Far-Right online radicalization: A review of the literature," by Marwick, Clancy, and Furl (2022)

Friends,

As we ponder yesterday's shooting at Joel Osteen's Houston Lakewood church that resulted in the death of the assailant, injury to the child she entered the church with, and a church member, the terms, "extremism" and "radicalization" come to mind.

With so much going on these days of an extremist nature, it's good to see what the research says as are assumptions are not always correct. Just the Executive Summary is eye-opening. For example,...
"No specific type of person is vulnerable to radicalization, and most people who commit political violence are not mentally ill or alienated from society."

Knowledge in this fight against extremism is power. As "extremism" and "radicalization" are complex issues with "definitional ambiguity," this study by Marwick, Clancy, and Furl merits a close read.


My thoughts and prayers go out to all those impacted by this at Lakewood. And the poor little child who is injured didn't deserve this.

-Angela Valenzuela

References

Marwick, A., Clancy, B., & Furl, K. (2022). Far-Right online radicalization: A review of the literature. The Bulletin of Technology & Public Life.

Maxouris, C. & Mascarenhas, L. (2024, Feb. 12). A woman entered a Houston megachurch with a child and began shooting. Here’s what we know, CNN.com. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/us/joel-osteen-lakewood-church-shooting-monday/index.html

Far-Right online radicalization: A review of the literature

This literature review examines cross-disciplinary work on radicalization to better understand the present concerns around online radicalization and far-right extremist and fringe movements.

by Alice Marwick, Benjamin Clancy, and Katherine Furl

ABSTRACT

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.
Executive Summary

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.


We conclude that “radicalization” is not a useful frame for understanding the spread of far-right and fringe ideas online.

It is analytically imprecise and morally judgmental


It 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.

Table of Contents [Go to this link for access to the entire piece]

Introduction

1. What is radicalization?

Radicalization as Acts of Violence (Terrorism)

Radicalization as Adoption of Extremist Ideologies

Definitions in this Document

Implications of Definitional Ambiguity

2. What makes people vulnerable to radicalization?

Individual, Psychological Characteristics

Structural, Systemic Causes

Movement-Level Causes

3. How are people radicalized?

Pathways and Pyramids

Social Networks and Relational Approaches

Problems with Pathways Approaches

Radicalization as Agented Meaning-Making

4. What is the role of the internet in radicalization?

Platform Affordances

Online Discourse

5. Are there differences between radicalization into far-right and jihadi extremism?

Jihadi Extremism

White Supremacist and Far-Right Radicalization

6. Is online radicalization a useful concept?

Should we use “online radicalization”?

What concepts can we use instead?

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

References

[DMN Editors] Gov. Abbott, you must act on gun violence: Texas is being shaped by fear and anguish

It's hard having a blog on education in Texas and not mention the recent spate of gun violence. The Dallas Morning News editors weigh in on this and urge our governor to prioritize this as a policy issue. After all, our legislature is currently in session. Something can be done now.

I had dinner with a few colleagues yesterday evening and stories were shared of concerns with sleep overs for their children with friends' families and how what should be a straightforward conversation of guns in people's homes are difficult questions to ask, even when Facebook posts indicate the presence of guns and rifles in these same peoples' homes. Even asking such questions are "political."

What gets me is that when the governor and others say that gun violence is an artifact of mental illness, why doesn't that translate into gun safety measures like red flag laws and background checks so as to increase the chances that guns don't get into the wrong hands?

One encouraging development in the wake of the shooting in Allen, Texas is a move to raise the age when an individual can purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Read: In surprise move days after Allen mall shooting, Texas House panel OKs bill raising age to buy semi-automatic rifles

This is an important development in the right direction. However, more must be done. A big thanks to the DMN editors for expressing, I trust, most people's, concerns.

-Angela Valenzuela

Gov. Abbott, you must act on gun violence

Texas is being shaped by fear and anguish.

By Dallas Morning News Editorial

8:01 AM on May 7, 2023

A man got out of his car and sprayed them with bullets of such a high power and in such rapid succession that a mass killing was inescapable.

You responded that this was an “unspeakable tragedy.” We tell you that it was not unspeakable, and that the people of Texas need you to speak to it and its cause.

There is nothing conservative about refusing to acknowledge evidence or give voice to the true nature of a problem. The people who are dead today are not dead because a twisted and evil soul walked among them. They are dead because that person was able to obtain a weapon so powerful and with such high capacity that even the bravest and fastest response of law enforcement could not save their lives.

That is what you must speak to if you want to truly lead this state. You must speak to the terrible imbalance that you and Republican leaders have created between the individual liberty of nearly unrestricted ownership of the most powerful rifles and guns versus the increasing decline in society’s ability to function without constant fear of violent death.

It’s too bad that, when given the chance to do so Sunday morning on Fox News, you instead embraced what has become the dodge of the right — focusing on mental health measures. Those are needed. But in a world where mental health struggles are becoming more common, no nation suffers from mass shootings like the U.S. The lack of commonsense controls on gun sales is the reason.

The people you represent are living in fear. Our public spaces are no longer places we can go without considering the possibility that we may become victims of once-unimaginable violence. Our private spaces are at risk, too. Our schools, churches, shopping malls, big-box stores, airports and funerals are all possible targets. So are homes, backyards and front yards, and highways and city streets. Every place, every gathering.

Parents fear letting their children go to school or go to the mall. Children exchange messages about constant rumors of guns someone might be carrying around them. Their lives are being changed by the presence of fear.

Texans have had it with living under the gun. A February poll from the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas Politics Project showed half of Texans want stricter gun laws. That includes 22% of people who strongly identify as Republican. Those numbers are only going to grow as people’s fear about living their daily lives grows.

We recommended your return to office because the people of this state have prospered under the pro-business environment fostered here. People need the opportunity to lift themselves up, and Texas has given them that chance. But what good is prosperity if we cannot have freedom from fear to enjoy it?

When we recommended you, we did so with reservations and urged you to recognize that “the Second Amendment does not amount to an absolute right to individual ownership of firearms.”

Images on social media show the Allen shooter used a high-power rifle. Sounds from video of the shooting indicate it fired in rapid succession. While facts still must be confirmed, other images indicate the weapon of choice was a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle with a high capacity magazine.

How many people might be alive today if that shooter had not been able to obtain that rifle, or that magazine, or the power of rounds loaded in it? We don’t know whether the shooter obtained the weapon legally or not. It doesn’t matter because there are so many guns all around, and they are so loosely controlled, that anyone with intent and money can get one with no trouble at all.

This has to stop. You cannot say this is an “unspeakable tragedy” and move on. A leader must have the courage to speak. You must look at this horror, at the devastation wrought on these people, and you must summon the will to act to change the laws that have put us in this terrible place.

Editor’s note: This editorial was updated at 2:37 p.m. on May 7, 2023 to reflect Gov. Greg Abbott’s comments on Fox News.

Correction, 7:32 a.m. May 9, 2023: This editorial has corrected the description of the rounds used in the weapon in the Allen murders. They are high-velocity, high-power, but low-caliber rounds.