Hi. today's session we have a real treat. an interview with Peter Neumann from King's College in London. He's at Georgetown University this summer. And he's the Director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization. So given that we're studying the radicalization process this year, I'm very grateful and excited to have Peter participating with us today. >> Thank you. >> Peter, how are you? >> Very good. How are you? >> Excellent. Thank you for being with us, but before we dive into the subject matter, why don't you tell the students a little bit about the ICSR. >> so ICSR, which you can find at ICSR.info, is a center that was founded in 2008. And, it was founded because we thought that not enough was being done to study [UNKNOWN] the groups of terrorism, how people become terrorists. We were always talking about terrorism, the boom, the bombs, and what can be done to counter it, but there wasn't any real study of how people came to it came to embrace violent extremeism and that's what we want to see. As far as I know. And I can be corrected but as far as I know we were the first center that exclusively almost exclusivley studied the [UNKNOWN] of radicalization. There are a few others now, but I think we were the first one. Well, I've been very impressed with the work of the center and we had a chance to be on a panel together, and I've heard you speak so I know you're doing great work there, and I'm very honored to have you with us. why don't we just dive right into it. you're the, the center has the word radicalization. Why don't we try to define terms. What do you mean by it when you say radicalization. What is radicalization. >> Well, this is obviously a contentious discussion, and what I'm going to say now is not necessarily the last word on the subject. But the way I define radicalization is, as the process where by people become extremist. And it's a fairly simple definition. And, we simply call it radicalization because there is no such word as extreme-ization. Radicalization is the process where by people become extremists. The problem arises out of the word extremism, not the word radicalization because extremism itself is ambiguous. If you look up the definition of extremism in dictionaries of political philosophy, you will find that the word extremism can be defined in different ways. On the one hand you have so-called cognitive extremists who have extremist ideas. So let's say for example a neo-Nazi, would in most western countries, be considered an extremist because his ideas are so out of the mainstream. They are so fringe. They are so marginal. They are so closed to everything. That we believe our societies are founded upon the market, the equality we pulled the lot et cetera. And he doesn't necessarily need to be violent in order to be an extremist. On the other hand, you can be an extremist not because of your ideas, but for example, because of your actions, because of what you do. Give you another example for that. Environmentalism, for example, has become in the last 10, 20 years a mainstream value. Most people support the protection of the environment to some extent. But if I start going around blowing up factories and kidnapping managers, etc, then because of my actions, I am an extremist. So, extremism is an ambiguous word, it can have different meanings. You can be a cognitive extremist, you can be a violent extremist. So in essence, radicalization is an ambiguous term, not because of the word radicalization, but because of the end point of that process, which is extremism. Extremism can be cognitive. And it can be violent. >> So is radicalization always a bad thing? I think you know, the British your forefathers sure probably thought that Washington and Jefferson and Franklin were radicals or extremists. is radicalization always bad? Well, as I, kind of, to some extent, indicated in my, in my definition, radic, radicalism, or extremism, is a relative word. It is always, you always have to ask yourself, radical or extreme in relation to what? And it is always, it is always radical [INAUDIBLE] relation to what most people think of as mainstream, at any given point in time or in any particular geographical context. So for example, someone who speaks out in favor of free speech is certainly probably not considered to be a radical extremist in a western country, where those values are considered mainstream. But arguing in favor of the exact same value in China or North Korea would make you a radical, because the mainstream there is not to have democracy and free speech. And the same goes for a lot of things that, you know, used to be considered extremist or radical at particular points in time, and that are no longer considered to be radical, like for example, abolitionism or votes for women, or equal civil rights, even in 1950s and 60s, so these things have become mainstream. They are no longer considered radical. With words like [INAUDIBLE] and extremism, you always have to ask yourself, in relation to what? They are very context-dependent. And they are relative to the mainstream. And so in order to be able to define what is radical or extreme at any particular point in time, you need to have a concept or an idea of what is mainstream. >> Okay, excellent. you know, in I think it was 2006, the NYPD put out a report, Radicalization in the West. And it described the radicalization process as being you know, very rigid. four steps. >> Right. >> that all people go through. your studies and your experience you know over the past years, is that the way you see radicalization? Is it you know, can it be described in that kind of formulaic way, or is it, different for different people and different different ideologies? Well, to be fair to the, to the NYPD, model. It, it only actually looks at, the, for lack of a better word, [INAUDIBLE] you have some benefits in the west. So it wasn't trying to construct a universal model that would be true for radicals and pretty much everywhere in the world. But I do agree with you. That it is rigidness in the sense that it has particular stages that everyone goes through. All these stages, importantly, are related to beliefs. And, that is what a lot of people have criticized as problematic. That the sense, the sense that the more intense your belief. The more likely you are to commit acts of terrorism. And in this particular NYPD case, it seemed, at least in the way it was presented, that it was, the more intense you believe in Islam, essentially, the more likely you are to commit an act of terrorism. And that is something that I I, I disagree with. I think that there's a lot of evidence that points in different directions. I feel that generally speaking there are different elements to the radicalization process. And these elements come together in different ways and in different sequences. In different places and at different times. And three of these elements, the three important, three important building blocks of that process, are number one, the degree of grievance, discontent, conflict, and crisis. Secondly, an ideology of belief system that makes, that takes the grievance and makes sense of it and channels it into a particular project or direction. And thirdly there is often, in many cases, the