Online Library

Radical/extremist Islamist actors use social media to disseminate uncompromising stories of monist religious political orders and identities. As a reaction, counter-movements to online Islamist radicalism/extremism emerged in Western societies (and beyond), while uncertainty about effective outcomes remains widespread. In a bid to understand how inclusionary and exclusionary discursive spaces are created, we ask: How do some Muslim actors create discursive spaces open to self-reflection, pluralism and liberal-democratic principles, while others construct illiberal, particularistic and non/anti-democratic spaces? To respond to this question, we compare two contrasting storytellers, one who agitates for exclusionary Islamist radicalism/extremism (Generation Islam) and one who offers inclusionary prevention and deradicalization work against that (Jamal al-Khatib). We draw on novel narrative approaches to the Discourse Historical Approach (DHA) in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), via which we compare text-level and context-level narratives disseminated about three Muslim-related crises: the racist terrorist attacks/genocide to represent the national, European and global level. Our two-layered, DHA-inspired narrative analysis illustrates that, at the level of text, narrative persuasion varies between both contrasting actors. While Jamal al-Khatib disseminates persuasive stories, Generation Islam is much less invested in narrative persuasion; it seems to address an already convinced audience. These two text-level strategies reveal their meaning in two antagonistic narrative genres: Jamal al-Khatib’s “self-reflexive savior” creates an inclusionary discursive space represented in a self-ironic narrative genre, while Generation Islam’s ”crusading savior” manufactures an exclusionary discursive space represented in a romance featuring a nostalgic return to the particularistic Islamic umma.

VOX-Pol Blog post.

America has often developed very impressive methods of waging war and protecting strategic interests, but all too often, its senior leaders are too optimistic about how much those methods can actually accomplish. The heart of U.S. national security challenges today is an ongoing erosion of American influence globally. What the U.S. now requires is a modification of older ideas in ways appropriate for the modern age. The works contained in this edited volume are signposts of a future that America still has time to choose wherein its efforts to safeguard its people and protect its interests can be remade and reforged in ways appropriate and successful in this era of dazzling technologies and enormous global change.

Recent studies suggest that empathy induced by narrative messages can effectively facilitate persuasion and reduce psychological reactance. Although limited, emerging research on the etiology of radical political behavior has begun to explore the role of narratives in shaping an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and intentions that culminate in radicalization. The existing studies focus exclusively on the influence of narrative persuasion on an individual, but they overlook the necessity of empathy and that in the absence of empathy, persuasion is not salient. We argue that terrorist organizations are strategic in cultivating empathetic-persuasive messages using audiovisual materials, and disseminating their message within the digital medium. Therefore, in this paper we propose a theoretical model and analytical framework capable of helping us better understand the neurocognitive process of digital radicalization.

Policy Exchange’s new report provides a comprehensive analysis of the
struggle against online jihadist extremism – what we call “the new
Netwar”. This issue is vital to UK national security and there is a
danger that the blood and treasure we are investing in defeating ISIS in
Iraq and Syria will produce little more than a pyrrhic victory unless we
act to defeat the virtual threat. At present, we are certainly not winning
the war online. The spate of terrorist attacks the UK suffered in the first
half of 2017 confirmed that online extremism is a real and present
danger. In each case, online radicalisation played some part in driving
the perpetrators to violence. As a society, we are struggling to grasp the
extent of the challenge and also appropriate ways of responding. It is
clear that the status quo is not working. It is time for a new approach.
Policy Exchange has worked with a team of experts to provide fresh
insight into the debate around online extremism. The report that
follows is divided into three sections:

The world’s most dangerous jihadists no longer answer to al Qaeda. The terrorists we should fear most are self-recruited wannabes who find purpose in terror and comrades on the Web. This new generation is even more frightening and unpredictable than its predecessors, but its evolution just may reveal the key to its demise.