Politico-ideological violence: Zooming in on grievances

Abstract

Most studies on politico-ideological violence (PIV) recognize the importance of socio-political and economic grievances, but they rarely analyse them in depth. I argue that this is symptomatic of a tendency of depoliticization in radicalization research in the post 9/11 context and suggest that the study of PIV may benefit from putting greater emphasis on the element of grievance. A grievance-based analysis allows for critical and reflexive consideration of structural and systemic factors pertinent for engagement in PIV and may thereby contribute to demystifying and re-politicizing the current debate on PIV. I propose three ‘ideal types’ of grievances (racial, ethnic and religious; socio-economic; political), which may be locally or globally oriented or inspired, and suggest that a combination of those is likely to be present in most forms of PIV. I conclude with a few methodological reflections and potential implications for policymaking.

Armed and Explosive? An Explorative Statistical Analysis of Extremist Radicalization Cases with Military Background

“…Indeed, it appears that Simi et al's hypothesis of identity discrepancies following failed role adjustments within the military, or after transition into civilian life, might hold some empirical value, since the majority (77,2 percent) of the sample were retired from military duty when they radicalized. In general, many theories of radicalization that strongly focus on grievances, 58 mental health issues, 59 or ostracism, 60 as the driving factors appear to help explain the significance of these variables among our group of far-right military background cases. Naturally, military service, especially when it involves deployment to an active combat situation, includes numerous intense physical and psychological risks and strains.…”

In Their Experience: A Review of Racial and Sexual Minority Experience in Academe and Proposals for Building an Inclusive Criminology

“…This means that, for us, raising this alarm is a burden added to other scholarly interests. We would love nothing more than to be satisfied about the current standing of CCJ on gender, racial and sexual equity, and to go on writing instead about a more humane correctional architecture (St. John et al, 2019), meaning-making in human trafficking courts (DWC, 2022), the role of grievance in politico-ideological violence (Ajil, 2022), or the psychology of ecological destruction (Blount-Hill, 2021b). We simply cannot.…”

Can Debunked Conspiracy Theories Change Radicalized Views? Evidence from Racial Prejudice and Anti-China Sentiment Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…These psychological forces of radicalization may compel individuals to justify the use of violence in attaining their goals. Three components of violence-justifying ideology are involved in this process: grievance (injustice, harm) believed to have been suffered by one’s group [ 2 , 29 ], a culprit presumed responsible for the perpetrated grievance; and a morally warranted and effective method of removing the dishonor created by the supposed injustice [ 63 , 76 ]. Political and psychological research has pointed to grievances, victimization, and perceived and fraternal deprivation as some of the primary push factors for people in adopting more violent ideologies [ 11 , 76 ].…”