Observatorio PSyD
The observatory says
13th of January 2017
Occam’s Razor and the Attractiveness of Violence
Miguel Peco
Ph.D. in International Security
Associate Professor, Geopolitics and Strategy at Complutense University of Madrid
Concerns arose in the local Basque government due to a number of violent incidents that occurred recently on the university campuses of Leioa (Vizcaya) and Vitoria. The last one took place at the end of November, during the rector elections, which left several people wounded and arrested, as well as serious destructions. According to the Ertzaintza (local Basque police), the incident was instigated by radical groups external to the University, which manipulated the original protest with the aim of provoking clashes with security forces. However, the same sources reported that the deeply rooted cause of the protest and subsequent radicalization could be a supposed “universal” fact as “[…] the young people’s unrest by the limitation of their potential, caused by the establishment, by their uncertainties about their future, by the corruption.” [1]
There exists a general trend to attribute the phenomenon of violent radicalization to theoretical constructs that, by definition, are artificial intermediate variables. In the previous example, it was the supposed “unrest” provoked by restraints, uncertainties, corruption, etc., that would finally release the process of radicalization. This is not an isolated case, and there exist many other examples of similar attributions. For instance, the major of the Belgian city of Malines (Mechelen, in Flemish) –widely known for his apparently successful local policies against the radicalization- recently declared the following to a Spanish newspaper: “[Radicalization] Is a process of isolationism and provides some individuals with something very important, because we are living in a very complex society where they frequently become ‘losers’, frustrated and cannot see themselves as part of the society.” [2] Again, another theoretical construct –now that of “frustration”- appears as accountable for the process of radicalization.
Attributing the phenomenon of violent radicalization to this variety of supposed causes is a serious mistake. Firstly, because inserting intermediate variables without a good reason does not help at all to understand the process, but instead contributes to generating confusion. And secondly –perhaps more important- because doing so part of the radical’s accountability is reallocated into the society where he belongs. Violent radicalization, seen through Learning Theory, is a process accepted by the individual and influenced by external factors. While this influence from external factors is important, it is actually the individual who radicalizes himself by increasing his violent behaviour and modifying his thoughts, beliefs and feelings accordingly [3].
Being the accountability of the process of radicalization lying primarily on the individual, questions arise on what may be the drive that provokes such behavioural change. At this point, we are stepping into a true debate. Some years ago I read an article in Foreign Affairs that remarked some jihadist militants’ declarations in which they asserted their struggle could become addictive. That caught my attention because it was not a very popular idea and, at the same time, matched quite well some hypothesis I was working on by then. For this reason, I sent an e-mail to the author, asking for her experience before the audiences in this respect. And the response was clear: “No, people are not open to this idea. I know exactly what you mean! Good luck with it.”
Jihadist-in nature radicalization has some different features than radicalization rooted in other circumstances, such as political extremisms or anti-system movements. However, as an internal feeling at the individual level, there are many similarities among all them. Perhaps the paramount one is the opportunity to participate directly in a project as exciting and transcendent as might be changing the world. Moreover, of doing it in an easy and quick manner. Is there any other setting where an individual can stand so easily above the rest of humans and join the category of the chosen ones without previous hard work or study? Frustration, unrest or any other supposed emotional state are expendable assumptions, i.e. they can be present but are not necessary ingredients to explain the process of radicalization.
“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”, as it is attributed to the Franciscan William of Occam. We need to stop shocking and accept the fact that violence can become attractive, at least under some circumstances or hidden beneath certain forms. It is clear that the process of radicalization encompasses many other factors, but the attractiveness that certain forms of violence may have for some individuals founds an approach to the phenomenon much simpler and more feasible than invoking constructs such frustration or unrest. Radicalization in modern societies is a complex, alarming process where uncertainties prevail over assurances. Yet –as it usually happens when dealing with similar complexities- among competing explanations of the same reality, the simplest one should be selected.
[1] Aizpeolea, L. R. (2016), “Los brotes violentos en la universidad alertan al Gobierno vasco” El País, December, the 17th. Available at: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2016/12/17/actualidad/1481975415_665186.html. Accessedon 18/12/2016.
