Thoroughly interesting piece in The Telegraph about universities as seats of radicalisation. Well worth checking out.
Speaking in an entirely personal capacity, this is an interesting and difficult subject for academics to deal with. As the Telegraph article points out, a lot of the terrorist attempts in this country over the last few years have come from under and postgrads who have graduated or are in the midst of their studies.
There has been a lot of chat in academic circles (particularly 2003-5) about the ethics or efficacy of informing the authorities about students who look radicalised. This chat has mostly been quite depressing…. there is a legal obligation (though no-one seems to know it) through one of the Terrorism Acts to report any seriously problematic behaviour, with penalties stiff enough to convince most right thinking individuals that it’s a sensible thing to do. But this debate is always coloured by what I consider to be the myopic view that ‘our’ system is inherently evil, and upholding the rights (and we’re not talking about fundamental rights) of people who endanger that system is the ‘natural’ option. These people have gone soft in the head. They would not get their cushy office, their right to talk, under the regimes they seek to give ‘discursive space’ to….
Anyhow, the more important point for me is the question of why educated individuals become motivated to use violence against other individuals and property? Perhaps this is not so surprising – enlightenment revolutions (such as the French and Russian varieties) were mostly conducted by the highly educated, with the ‘masses’ swept or dragged along (or merely informed of the result!). A look back in history might be worth while. So, universities might be a site in which people tangentially (and even directly, given some of the newspaper reports) become radicalised, and there is the legislative framework in place to ‘encourage’ us academics to report problematic behaviour. But universities are not ‘the’ problem; the problem is the susceptibility of educated individuals to radicalisation… and in that they and radical academics and not a million miles apart.. the failure to see any value in the system that has provided them with advantages is common to both.
For what it’s worth, I’ve not seen at any of the universities I have worked in, conspicuous signs of radicalisation. My hunch is that, where these things do occur, they occur in small ad-hoc groups, as any other type of peer group pressure might.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
Rob;
‘Still digesting your post but an initial observation is that, at least from my perspective in US academe, I find an often disturbing and at times even amazing inverse correlation between the level of intelligence and/or education of some students and their rationality, common sense, ability to contextualize, vulnerability to being led astray etc. etc.
I think that’s probably a fair comment. If there are any psychologists reading, please give us a hypothesis to mull over!
Did somebody mention psychology?
Stanovich and West have done some work showing links between various intelligence tests and reasoning ability (e.g., suspectibility to various biases). (Papers online here.) Not sure about the “vulnerability to being led astray” bit – how would that be defined? Not all biases are related to IQ, though. (And there’s more to intelligence than the general factor, g.)
great post Bob
its always rather ironic when some university folk talk about poverty as the ‘root cause’ of things like terrorism, when in fact the demographic much more intimately linked to militancy is the bourgeois, tertiary educated youth…
Spot on PP. Just look at the US in the late 1960s (interesting that many of the notables then in SDS, Weather Underground etc. are now coming full circle in that they are now within the evil “Establishment” continuing their work on behalf of the rest of us mere pelebians who are unable or unwilling to see the true “Way” of progressive thought).
‘its always rather ironic when some university folk talk about poverty as the ‘root cause’ of things like terrorism, when in fact the demographic much more intimately linked to militancy is the bourgeois, tertiary educated youth…’
It’s more complicated than that. Yes, many people who are radicalized are well-educated, but what radicalizes them is the poverty, injustices etc that they believe they see. The poverty, injustice etc, does, therefore, play an important role. To take a more historic example, Lenin and many fellow Bolshevik leaders were thoroughly ‘bourgeois’, but it was the perceived injustice of the Tsarist system that a) helped radicalize them, and b) made it possible for them to win recruits. You cannot, therefore, simply dismiss poverty and so on as ‘root causes’, though their link to radicalization is more indirect than is often assumed. (though equally, the indirectness of the link rather undermines our belief in development, reconstruction etc as an element of COIN).
As far as Rob’s point about reporting suspicious behaviour at universities and his rather abrupt dismissal of people’s ‘rights’, I would suggest that we need to be cautious and avoid going the way of cases like that of the graduate student arrested at the University of Nottingham – when we arrest students studying terrorism and extremism for possession of documents produced by extremist groups, even when those documents are downloaded from US government websites, we are, I believe, overstepping the mark.
Paul
I’m really troubled by the idea that Lenin and Trotsky were somehow altrustic saviours of the working classes. They were the mass slaughterers of the working classes, as were the French university educated nutters in Cambodia and most other genocidal regimes you’d care to hang your hat on.
