Radicalization Models in Terrorism - Essay Sample

Introduction

Terrorism, like any other aspect, needs motivation, whether internal or external. Terrorists have internal or external factors leading to their actions. Some of these actions may be related to the immediate environment they live in, whereas other factors may be a result of the psychological issues of an individual. Irrespective of the motivating factors, terrorism cannot be justified owing to the consequences of terrorist activities. Various models have been identified to explain the different terrorists’ motivations (Moghaddam et al., 2016). The models may be similar in some aspects and contrast in other concepts. Personality characteristics, group relative deprivation, and various identity conflicts are some of the psychological factors that contribute to terrorism (King & Taylor, 2011). An analysis of various terrorist activities reveals that radicalization is a gradual process that occurs in various stages and has an underlying motivation. The motivation of terrorists may be because of psychological factors or strong beliefs among individuals. This research paper, therefore, aims at comparing and contrasting the various models that explain the motivation of terrorists and how the stated models compare and contrast.

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

Order now

Methodology

The research on the motivation of terrorism was carried out by the utilization of secondary sources. Various literature were analyzed, as cited in the text. The most recent and most relevant literature were chosen for the study. Also, all the references used in the study were scholarly sources. Nine sources were identified to be relevant to the study.

Literature Review

Sagemen’s Four Prongs Model

Sagemen’s four prongs model presents the view that radicalization is essentially a theological and psychological process that occurs in various stages. In these stages, an individual gradually transforms from a remarkable individual to a terrorist. In each of the steps, an individual undergoes behavioral, 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 the 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 of groups with like-minded individuals to strengthen 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 Islam clothes, is another behavior 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 the 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. The identification of such incubators can be achieved through the observation of behavioral 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 puts into consideration the spiritual aspect where an individual act 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 prongs 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 life to be fair, they remain on the ground floor (Jensen et al., 2020). However, some individuals view their living conditions to be unfair and explore the various aspect of the environment to better their lives. The available options of 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 to the government or religious and ethnic groups (King & Taylor, 2011).

Another part of the demographic on the second floor will be convinced that there is a specific individual to which 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 is 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 that carries 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 families 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 the 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 four prongs model is based on the adoption of the beliefs of the jihad, whereas the staircase model emphasis 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 their grievances 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 go to the third stage, which is called 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 blamed on 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.

Results

The above literature indicates that radicalization is a gradual process and is influenced by strong beliefs and psychological factors. It is the beliefs that causes an individual to alienate from the others and identify with a specific terrorist group. The categorization of the in-groups and the out-groups forms the basis of most terrorist attacks.

Discussion

Comparing and Contrasting the Various Models of Radicalization

The Borum’s pathway 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 prongs 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 that are not a member of it are unfit 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., & James A. P. (2020). Radicalization to violence: A pathway approach to studying extremism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 32(5), 1067-1090. 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, 24(3), 704-715. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1699793

King, M. and Taylor, D. M. (2011). The radicalization of homegrown Jihadists: A review of theoretical models and social psychological evidence. Terrorism & Political Violence, 23(4), 602-618. 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. 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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26343743

Stephens W., Sieckelinck S., & Boutellier H. (2019) Preventing violent extremism: A review of the literature. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 32(2), 400-418. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781150903487956