Implications of Benevolent Radicalization. Doctoral Thesis, Northumbria University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Citation: Reidy, Kenneth (2018) The Accidental Ambassadors: Implications of Benevolent Radicalization. Doctoral thesis, Northumbria University. This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/39788/ Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. Single copies of full items can be reproduced, displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder. The full policy is available online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/policies.html The Accidental Ambassadors: Implications of Benevolent Radicalization K P REIDY PhD 2018 !ii The Accidental Ambassadors: Implications of Benevolent Radicalization KENNETH PATRICK REIDY A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Research undertaken in the Faculty of Arts, Design & Social Sciences December 2018 !iii Abstract Radicalization research explores the socialization process prior to becoming an extremist and/or engaging in terrorism. The problem is, these are the only outcomes radicalization research investigates; a selection bias. Using normative group equivalence and constructivist grounded theory, six British Muslim aid workers were selected who matched Western Jihadists on four characteristics: socio-demographics, a desire to act against injustice, previous criminality and previous mobilization to Daesh-controlled territory between 2015 and 2018. Upon returning to the U.K. the research participants were interviewed under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act and categorized as false positives. This confirmed the credibility of the match. What distinguished both cohorts were the behaviors engaged in when mobilized; one outside of social norms and the democratic consensus (Jihadism) and the other within them, but taken to the extreme (humanitarianism in extremis). How did a matched group engage in morally opposed behaviors under similar circumstances at home and abroad? The original contribution to knowledge is that radicalization is a vector; one can radicalize malevolently or benevolently. The latter are positive deviants whose pro-social and victim-centric prognoses compete with the anti-social and perpetrator-centric prognoses of Jihadists because both recruit from the same sentiment pool. Therefore, benevolently radicalized groups embody an attractive alternative for those who wish to positively impact upon the suffering of others; a “do this instead” narrative uniquely aligned to a relevant offline behavior. Bolstering their numbers is posited to stymy Jihadist recruitment, empower European Muslim youth and engender a perceptive shift away from their suspect community status using the same term which securitized them. !iv List of Contents Abstract iv List of Contents v List of Tables xiii List of Figures xiv Acknowledgments xv Declaration xvi Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Research Design 5 1.2.1 Foundation for the Primary Research Question 6 1.2.2 Grounded Theory Methodology 8 1.2.3 Adaptive Research Design 8 1.2.4 Formulating the Primary Research Question and Establishing 10 Trustworthiness 1.2.5 Research Design and Research Questions 12 1.2.6 Purpose Statement 14 1.2.7 Significance of Study 15 1.2.8 Scholarly Requests 18 1.2.9 Original Contribution to Knowledge 21 1.3 Key Terminology 22 1.3.1 General Terminology 23 1.3.1.1 Terrorism 23 1.3.1.2 Extremism and Radicalism 27 1.3.1.3 Ideology 28 1.3.1.4 Narrative 30 1.3.1.5 Jihad and Jihadist 30 1.3.1.6 Radicalization 31 !v 1.3.1.6.1 The Concept of Radicalization 34 1.3.1.7 Prevention 37 1.3.1.8 CONTEST 38 1.3.2 Specific Terminology 38 1.3.2.1 The Purpose of the Indirect Approach 39 1.3.2.1.1 Needs 43 1.3.2.1.2 General Intent 43 1.3.2.1.3 Cognitive Opening 44 1.3.2.1.4 Vicarious Deprivation 44 1.3.2.1.5 Constructive Ideologies 45 1.3.2.1.6 Strengths and Problem-Based Approaches 45 1.3.2.1.7 Typologies 45 1.3.2.1.8 Pre-Jihadists 45 1.3.2.1.9 Pathological Altruism 46 1.3.2.1.10 Active Bystandership 46 1.3.2.1.11 Moral Courage 47 1.3.2.1.12 Heroic Imagination and Heroism 47 1.3.2.1.13 Radicalization 48 1.3.2.1.14 Choice Architecture 48 1.3.2.1.15 Counter-Narratives and Alternative Narratives 49 1.3.2.1.16 Counter-Engagement 49 1.3.2.1.17 Diagnostics and Prognostics 50 1.3.2.1.18 The “Match” 50 1.3.2.1.19 Contagion 50 1.3.2.1.20 The Grey Zone 50 1.3.2.1.21 Positive Deviance 51 1.3.2.2 The Pathway 51 1.3.2.2.1 Affordance 52 !vi 1.3.2.2.2 Behavioral Contingency 53 1.3.2.2.3 Social Learning Theory 53 1.3.2.2.4 Involvement 54 1.3.2.2.5 Community of Practice 54 1.3.2.2.6 Opportunity Factors 54 1.3.2.3 The Process 54 1.3.2.3.1 Group Priorities 55 1.3.2.3.2 Social Movement Theory 55 1.3.2.3.3 Cognitive Dissonance Theory 56 1.3.2.3.4 Social Identity Theory 56 1.3.2.3.5 Uncertainty Reduction Theory 56 1.3.2.3.6 The Learning-By-Doing Principle 57 1.4 Boundaries of the Thesis 57 1.4.1 Limitations 58 1.5 Accidental Ambassadors 62 1.6 Organization of Thesis 65 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction and Organization of Chapter 67 2.2 A Brief History of Radicalization 69 2.2.1 Why Radicalization? 