I take human rights very seriously. When I mention ‘marginal rights’, I’m talking about the ability to threaten to kill ‘all those slags in a nightclub’ as per the Crevice plot, or the threats to kill service personnel and their families because they’ve served in Afghanistan or Iraq. If you wish to uphold those rights, feel free. You’ll be in a minority of one.
And I don’t believe the example you cite is a good one…. particularly as some with a closer knowledge of the case cast serious doubt on the documents emanating from US govt websites. It has become emblematic of a wider and worthy debate – but on its own facts it’s a red-herring. But to re-emphasise I think the general point is a good one, and I agree it needs debating. But these debates are ongoing in UK academia.
Paul,
clearly poverty or other extreme conditions can radicalise folk, but study after study has shown that there is a much more direct and tangible and provable correlation between young highly educated professional people and the turn towards terrorism.
one problem for your analysis is that it fails to explain why actual poor people are far less likely to participate in terrorism, and why a mega-wealthy chap like Bin Laden is more predisposed to holy war than the wretched of Bolivia, say.
moreover, figures like Lenin and Bin Laden are pretty prepared to do horrific things to the peasantry when they get the chance. Or take Zarqawi, an AQ leader in a movement that claims to champion, amongst other things, Palestinian struggle, blowing up a Palestinian wedding in Jordan. Perverted tough love? maybe, but they aren’t the bleeding hearted ‘social justice’ warriors that your statement suggests.
btw its also important that we don’t always explain terrorism as a biproduct of ‘injustice.’ Terrorist methods can also be used as a way of resisting movements for emancipation and justice. White supremacists attacked African Americans and civil rights activists using terrorist methods precisely in order to resist ideas such as racial equality and desegregation. Terrorism, in fact, can spring from deeply reactionary roots. So maybe your interpretation needs some added complexity.
btw its also important that we don’t always explain terrorism as a biproduct of ‘injustice.’ Terrorist methods can also be used as a way of resisting movements for emancipation and justice. White supremacists attacked African Americans and civil rights activists using terrorist methods precisely in order to resist ideas such as racial equality and desegregation. Terrorism, in fact, can spring from deeply reactionary roots. So maybe your interpretation needs some added complexity.
“These people have gone soft in the head. They would not get their cushy office, their right to talk, under the regimes they seek to give ‘discursive space’ to….”
More than that, they’d be among the first to be beheaded. It seems to me that these folks don’t have enough common sense to protect their own interests. Maybe it’s some kind of self-loathing…
But on the matter of the root causes of terrorism: I think what the research shows is that there is no simple root cause. Poverty can radicalize some people but not others. The well-to-do can be radicalized by the poverty of others, but it might just as well be due to a perceived political injustice (e.g. Palestine) or a sudden conversion to religious fundamentalism that has little or nothing to do with social conditions. It would seem that the one valid generalization is that you can’t generalize.
hey Steve,
I strongly agree with your last point about generalisations…except we can generalise more confidently about their social profile.
clearly, it would be insane to deny that poverty can be a factor in motivation, or outrage at the poverty of others. clearly there can be a relationship (which is different from the ‘root cause’ argument).
but given that a) many terrorists are privileged and not poor, and b) many terrorists wantonly kill poor people, there may still be a relationship with poverty, but its a wierd one.
My Evolution of Insurgency class was supposed to have watched the film Baader Meinhof Complex over the course of the holiday in order that we can discuss some of the issues which it raises next week in seminar; notable among these issues in my mind is the attraction of the generally well off, generally well-educated members of the gang to murder and mayhem. Perhaps it is just me, but their professed ideological rationalization/motivation reads alternately as contrived, hysteric, and self-serving. I am struck by the observation that what really seems broadly true and consistent is that for such recruits to terrorism ‘Revolution’ is sexy.
What you said. I was typing a response to Steve and several of the other posters who I think may be giving more credit for altruism in some of the motivations of the more “privileged” terrorists/insurgents/extremists/radicals etc. (the labels depend largely on the “sophistication” or some might say degree of political correctness of the observer) than they really deserve.
I sure didn’t mean to imply that these guys are always in it for altruistic reasons. I suppose some might be (or think they are). But others are there for revenge, because a friend or family member was killed. Others, as David says, find the cause glamorous. John Horgan has done interviews with captured terrorists who say they were promised an exciting life of adventure (only to become disillusioned after spending all their time in hideouts drinking tea). Still others just plain-old like to fight. I think David Kilcullen said in his book that some Pashtun, on hearing a firefight, will grab their weapons and head off toward it, not even knowing who is involved or what it’s about.
It just goes to show that there is a myriad of reasons why people might participate in terrorism, and you’ve got your work cut out for you if you try to address the problem at that level.
