Relational dynamics in factional adoption of terrorist tactics: a comparative perspective

Abstract

Scholars of political terrorism generally agree that the radical group is usually a splinter faction of an opposition movement. Seldom, however, is an attempt made to incorporate insights and tools from the literature on social movements and contentious politics into the study of the process by which a faction splinters from the larger opposition movement and adopts terrorist tactics-a process commonly known as radicalization. Drawing upon the relational approach from the literature on contentious politics, this article seeks to further understanding of radicalization by examining how and when relational mechanisms, operating in their respective relational arenas, interact and combine to drive it. Proposed is a relational framework for a comparative analysis of radicalization at three levels-domestic, ethno-national, and international-employing the case of the Weather Underground, Fatah-Tanzim, and al-Qaeda respectively.

Radicalization

“…One of the most notable developments in research on political violence during the past decade was the increasing influence of theoretical approaches from social movement studies, which, paralleled by a growing interest in political violence among social movement scholars, expanded into a distinct strand of literature at the intersection of both fields [see for example Alimi 2011; Alimi, Demetriou and Bosi 2012; 2015; Bosi, Demetriou and Malthaner 2014; Della Porta 1992; 1995; 2013; Fillieule 2005; 2010; 2015; Goodwin 1997; Gunning 2007; 2009; Hafez 2004; Hegghammer 2010; Malthaner 2011; Tilly 2003; 2004; Wiktorowicz 2004; 2005; Wood 2003]. Its influence on “mainstream”-research on radicalization has been considerable, discernible, for example, in theoretical elements such as the role of pre-existing personal ties in processes of mobilization that have been selectively adopted into models of jihadist radicalization [Sageman 2004; 2008; Wiktorowicz 2005; see below].…”

“…This relational approach to collective radicalization and escalation has been further developed, with comparative research covering more diverse sets of cases (including militant Islamist groups) and, in particular, with the growing influence of the contentious politics paradigm pioneered by McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly [2001], from which a more systematic understanding of processes and mechanisms was adopted [see i.a Alimi 2011; Alimi, Bosi and Demetriou 2012; 2015; Bosi, Demetriou and Malthaner 2014; Della Porta 2008; 2013; 2014; Zwerman, Steinhoff and Della Porta 2000; Zwerman and Steinhoff 2005]. The basic idea behind this line of research was to identify recurring causal mechanisms which, in varying combinations and with context-specific outcomes, shape processes of radicalization and escalation; an ambition that was underlined by the broader scope of comparative research.…”

The Relational Context of Radicalization: The Case of Jewish Settler Contention before and after the Gaza Pullout

“…Building on this line of reasoning, several works have developed a relational, mechanism-based theory of radicalization. First and most notable has been an attempt to broaden Tilly’s framework to analyze not just the intensification of political violence, but also its emergence (Alimi, 2011; Alimi et al ., 2012; Bosi et al ., 2014; De Fazio, 2013; Della Porta, 2013). Whereas in Tilly the presence of violence is a given and the focus is on the extent of coordination among violent actors on each side of the conflict, these works have shifted analytical attention to how in-group dynamics influence out-group dynamics.…”

“…Collier and Hoeffler, 1999) and attitudinal (e.g. Juergensmeyer, 2005) approaches, a recent strand of research highlights the importance of examining patterns and practices of contacts, ties, exchange of information and bargaining among parties and actors during episodes of contentious politics (Alimi, 2011; Alimi et al ., 2012; Bosi et al ., 2014; Della Porta, 2013; Goodwin, 2006; McCauley and Moskalenko, 2011; Pearlman, 2011; Tilly, 2003). Expanding on the strategic interaction approach (Brym and Araj, 2006; Weinstein, 2006) and resonating with the relational one (Tilly, 1995; White, 1992), these works stress the idea that dispositions, rational calculations and violence-prone ideologies and strategies do not develop in a vacuum; they develop and operate in the context of social interactions and gain salience in shaping behavior in the context of deteriorating relations.…”

Black Panther Radical Factionalization and the Development of Black Anarchism

“…Different processes can combine together to propel radicalization. According to Alimi’s (2011) application of Charles Tilly’s “relational dynamics” theory, radicalization results from competition for power between movement actors, an unfavorable ratio of opportunity to threat between a movement and the political system, and response/counter-response escalation between a movement and the state. Within the Black freedom movement, there were struggles between proponents of nonviolence, self-defense, and armed struggle, and between those who wanted civil rights from the state and those who wanted autonomy from the state.…”