In recent years, many nations have reprioritised efforts to address extremism and violence emerging from social, political, and religious views and beliefs. Yet, says Valarie Findlay, despite decades of research, governments and institutions still struggle with the definitions, methods, and criteria for preventing extremism
Psychologist Abraham Maslow described over-reliance on a familiar tool as a cognitive bias, suggesting 'if the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail'. The research areas of terrorism and extremism, and now ideologies, are no strangers to this theory.
The spike in ideological violence targeting race, gender, and cultures, often with low commitment that can cause it to change at any time, is troubling. The trend shows ideologies intertwining with individual identity, reflecting societal complexity and the emergence of narrow social -isms. These extreme ideologies appear to have morphed from Western social ideals from prior centuries, and are fixated on vivid social orders and stereotypes, such as the hypermasculinity of incelism.
Never have we had access to such a vast array of deeply diverse data on extremism and ideological violence. Much of the work on extremism originated from research into terrorism during the 1960s and 1970s. This was formed by political, religious, and social agendas, such as nation-building, progress, and revolutions, as well as international airline hijackings and suicide bombings.
In the 1980s and 1990s, more sophisticated threat variants emerged. These were eventually eclipsed by complex, intermingled ideologies in the 2000s. This contradiction raised questions about what we thought we knew about indoctrinated belief systems, suggesting adherents must both accept the inconsistencies and simultaneously advance their agendas.
Prior to 9/11, terrorism was a broad term. But allied efforts after the attacks settled on a term that defines the criminalisation of particular acts, cementing it into legislation and social policy. Differentiating from other forms of crime, terrorism became part of a longer-term trend of expanding offence descriptions that weighed intent, permitted charges, and facilitated prosecution.
After 9/11, the definition of terrorism was refined to differentiate it from other types of crime, and cemented into legislation and policy
As many criminal definitions do, it shaped prevention and detection activities and informed risk criteria. Eventually, mainstream media and politics adopted the term as a dog whistle that evoked immediate public attention.
Today, definitions of terrorism vary across nations, contexts, and governing legislation. They vary, too, across institutions, professions, and even media narratives. From a legal perspective, it’s a bit clearer. The law defines terrorism as violent acts on non-combatants that aim to advance the agendas of certain individuals or groups.
The lack of consensus on definitions is challenging, especially when multiple ideologies are present, and there is no consensus on motive. This spurred the proliferation of ad hoc terms and overly complicated qualitative and quantitative data from highly specific incident and subject areas.
Social groups are fundamental to social development, including the negative aspects of ideological movements. If an individual’s social group consistently reinforces standards of social conduct, the accompanying social traditions and social stereotypes may manifest in personal views and grievances. Ultimately, this may result in the formulation of an alternate social order.
A lack of constructive debate on social media around race and politics is stoking extreme reactions that can develop into portable, transferable, and interchangeable ideologies
Our societies are becoming increasingly complex. Technology, social media, and meme culture may be amplifying communication, but add little to constructive debates on race, culture, and politics. This is stoking extreme reactions that can develop into portable, transferable, and interchangeable ideologies.
Technology can both tear apart and promote deeper human connections. Yet technology is not the explicit cause of these complex problems, nor can it alone solve them. As extremism increases, it is also intensifying and morphing into new movements and belief systems, often in forums where longstanding social stereotypes are challenged, and traditional social contracts are disintegrating.
Ideologies have shifted from fringe groups to legitimate social, political, and religious organisations. This has introduced a more pressing problem. As we have recently seen, mixed, composite, 'big-tent', and 'salad-bar' ideologies, with or without political, religious, or nation-identity aims, have also become commonplace.
Actors – particularly among the youth – may possess multiple, conflicting, or highly fluid ideologies that circumvent detection by institutional Countering / Preventing Violent Extremism (C/PVE) tools and methods.
Efficacy concerns have long plagued C/PVE tools and methods, along with the decades-old research that shaped them. Compounding such criticisms are allegations of unethical practices, violations of constitutional rights, insufficient evidence-based interventions, unstructured clinical and actuarial approaches, low base rates, and weak predictors.
These deficiencies mean that ideologies tend to slip through the cracks. By examining their fundamental elements, we can see why. An ideology is more than a set of beliefs embraced by a social movement. It is a cognitive map framing the expectations that shape social standards and order.
An ideology is more than a set of beliefs embraced by a social movement. It is a cognitive map framing the expectations that shape social standards and order
Sociologist John Wilson argued that ideology 'must be the first consideration because of the role it plays in crystallizing and intensifying mobilization for action'. Rather than assuming a commitment to an affirmed belief system, it is more prudent to pause and examine the ideology in its phase of adoption, in partiality, or as themes that yield more fruitful analysis.
The focus on ideological themes allows investigators to contextualise early-stage data from social violence incidents, where information may be unconfirmed or incomplete. Downstream, this may provide a stronger foundation for analysis, lead to firmer conclusions on motivations, and prevent bias.
However, new forms of gender, moral, and non-political ideologies and micro-factions often escape scrutiny by economic, political, and religious theories. Analysing the goals, perceptions, and feedback loops behind extreme ideologies thus remains vital.
Past research on extremism has offered robust investigative analyses. Yet it has lacked analysis of ideological membership, grievances, and connections to social change, particularly among ideologically disparate groups. Contextual research and frame analysis may be productive, but they are no substitute for open dialogue.
Until we admit the extent of our ignorance, effective approaches that support applied purposes and measurable operational needs will elude us, and we will continue to reach for that hammer.