majority of cases a degree of group process, of group dynamic, social dynamic. People interacting with each other. peer pressure, et cetera, et cetera. So if you take those three elements, grievance, belief system, and group process and social dynamic. You know, you have three building blocks. That doesn't necessarily say anything about how these three elements come together. what sort of world et cetera, et cetera. But I think most models and most areas of radicalization revolve in one way or another, about, around these three elements. But there, there's not, I believe, a set. Sequence or a rigid staged process like in the NYPD model. So the three elements that you mentioned a grievance, ideology and then group dynamics You know, there's a lot of grievance in the world, and there are many different ideologies floating around to give rise to these grievances and of course, people are interacting in groups all the time. why is radicalization you know, relatively a rare, rare thing? >> You're hitting exactly the right spot. I mean the question is not so much, you know, what is this process, but how did these different elements interact and why does it lead to radicalization in some cases and not in other cases? I think that, in fact, that the real answer to these questions is not necessarily. And, in fact, you know? There's, this is what the debates among academics and scholars are about. It is, they are about how these. What kind of ideologies? What kind of grievances? How did they relate to each other? And, and I think that's where the answers are to be found. Clearly, there is a lot of grievances. A lot of people are very grieved about all sorts of things. There's a lot of ideologies out there. I always argue that it is neither necessarily the grievance in itself. Nor is it the ideology, in itself. But it is, in fact the nexus between ideology and grievance. It is when an ideology resonates with a particular grievance, that then radicalization becomes a possibility. Of course You know, let's say I'm aggrieved because because I'm a second or third generation descendant of immigrants in Western Europe. I feel excluded from society. I no longer connect with society in the country where my parents or grandparents came from. So I feel a little bit lost and in that kind of situation which [UNKNOWN] he describes as cognitive opening. I'm open to all sorts of things. And if I'm unlucky enough to, at that point to encounter someone who's very charismatic and who has an extremist ideology to offer. Then, perhaps, the chances, the probability of me embracing that ideology are higher, than if I hadn't encountered that cognitive [UNKNOWN]. So it was meeting the right ideology or belief system, at the right point in my life, when I'm kind of cognitively ready for it. That is, I think, a, a, the chance, that is the answer to your question. It has a lot to do with opportunities, and with meeting the right people. And so, a lot of people will not, kind of be unlucky enough to meet a charismatic recruiter at exactly the point when they are feeling that sense of crisis. And therefore, they both perhaps not do anything about So there's a lot more to it than those three elements, and you have to really spell out exactly in what kind of situation they apply how. All we're trying to say is that these are sort of three building blocks that you can operate with and use in different circumstances. And maybe one more point, which is that, I believe one thing that we often get wrong when we speak about radicalization is that we speak about we speak about these elements and these different theories as if there was a degree of certainty about them. I think that what we should start doing is to talk about these things as risk factors. In the same way that, for example, doctors talk about risk factors. If you never exercise, if you smoke 40 cigarettes a day, and if you eat a lot then your risk of getting cancer is certainly increased. A lot of science shows that. There's a lot of evidence around. But even people who never exercise, who eat badly, and who smoke a lot, there's not certainty that they will get cancer. I think you'll probably find more people that do all these bad things and do not get cancer than people who do get cancer. That doesn't invalidate the point that those three things are probably risk factors that you should avoid if you want to avoid cancer. And so, you know, embracing an extremist ideology is not necessarily a guarantee that you will become a terrorist, but it's certainly a risk factor that probably increases the risk of you, doing something bad along the way. By how much we don't know exactly yet but you know I would say it's pretty safe to say it's a risk factor it's not a certainty. Let's talk about one thing that you mentioned, which is the role as a charismatic recruiter. for lack of, any better terminology. do you see this as, an essential, element? or a, one of the risk factors that, really greatly contributes to an individual, embracing an extremist ideology? some, some people I've read say, well, at every case of radicalization, there's always a, a recruiter. A solicitor out there. what do you think of that? >> Well, this is one of the debates that maybe your students may want to look at and focus on. Because they think it's one of the more interesting. More interesting discussions in that field. Is radicalization top-down, or is it bottom-up? Is it lead by someone, is it lead by a recruiter? Is there someone, who is very charismatic, who tricks people into extremism? Or, is it something that bubbles up? From from the bottom. From the grassroots. And there are different theories on that. I don't necessarily think it's one or the other. It certainly is true that it helps. And I, I can think of a number of cases where charismatic recruiters have made a big difference. Obviously, Anwar Lakhvi, even though he was only online. He was also a charismatic recruiter. If you look at how people spoke about him online in [INAUDIBLE] , they certainly adored him. He was [INAUDIBLE] to them. He was someone who had the ability not only to convey knowledge, but also to convey what these people would have called brotherhood. And to give them a sense of being their friend. Yet at the same time, being a leader and being very influential. And so certainly there was a degree of influence. At the same time, we've also seen a lot of groups forming according to what Marc Sageman would call the Bunches of Guys model. Where you don't necessarily have a charismatic leader. But you have a number of, let's say, six, seven, eight. People who are probably of a similar age and who are developing very intense intense a very intense sense of loyalty towards each other and it doesn't necessarily. necessitate a charismatic recruiter to be part of that group. So you see all crying, but I wouldn't necessarily say that always needs to be a charismatic recruiter. But, certainly there are a number of cases where you can clearly see that a charismatic recruiter has played some role. Peter, thank you for that conversation. We're going to sign off for now but we have the second part of our interview with Peter Neumann from the International Center for the Study of Radicalization available for our students.
