At its epistemic root, the conversation on how to effectively combat radical messaging is a question of how to combat extremism and radicalization. Advocates of strategic communication and censorship strategies implicitly attribute linear causality to the concept of extremism. In this framework, extremism is an outcome resulting from discrete stimuli of certain understandable and identifiable factors. Simply stated, extremism is viewed as a causal relationship whereby factors such as internet access to radical propaganda result in radicalization. This framework implies that radicalization is predictable and that certain factors when observed result in radicalization. While this is a compelling formulation it obscures the social dimensions …show more content…
These ‘indirect relationships’ are not limited to direct communicative interaction and rather encapsulate any and all accesses through which people are able to feel a relational tie with the someone else. To concretize this concept, we can imagine someone who views the speeches, literature, and media of an admired terrorist leader and through this establishes an ‘imagined’ indirect tie with that leader on the basis of similar political and ideological identification. The word ‘imagined’ is operative in this formulation because it speaks to a politics of identification. As individuals form ties both direct and indirect which inform their understanding of themselves, those with similarly shared relations and personal narratives will imagine that they are members of a community. These community relations are imperative as they contextualize individual narrative and sense of identity within a broader communal narrative. These imagined communities not only inform how people view themselves, but also what they imagine their role in the world to be. In this theoretical framework we understand radicalization and extremism, as the network of relations that someone has which informs their sense of self (personal narrative) such that they imagine themselves to be a member of a community all of whom share similar objectives and social …show more content…
Social relations theory has provided an abundance of empirical evidence to illustrate that people understand new information within a relational and communal context. New information is not objectively learned, rather it is filtered and appropriated through the prism of an individual’s personal narrative and is marshalled pursuant to what they imagine their role in the world is (communal narrative). All information that a person receives is filtered so as to comport with the personal and communal narratives in which the individual is situated. Below I shall more clearly enumerate the policy implications of this social relations model of
Hoffman makes the argument that this “characteristic of self denial distinguishes the terrorist from other types of political extremists,” in that, under duress, even those extremists whose identification with their cause could prove illicit or disreputable, would admit to those appellations for themselves; however, this is not the case for the terrorist––Hoffman claims that those dubbed terrorists will “go to great lengths to evade and obscure any such inference or connection… The terrorist will always argue that it is society or the government or the socio-economic `system' and its laws that are the real `terrorists', and moreover that if it were not for this oppression, he would not have felt the need to defend either himself or the population he claims to represent,” (Hoffman 20). This is evinced by an anecdote offered by Terry Anderson, an American journalist taken hostage by Shiite Hezbollah militants for nearly seven years, wherein he details a conversation with one of his captors: upon reading a newspaper’s characterizing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, the guard’s visceral reaction is a disassociation from the term, indignantly responding that “we are not terrorists, we are fighters” (Politifact). On the surface, the guard’s statement offers no tangible conclusion other than there exists a connotative
What internally drives a terrorist’s motivation varies from subject to subject. While the average American citizen would likely be quick to point terrorists hate the western way of life and what it represents, the issue is far more complex. Simon Cottee’s article “What Motivates Terrorists?” (2015), looks at various levels of motivation. Prior definitions of terrorism looked at the defining cause as possibly psychological abnormalities within in the individual (Cottee, 2015). As studies have evolved, the focus has shifted to the environment in which the terrorist is surrounded. While certainly there is cases in which a person who is mentally unstable could be an ideal target for terrorist propaganda, the number of cases involving mental
Anders Behring Breivik was a Norwegian extremist and a terrorist who had bombed a government building and then shot and killed a number of youths at a camp. His actions were not impulsive, but instead meticulously planned. For years he fostered feelings of hatred and aggression, particularly after his failed businesses and his involvement with the right wing terror organization whose ideology was on anti-Islam and anti-mulitculturism. Breivik perceived that Muslims were invading Europe and conspiring with politicians to take over Norway. Hence, his decision to destroy the present and future politicians of government. Allport (1920), in his theory of Social Facilitation, fleshes out the impression that the presence of others (the social group) can facilitate certain behaviour (McLeod, 2007).
20 Feb. 2005 . White, Jonathan R. Terrorism: An Introduction. Fourth Ed. Thompson Learning, Inc., Canada. 2003.
The author Vincent Ruggiero defines critical thinking in his book Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking, as a “search for answers, a quest.” It is the idea that one does not accept claims, ideas, and arguments blindly, but questions and researches these things before making a decision on them. From what I learned in class, critical thinking is the concept of accepting that there are other people and cultures in this world that may have different opinions. It is being able to react rationally to these different opinions.
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
Brian Jenkins a senior advisor to the Rand Corporation, a policy research think-tank organization, defines radicalization as the “process of adopting one’s self or inculcating in others a commitment not only to a system of beliefs, but to their imposition on the rest of society” (Gartenstein-Ross and Grossman, 2009, p. 7). McCauley and Moskalenko (2008) describe radicalization as “changes in beliefs, feelings and behaviors in directions that increasingly justify inter group violence and demand sacrifice in defense of the in-group” (p.416). As part of radicalization, an individual discovers a new revelation on how he or she perceives the world. Radicalization does not occur suddenly but is a complicated process influenced by personal experiences, the environment, personality character...
Physical disengagement from terrorism is slightly different in that while there is change, it is externally identifiable. Involvement in even the smallest of terror networks is not discrete or static – it is a constantly changing process of engagement in and occupation with an array of different activities that might seem unconnected, and often may entail fulfillment of more than one role (both at any one time, or over time).
Chris had just been promoted as an Executive Assistant for Pat the CEO, Chief Executive Officer, of Faith Community Hospital. Pat had given Chris her very first assignment on her first day of work as an executive assistant and that was to gather information so that Pat can present the issues to the board of directors. Faith Hospital is faced with issues that needed attention and the board of directors must be notified of the issues so that a solution can be remedy to help the hospital stay in business.
The concept of terrorism is exceedingly difficult to define. Author Gerald Seymour first said in his book Harry’s Game that, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Each individual may view terrorism in a different light. Because of this, there is currently no universal definition of terrorism. However, in recent years, it has become increasingly more important to form a definition of terrorism, especially while working in the media.
While the semester is over and the deadline has expired, I thought I would write this to express my true intended thoughts.
This paper argues the researchers should have presented the argument that the internet is a gateway for socialization rather than a forum for self-radicalization. The paper did mention the importance of information operations to counter media promoting radicalization, which has not been emphasized to the extent as it was in this literature. The Self-Awakening variable implies religion in this literature. The Social Conduit variable is obviously identified as the internet and extremist groups.
The rise of terrorism and extremism in the Middle East during the time this piece was composed prompted Mohi-Ud Din to engage in a passionate argument about how these terrorists have ruined the image of Muslims. He explicitly highlights the main points of his argument by using transitional words such as firstly, secondly, and thirdly. He initiates his argument by proposing that the media’s one-sided focus on Muslim extremists prevent the viewers from recognizing that the majority of Muslims are not violent. Next, he debunks the stereotypes Americans have about Muslims and then he shifts his concern to how America’s political and military actions have exploited Muslim countries. He concludes his argument by explaining why Islam is not a threat to
Terrorism has many forms, and many definitions. “Elements from the American definitional model define terrorism as a premeditated and unlawful act in which groups or agents of some principal engage in a threatened or actual use o...
Critical thinking is a significant and essential topic in recent education. The strategy of critical thinking skills helps identify areas in one's courses as the suitable place to highlight, expand and use some problems in exams that test students' critical thinking skills.