DeradicalizationReintegrating extremists: “Deradicalization” and desistance
What is the most appropriate way of ensuring that returnees from the conflict in the Middle East do not go on to carry out attacks in the U.K.? Likewise, as those convicted of terrorism offenses in the U.K. continue to be released into the community at the end of their sentence, how do we ensure their positive transition into mainstream society?
What is the most appropriate way of ensuring that returnees from the conflict in the Middle East do not go on to carry out attacks in the U.K.? Likewise, as those convicted of terrorism offenses in the U.K. continue to be released into the community at the end of their sentence, how do we ensure their positive transition into mainstream society?
For the past ten years I’ve been looking at efforts to engage with those involved in extremism. Based on extensive interviews and fieldwork with practitioners working with militant Islamists in the U.K., I have proposed a framework for interpreting involvement in extremism and examined what supports disengagement.
Rather than broad based process models informed by particular risk factors, such as victimization or grievance, I argue that involvement in extremism can be understood as a way of securing particular types of goods in ways that break social norms.
So what are the implications of this argument for supporting the move away from violent extremism?
Knowledge about what causes the move away from violent groups is not well developed, nor is the field clearly conceptualized. The most commonly used terms are ‘deradicalization’, usually taken to mean attitudinal change indicating reduced support for violent extremism, and disengagement, generally taken to mean behavioral change. It is often assumed that one leads to the other.
However, these terms are problematic, in part because the link between attitude and behavior is not straightforward: many more people hold ‘radical’ views than actually engage in violence.
Similarly, there is a growing consensus that process based accounts – so-called ‘conveyor belt’ models of ‘radicalization’ and ‘deradicalization’ – lack strong evidence. Rather than a sequential process, disengaging from violent groups is a heterogeneous, dynamic and highly individualized experience. Finally, ‘deradicalization’ focuses too much attention on questions of individual psychology and ideology, neglecting the wider social, political and community context in which the individual is embedded. For these reasons, reintegration seems a more appropriate framework for interpreting the move away from violent groups and transition back into society.