I believe there’s currency in the explanation that those who’ve received further or higher education become frustrated as they struggle to find gainful employment, either towards the end of their studies or once they leave. This is both relevant to the UK and socio-economically depressed countries in the Middle East (and elsewhere). I’m hypothesising here, but there may even be a higher percentage of individuals from former Polytechnics and further education colleges who subscribe to extremist views. These students may lack the social links of the middle class students who tend to attend higher ed instititutions and (broadly speaking) secure gainful employment through tried and tested routes.
This is not to say that all terrorists are, or have been, unemployed, but my hunch – and it is purely a hunch for you purists – is that there’s statistical relevance here. For those that are in employment, it’s possible that the prospect of devoting oneself to a higher cause is deemed more righteous than mere menial work, particularly when a group of youngish individuals with similar life experiences meet one another through the local community centre, mosque or university society. Group dynamics take hold.
As for radical activities among university students, I remember fondly my Middle East Studies tutor asking the seminar class to pick up the leaflets from the the proselytizing ‘students’ pitched up just OUTSIDE the university campus. I believe they belonged to the precursor organisation of one Anjem Choudary, an unemployed ‘lawyer’ on social benefits recently in the news…….
Readers might remember the Guardian getting sight of an MI 5 Behavioural Science Unit paper on radicalisation back in 2008. Here’s what they wrote on this point:
“Those involved in British terrorism are not unintelligent or gullible, and nor are they more likely to be well-educated; their educational achievement ranges from total lack of qualifications to degree-level education. However, they are almost all employed in low-grade jobs.”
That ties in with qualified folk getting frustrated, but without seeing the data, it’s not possible to know what proportion were educated.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
Rob,
The link to the Daily Telegraph article you cite appears to be broken. I know several papers had stories on radicalisation in universities and may have missed the one you cite. A search on DTelegraph website found two articles: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/6937391/Detroit-bomber-mixed-with-radical-preachers-in-Britain.html (on 5/1/10) and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/6906669/Detroit-bomber-British-university-complicit-in-radicalisation.html (30/12/09).
When speaking with university senior staff I heard a better illustration used, replace alleged radicaliser with alleged paedophile and see how the university audience reacts then.
PVE in the UK had been weakened by all many of factors, including skills in marketing and the effort in universities has failed to date to make an impact. Indeed as you point out incidents such as the arrests at Nottingham had a negative impact.
Much to improve and learn from on all sides (excluding the radicalisers).
In a non-British context, there is the excellent paper ‘Engineers of Jihad’ by Hertog and Gambetta, which taps into some of these arguments. As Kenneth suggests above, they conclude that the crucial factor is underemployment amongst the overqualified. (These well-qualified people also feel more able to do something to improve upon the problems they see).
This is insufficient though. Frustration just makes someone likely to do something. It doesn’t determine what. It has to coincide with access to a cause (which will probably be linked to an injustice) in order to lead to radicalization.
“…the failure to see any value in the system that has provided them with advantages is common to both”. So, the system anyone happens to find themselves living in is… somehow… sacrosanct – is that really what you’re saying ?
Hmm, yes, students in 1930′s Germany, for example, should just have been so grateful for the opportunity that their society afforded them – never question or doubt the establishment, follow the leader(s)…
Might the problem actually be: that educated people have open enough minds – and the time and opportunity to contemplate – to consider these alternate ideas, that the mass of ‘snouts-in-the-trough’ wage-slaves sadly don’t?
(I generally find the simple answers are often the accurate ones)
Thomsonh – Ha, no.. that’s not what I’m saying. It’s interesting to see you drawing an analogy between New Labour’s Britain and Nazi Germany. I’m sure the thought police would view such things kindly :-p ..
So, no, I don’t believe that – but I do believe that everyone should do a cost-benefit analysis and I think most of those sat in jobs that allow them a lot of thinking time are privileged, even if they don’t realise it themselves. Whinging from this group is, I would therefore contend, curious.
Aside from that – I don’t think one can naturally assume that this is a question of having a particularly open mind; these are discontentments expressed in a violent form. My discontentment might stretch to a strongly worded letter to The Times.
I would recommend Amm Sam’s contributions on this topic: http://www.icsr.info/blog
But more generally, i am not that surprised that students show up in terror plots, at the end of the day, young people are at their most politically active during that period, so it makes sense that extremism would also come in there. With regards the point about poverty and extremism – it is clearly a part of the backdrop, but not necessarily the direct feeder that is often ascribed to it.
A couple of questions on the above thread.
Why is it that only one ethnic-religious grouping is radicalised in the mainland UK?