[2] Torrens, M. (2016), “El secreto contra la radicalización se esconde en una ciudad belga”. El Español, July, the 20th. Available at: http://www.elespanol.com/mundo/20160419/118488520_0.html. Accessed on 18/12/2016
[3] Peco, M. (2016), “A Functional Approach to Violent Radicalization. Building a Systemic Model Based On a Real Case”, Revista de Estudios en Seguridad Internacional, Vol. 2, No. 1, (2016), pp. 63-76. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18847/1.3.4. Available at: http://www.seguridadinternacional.es/revista/?q=content/functional-approach-violent-radicalization-building-systemic-model-based-real-case
There exists a general trend to attribute the phenomenon of violent radicalization to theoretical constructs that, by definition, are artificial intermediate variables. In the previous example, it was the supposed “unrest” provoked by restraints, uncertainties, corruption, etc., that would finally release the process of radicalization. This is not an isolated case, and there exist many other examples of similar attributions. For instance, the major of the Belgian city of Malines (Mechelen, in Flemish) –widely known for his apparently successful local policies against the radicalization- recently declared the following to a Spanish newspaper: “[Radicalization] Is a process of isolationism and provides some individuals with something very important, because we are living in a very complex society where they frequently become ‘losers’, frustrated and cannot see themselves as part of the society.” [2] Again, another theoretical construct –now that of “frustration”- appears as accountable for the process of radicalization.
Attributing the phenomenon of violent radicalization to this variety of supposed causes is a serious mistake. Firstly, because inserting intermediate variables without a good reason does not help at all to understand the process, but instead contributes to generating confusion. And secondly –perhaps more important- because doing so part of the radical’s accountability is reallocated into the society where he belongs. Violent radicalization, seen through Learning Theory, is a process accepted by the individual and influenced by external factors. While this influence from external factors is important, it is actually the individual who radicalizes himself by increasing his violent behaviour and modifying his thoughts, beliefs and feelings accordingly [3].
Being the accountability of the process of radicalization lying primarily on the individual, questions arise on what may be the drive that provokes such behavioural change. At this point, we are stepping into a true debate. Some years ago I read an article in Foreign Affairs that remarked some jihadist militants’ declarations in which they asserted their struggle could become addictive. That caught my attention because it was not a very popular idea and, at the same time, matched quite well some hypothesis I was working on by then. For this reason, I sent an e-mail to the author, asking for her experience before the audiences in this respect. And the response was clear: “No, people are not open to this idea. I know exactly what you mean! Good luck with it.”
Jihadist-in nature radicalization has some different features than radicalization rooted in other circumstances, such as political extremisms or anti-system movements. However, as an internal feeling at the individual level, there are many similarities among all them. Perhaps the paramount one is the opportunity to participate directly in a project as exciting and transcendent as might be changing the world. Moreover, of doing it in an easy and quick manner. Is there any other setting where an individual can stand so easily above the rest of humans and join the category of the chosen ones without previous hard work or study? Frustration, unrest or any other supposed emotional state are expendable assumptions, i.e. they can be present but are not necessary ingredients to explain the process of radicalization.
“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate”, as it is attributed to the Franciscan William of Occam. We need to stop shocking and accept the fact that violence can become attractive, at least under some circumstances or hidden beneath certain forms. It is clear that the process of radicalization encompasses many other factors, but the attractiveness that certain forms of violence may have for some individuals founds an approach to the phenomenon much simpler and more feasible than invoking constructs such frustration or unrest. Radicalization in modern societies is a complex, alarming process where uncertainties prevail over assurances. Yet –as it usually happens when dealing with similar complexities- among competing explanations of the same reality, the simplest one should be selected.
[1] Aizpeolea, L. R. (2016), “Los brotes violentos en la universidad alertan al Gobierno vasco” El País, December, the 17th. Available at: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2016/12/17/actualidad/1481975415_665186.html. Accessedon 18/12/2016.
[2] Torrens, M. (2016), “El secreto contra la radicalización se esconde en una ciudad belga”. El Español, July, the 20th. Available at: http://www.elespanol.com/mundo/20160419/118488520_0.html. Accessed on 18/12/2016
[3] Peco, M. (2016), “A Functional Approach to Violent Radicalization. Building a Systemic Model Based On a Real Case”, Revista de Estudios en Seguridad Internacional, Vol. 2, No. 1, (2016), pp. 63-76. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18847/1.3.4. Available at: http://www.seguridadinternacional.es/revista/?q=content/functional-approach-violent-radicalization-building-systemic-model-based-real-case
m._peco_13_1_2017.pdf
