The Rhetorical Foundation of Militant Jihad

Canter, David; Sarangi, Sudhanshu

doi:10.1002/9780470744499.ch3

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, the official rhetoric espoused by terrorist leaders and related formal statements published by terrorist movements have been the major data source (e.g., Hafez, ; Ibrahim, ; Isam, ; for reviews see Loza, ; Sarangi & Canter, ) for understanding the detailed cognitive and emotional processes that lead people to carry out terrorist acts. It is suggested that examination of the structure of the construct systems of people who have been active participants in terrorism will reveal aspects of the psychological processes that are not apparent from official statements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terrorists' personal constructs and their roles: A comparison of the three Islamic terrorists

Canter

Sarangi

Youngs

2012

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is hypothesized that individuals who play different roles in terrorist organizations will have different psychological processes underlying their activities. An innovative examination of the personal construct systems of terrorists explored this. As part of a larger study, three individuals convicted of Islamic‐related terrorist violence in India were interviewed using a semi‐structured life narrative procedure enhanced by a Repertory Grid (Kelly, 1955/1991). One was a senior leader of a terrorist group, one a subordinate, the third a person who planted a bomb without full knowledge of the larger design he was part of. Principal component analyses of these grids informed by comments from the life narratives were used to elaborate each man's conceptual system and how it related to his commitment to violence. Important differences among the three individuals' in their construct systems were found. This demonstrated that the forms of Jihadi commitment is embedded in the individual's personal construct system. So, although these three case studies can only be taken as providing indicative results, they do point to aspects of construct systems that reveal the potential for disengagement, being most likely present in the lower echelons of terrorist organizations. Those who are unable to reconstrue themselves as having a non‐terrorist future are unlikely to disengage. This is probably typical of those who lead these organizations. The results therefore contribute to the growing literature arguing for significant differences in terrorists' understanding of themselves and their roles and provide an original methodology for assessing a person's potential for deradicalization.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%