Why does that form of radicalisalion take the form of a particular kind of terrorism rather than that of say that of the IRA, non violent demonstration, a religious mass movement, or infiltration of an existing political party or group?
Since am here, am going to jump in and answer mexicansky:
1 – while radicalization focuses on Muslims in the UK, this is a pretty varied ethnic community (in some ways also quite a diverse religious grouping if one considers converts/reverts). Also, radicalization does exist amongst white communities (in part in backlash reaction), as well as others. There have been stories of Sikh extremists, as well as left-over Irish groups.
2 – arguably, the activities of groups like the now-banned Al Muhajiroun would constitute non violent end of the spectrum. For some Hizb ut Tahrir would fall into this group as well, and it has been said they are maybe trying to infiltrate existing societal structures.
Good thoughts. Another way of putting it would be to ask why it doesn’t happen to the vast majority of the world’s Muslims… Or why it has in the past happened to groups of secular extremists, anarchist and communist alike. Mexicansky might enjoy some of Andrew Silke’s writing.
Really interesting discussion. I’ve posted a brief response and addendum at FREErad!cals: http://www.icsr.info/blog/From-Captain-Mahmud-to-Abdulmutallab
I’d like to draw attention (as Raff did) to a series of posts I have written (and am still writing) over at the ICSR blog, FreeRadicals.
Part One: http://www.icsr.info/blog/Preventing-er-Countering-Violent-Extremism-comes-to-America-Part-One
Part Two: http://www.icsr.info/blog/Preventing-er-Countering-Violent-Extremism-comes-to-America-Part-Two—Its-all-relative
http://www.icsr.info/blog/Preventing-er-Countering-Violent-Extremism-comes-to-America-Part-Three–Im-aggrieved-youre-aggrieved
There are a few misconceptions of radicalization here and participation in radical and/or violent movements – namely to do with poverty and grievances.
As some have noted, study after study has found that terrorists as a group – including Islamist terrorists – are richer and better educated than the population at large. Further, to state that what radicalizes people is the poverty and injustices they believe they see is highly simplistic. Paul is actually drawing on very Marxist (or a strand of it) logic of mobilization – that the masses just need to be awakened!
I tend to agree with Steve Corman’s comments (love your blog, by the way, please write more).
The interpretive work is better seen as a root cause, rather than grievance itself which is highly subjective and open to differential interpretation both in identification, prognosis, and motivation. It is much more useful to ask how these interpretive processes work and to focus on that, rather than to fool ourselves that if we merely corrected injustice and social imbalance (as if that was even possible) that this would all just go away.
Grievances are ubiquitous. Action is not.
As Quintan Wiktorowicz writes, “Movements are not merely psychological coping mechanisms.” And I think to view them as such is a bit patronizing.
I also take issue with COINTASTIC’s comments. The frustration-aggression hypothesis has lots and lots of problems. Read my “Part Two” and “Part Three”
I can’t address every point on this thread – too many and no time – but I’d be honored if you would all read my posts and comment.
I will add, re: the MI5 report Kenneth cited: my big problem with it, as you hint at, is we don’t have the data. I have too many disappointing experiences dealing with civil servants in social science research design and implementation for me to have much faith in that study. Further, its findings seem to conflict with studies done about deprivation, grievance, education, dashed expectations, etc from peer reviewed journals, which makes me more skeptical.
Student radicalization? Seen the radicalization of students at Tehran University recently? :o
Close to home:-
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23795651-lses-islamist-teacher-groomed-suicide-bomber-for-tel-aviv-attack.do
This has little to do with the IQ of university students but it is more on the EQ. If intelligent students would have much of emotional stability which results from the way they were brought up by their parents, then, probably they wouldn’t end up becoming suicide bombers like Abdulmutallab. In my opinion, parents should not just expect universities to take care of their children’s educational needs so they become better invdividuals. The parents, instead should first of all take care of their children’s emotional and psychological needs so that when they attend universities, they wouldn’t be that vulnerable in being lead astray.
As a radicalized former student, I have to say that this should be a no-brainer. The reason why so many educated folks turn to resistance in one form or another, be it demonstrations or terrorism, is a overwhelming lack of data and a total lack of influence. The political animal has a basic need to influence his/hers surroundings, and in the west these days this is nearly impossible due to capitalisms all-encompassing power. When you are 20, sitting in your dormroom surfing the net and watching al jazeera all day w. images of carnage in Gaza blasting 24/7, its not strange that you become enraged at the talking heads of the west. And for some, that rage turns into action. I have myself faced teargas and beatings because of internal rage, and while I never had violent fantasies (well, not many) I can understand those who do.