their lives. The available options for the individuals should be non-violent. The individuals who become unsatisfied with the available options within the environment move to the second floor. The people on this floor are filled with anger and frustration and often look for a target to project the blame regarding their situations. In most cases, the fault is directed at the government or religious and ethnic groups.

Another part of the demographic on the second floor will be convinced that there is a specific individual to whom their aggression could be projected. Such individuals are ready to opt for violence when the situation presents itself. The people are prepared to instigate violent actions towards the enemy, activities which they consider acceptable and justifiable (Schuurman & Taylor, 2018). An example of such is the violence against the black ethnic community in some of the developed countries. It is on this floor that there exist offers to join a group aimed to carry out violent actions as a way of enhancing justice. Members who decline the offer remain in the third group, whereas those who accept the offer move to the fourth floor.

On the fourth floor, members of the formed groups alienate themselves from their family and friends. Such individuals consider newfound individuals to be their new family. However, it becomes quite challenging to exit such groups and members often move to the fifth floor, where inhibition about killing people in the out-group is overcome. There is stress on the categorization of the in-group and the out-group and the distancing from the identified out-group.

It is, therefore, evident that this model emphasizes the psychological diversities of the members within the population (Moghaddam and Sardoc, 2020). It is the difference in mindsets and the ability to adapt to various problems within the scope of life that dictate one’s ability to be a terrorist. This is different from the other model in the sense that, the prongs model is based on the adoption of the beliefs of the jihad whereas the staircase model emphasises the ability to adapt to naturally occurring issues within the society.

Borum’s Pathway

This model has some similarities to the Moghaddam staircase model in the sense that it relates to the cause of terrorism to be the various grievances in society. It explains how multiple grievances can turn into hatred towards a particular group in society. The first stage of the model is the grievance stage where some individuals may consider it not to be right and remain in the location, whereas others may view it as unfair and move to the second stage.

In this stage, some people may learn to live with the unfairness, whereas others may blame the other parties. Those who blame others are on the third stage, which is target attribution (Khalil et al., 2019). This stage is quite similar to the second floor of the Moghaddam staircase model. In this stage, some individuals may learn to live with the negative attribution towards their target.

In contrast, most individuals opt to form social segregation from those they perceive as evil. As a result, they distance themselves from those they blame and may resort to violence as a way of revenge against them. This is the final stage of the model known as distancing or devaluation.

This model is quite similar to the Moghaddam model with respect to the various stages and the motivation towards terrorism. The only difference between the two is the difference in the number of steps. Another similarity between the two models is that they both rely on the psychological adaptation and mindset of the affected individuals. How an individual perceives the various living conditions will determine the radicalization process.

On the contrary, the four-prong model bases the radicalization process on both the individual’s mindset and beliefs. For instance, one has to believe that the Jihad faith is right and those who are not a member of it are considered unfit and hence deserve violence. However, there is one similarity among all the models since there is the formation of in-groups and the distancing from those considered to be out-groups. Also, in all the models, the motivation is that the out-group deserves violence since they hold different ideologies.

References

Jensen M. A., Seate A. A., & Patrick A. James (2020). Radicalization to Violence: A Pathway Approach to Studying Extremism, Terrorism and Political Violence, 32:5, 1067-1090, DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2018.1442330

Khalil J., Horgan J., & Zeuthen M. (2019) The Attitudes-Behaviors Corrective (ABC) Model of Violent Extremism, Terrorism and Political Violence, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1699793

King, M., & Taylor, D. M. (2011). The radicalization of homegrown jihadists: A review of theoretical models and social psychological evidence. Terrorism and political violence, 23(4), 602-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2011.587064

Moghaddam F. M., Heckenlaible V., Blackman M., Fasano S., & Dufour D. (2016). Globalization and terrorism: the primacy of collective processes A. Miller (Ed.), Social Psychology of Good and Evil, Guilford.

Moghaddam, F.M., & Sardoc, M. (2020). The Psychology of Radicalization. Postdigit Sci Educ 2, 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00080-9

Rousseau, C., Hassan, G. & Oulhote, Y (2017). And if there were another way out? Questioning the prevalent radicalization models. Can J Public Health 108, e633–e635 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.108.6233

Schuurman, B., & Taylor, M. (2018). Reconsidering Radicalization: Fanaticism and the Link Between Ideas and Violence. Perspectives on Terrorism, 12(1), 3-22. Retrieved September 21, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26343743

Stephens W., Sieckelinck S., & Boutellier H. (2019) Preventing Violent Extremism: A Review of the Literature, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2018.1543144

Wilner A. S., & Dubouloz C. J. (2016) Homegrown terrorism and transformative learning: an interdisciplinary approach to understanding radicalization, Global Change, Peace & Security, 22:1, 33-51, DOI: 10.1080/14781150903487956