Relational Dynamics and Processes of Radicalization: A Comparative Framework

Abstract

We propose an explanatory framework for the comparative study of radicalization that focuses on its "how" and "when" questions. We build on the relational tradition in the study of social movements and contentious politics by expanding on a mechanism-process research strategy. Attentive to similarities as well as to dissimilarities, our comparative framework traces processes of radicalization by delineating four key arenas of interaction—between movement and political environment, among movement actors, between movement activists and state security forces, and between the movement and a countermovement. Then, we analyze how four similar corresponding general mechanisms—opportunity/threat spirals, competition for power, outbidding, and object shift—combine differently to drive the process. Last, we identify a set of submechanisms for each general mechanism. The explanatory utility of our framework is demonstrated through the analysis of three ethnonational episodes of radicalization: the enosis-EOKA movement in Cyprus (1950-1959), the Provisional Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland (1969-1972), and the Fatah-Tanzim in Palestine (1995-2001).

Making a Civil Rights Claim for Affirmative Action

“…In a new development within sociology, a number of social movement scholars have begun to analyze collective action relationally and at the field level; they do so in order to integrate analyses of organizations, institutions, and social movement contestation (Alimi et al, 2012; Armstrong and Bernstein, 2008; Davis et al, 2005; Fligstein and McAdam, 2012). 4 Fields are socially constructed, mesolevel arenas of action characterized by complex, contingent interaction among individuals, groups, and institutional brokers that vie for advantage.…”

“…According to Goldstone, the analysis should explain mobilization by focusing on the controversial issue at hand and the implications for political mobilization. Such an analysis attends to the various factors in play, which may include the political and economic institutions that structure activists’ activities (Alimi et al, 2012); the derivation of an organization’s political orientation within its social structural context (Walder 2009); the inter- and intramovement dynamics among participants (Lind and Stepan-Norris, 2011); and the available symbolism, values, and ideology that inform a movement’s claims making (Williams 2004).…”

The Othering of Muslims: Discourses of Radicalization in the New York Times, 1969-2014

“…1 Recent attack in Boston and Paris, and the media frenzies that ensued, have heightened this attention considerably. Particularly striking in this respect has been the dominance of governmental discourses, which seek to understand how individuals and groups become 'radicalized' in order to formulate counter-radicalization policy and law enforcement frameworks (Alimi et al 2012;Baker-Beall et al 2015). Indeed, the construct has become a principal theme in various governmental and law enforcement strategies, such as the counterradicalization strategy Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.…”

The Othering of Muslims: Discourses of Radicalization in the New York Times, 1969–2014

“…Recent attacks in Boston and Paris, and the media frenzies that ensued, have considerably heightened this attention. Particularly striking in this respect has been the dominance of governmental discourses, which seek to understand how individuals and groups become “radicalized” in order to formulate counter‐radicalization policy and law enforcement frameworks (Alimi, Bosi, and Demetriou ; Baker‐Beall, Heath‐Kelly, and Jarvis ). Indeed, the construct has become a principal theme in various governmental and law enforcement strategies, such as the counter‐radicalization strategy Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.…”