Radicalization is gradual - and not confined to marginalized members of global societies
This literature review examines cross-disciplinary work on radicalization to situate, historicize, frame, and better understand the present concerns around online radicalization and far-right extremist and fringe movements. We find that research on radicalization is inextricably linked to the post-9/11 context in which it emerged, and as a result is overly focused on studying the other. Applying this research to the spread of far-right ideas online does not account for the ways in which the far-right’s endorsement of white supremacy and racism holds historical, normative precedent in the United States. Further, radicalization research is rife with uncertainties, ranging from definitional ambiguity to an inability to identify any simplistic, causal models capable of fully explaining the conditions under which radicalization occurs. Instead, there are multiple possible pathways to radicalization, and while the internet does not cause individuals to adopt far-right extremist or fringe beliefs, some technological affordances may aid adoption of these beliefs through gradual processes of socialization. We conclude that the term “radicalization” does not serve as a useful analytical frame for studying the spread of far-right and fringe ideas online. Instead, potential analytical frameworks better suited to studying these phenomena include theories prominent in the study of online communities, conversion, mainstreaming, and sociotechnical theories of media effects.
A summary of key take-aways includes:
-
The adoption of extremist, far-right, and fringe beliefs is often referred to as “radicalization,” a term formulated post-9/11 to understand jihadi terrorism, a very different context from the far-right.
- Radicalization research is full of uncertainty.
-
No specific type of person is vulnerable to radicalization, and most people who commit political violence are not mentally ill or alienated from society.
-
Radicalization is not caused by poverty, oppression, or marginalization.
-
There is no one way in which people are “radicalized.”
-
Viewing extremist media does not necessarily lead to adopting extremist beliefs or committing political violence.
-
-
In contrast to the “red pill” model, radicalization is gradual. Recruits slowly adopt the identities, emotions, and interpretations shared by a community. They conceptualize their problems as injustices caused by others, and justify using political violence against them.
-
The internet does not cause radicalization, but it helps spread extremist ideas, enables people interested in these ideas to form communities, and mainstreams conspiracy theories and distrust in institutions.
"Radicalization” is not a useful frame for understanding the spread of far-right and fringe ideas online.
- It is analytically imprecise and morally judgmentalIt doesn’t help us understand the role of media and digital technologies.
- It is inextricably tied to a global security infrastructure targeting Islam.
- It doesn’t account for the fact that fringe or far-right beliefs may change what people think is “true” and “false,” making it hard to find common ground.
- The focus on violence ignores other worrying effects of mainstreaming far-right and fringe ideas.
Under Trump, the Official White House Newsletter was transformed into a feedback loop with conservative news producers
In a new article for Information, Communication, and Society, Francesca Tripodi and Yuanye Ma reveal the important role electoral communication plays in framing current events and the extent to which email is an essential node in the right-wing media ecosystem. By analyzing both topics and topic absences, Dr. Tripodi and Ms. Ma demonstrate how the Trump administration leveraged the Official White House Newsletter to accentuate topics deemed most important by conservative voters, while resituating negative events and favoring sources from an information ecosystem rife with conspiracy theories and speculative claims:
By encouraging their readers to ‘do their own research’ but providing them the hyperlinks directly, the White House emails reveal an intricate structure whereby conservative news producers work in tandem with elected officials, bouncing signals throughout their information networks.
Data infrastructures created through hate crimes legislation bolsters the carceral state
This commentary piece reflects on recent instances of anti-Asian violence and state responses to redress violence through data-driven strategies. Data collection often presents itself as an appealing strategy, due to impacted communities’ desires for evidence and metrics to substantiate political claims. Yet, data collection can bolster the carceral state. This commentary takes an antagonistic approach to policing, including the ongoing creation of data infrastructures by—and for—law enforcement through hate crimes legislation. We critically discuss the challenges and possibilities in building towards anti-carceral responses amidst ongoing racial violence and crisis.