71 2.2.2 Assumptions of Radicalization 72 2.2.3 Limitations of the Radicalization Construct 73 2.3 Radicalization Research 74 2.3.1 Wider Approaches 76 2.3.2 Situational Approaches 79 2.3.2.1 The Root Cause Approach 80 2.3.2.2 Pathway Approaches 86 !vii 2.3.2.3 Social-Centric Approaches and Resultant Non-Process Models 90 2.3.3 Concluding Remarks 91 2.4 Radicalization and Means of Negation 92 2.4.1 Critical Appraisal of Extremism-to-Terrorism 93 2.4.1.1 Thought-to-Behavior 94 2.4.1.2 The Emotional Elephant in the Room 96 2.4.1.3 The Role of Emotion in Terrorism 99 2.5 Framing and the Construction of Social Reality 101 2.5.1 Recapitulation 104 2.5.2 Emotion and Protocols 105 2.5.2.1 Empirical Protocols 105 2.5.2.2 Framing Protocols 106 2.6 Counter-Narratives 108 2.6.1 Credibility 108 2.6.2 The Affect Heuristic 110 2.6.3 The Backfire Effect 111 2.6.4 Biased Assimilation 112 2.6.5 Isolation 113 2.6.6 The Role of Knowledge 114 2.6.7 Formal Responses 116 2.6.8 Concluding Remarks 117 2.7 Chapter Conclusion 117 Chapter Three: Methodology 3.1 Introduction 119 3.2 Organization 121 3.3 Rationale for Using a Qualitative Research Approach 122 3.4 Selecting a Research Methodology 124 !viii 3.4.1 Grounded Theory Methodology 127 3.4.2 Grounded Theory Approaches 128 3.4.3 Preliminary Literature Review 130 3.4.4 Fundamental Components of Grounded Theory 132 3.4.5 Limitations of Grounded Theory 134 3.5 Research Sample and Sampling Strategy 135 3.5.1 Sampling Strategy: Theoretical Sampling 135 3.5.2 Identifying the Theoretical Sample 138 3.5.3 Theoretical Sample Inclusion Criteria 142 3.5.4 The Theoretical Sample 145 3.5.5 The Theoretical Sample Juxtaposed to European Jihadists 148 3.5.5.1 Selecting the Research Participants 149 3.5.5.2 Specifying the Match 156 3.6 Interview Protocol 163 3.7 Data Organization, Synthesis and Analysis 165 3.7.1 Management of Data 169 3.7.2 Theoretical Saturation 170 3.8 The Grounded Theory Process 171 3.9 Ethical Considerations 173 3.10 How Trustworthiness was Established 175 3.10.1 Credibility 175 3.10.2 Dependability 176 3.10.3 Transferability 176 3.10.4 Confirmability 177 Chapter Four: The Conceptualization of Radicalization as a Vector 4.1 Introduction and Organization 178 4.2 Definitions of Radicalization 182 !ix 4.3 Establishing Radicalization as a Vector 185 4.3.1 Conceptualizing Radicalization as a Vector 185 4.3.2 Presenting Radicalization as a Vector 187 4.4 Findings 191 4.4.1 Benevolent Radicalization: Pathway and Process 196 4.4.2 Addressing Criticisms 207 4.5 Separating the Radicalization Pathway From the Radicalization Process 209 4.5.1 The Radicalization Pathway 209 4.5.2 The Radicalization Process 214 4.6 Juxtaposing Models 221 4.6.1 Model Juxtaposition 224 4.6.1.1 Silber and Bhatt (2007) 224 4.6.1.2 Precht (2007) 225 4.6.1.3 Wiktorowicz (2004-2005) 226 4.6.1.4 Moghaddam (2005-2006) 227 4.6.1.5 Sageman (2008) 228 4.6.1.6 Lakhani (2013) 231 4.6.1.7 PET (2009) 232 4.6.1.8 Gill (2008) 233 4.6.1.9 Pisoiu (2012) 235 4.7 In Conclusion 236 4.7.1 Behavioral Differentiators 236 4.7.2 Cognitive Differentiators 238 Chapter Five: The Control Group Function of Vectorized Radicalization 5.1 Introduction and Organization 242 5.2 Why Them But Not Others? 245 5.3 Scholarly Responses 247 !x 5.3.1 The Control Group Response 248 5.3.2 Control Group Research Designs 254 5.4 Socially and/or Morally Opposed Research Designs Constructed Upon Counter- 259 Intuitive Premises 5.4.1 Similarities in Proposed Research Design 262 5.4.2 Introduction to Psychopathy 262 5.4.3 Maladaptive Psychopathy and Malevolent Radicalization 264 5.4.4 Adaptive Psychopathy and Benevolent Radicalization 268 5.4.5 The Janusian Quality 271 5.4.6 “Manufacturism” and Needs 272 5.4.6.1 The Paradox of Frontline Professions 279 5.4.6.2 “Pathological Altruism” 280 5.4.6.3 Pathological Altruists 281 5.5 In Conclusions: