Homeland Security and Radicalisation models (Essay Sample)

Homeland Security Radicalization Model Author Affiliation Course Instructor Due Date Homeland Security Radicalization Model Introduction Radicalization and extremism remain serious problems worldwide. Between 2014 and 2017, approximately 100,000 died from terrorist attacks (Beelmann, 2020). Most attacks have been happening in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa). While the number is reducing more countries and the number of people affected by terrorism are still high compared to figures from 2000. Terrorism is one form of extremism, and a closer look at other form of extremism such as extremist attitudes and behaviors is worrying. For example, a recent study conducted in Germany revealed about four thousand politically and religiously motivated criminal acts (Beelmann, 2020). Additionally, five to ten adult males have a highly right-wing view of the world. Other worrying results from a representative study conducted in France found that approximately 16 per cent of the adult population and 27 per cent of 18 to 24 years agreed with the goals of ISIS (Beelmann, 2020). These worrying results require people to understand the factors that cause radicalization and extremist attitudes and behaviors to curb the problem. The current paper compares the 3N theory and the Social-Development Model of Radicalization (SDMR) to understand these factors. It also provides psychological and behavioral factors associated with disengaging from terrorism and discusses some effective programs for countering radicalizations and why. Comparison of Radicalization Models The radicalization models allow people to understand factors contributing to radical attitudes and behaviors. Models are developed through theories and empirical research. This section compares the 3N and the Social-Development Model of Radicalization (SDMR). Radicalization is a social and psychological process “of incrementally experienced commitment to extremist political or religious ideology (Bélanger et al., 2019, p. 42). Notably, the definition suggests that social, political, psychological, and individual factors play a significant role in the radicalization process. The SDMR and the 3N models suggest that societal, individual, psychological and political factors are involved in the radicalization process. Notably, the two models suggest that there are motivating factors that lead to the development of extremist attitudes and behaviors. The 3N model suggests that concepts such as the need, narrative and network produce radicalization towards violence. Need illustrates factors that motivate people to join extremist groups. The quest for significance is a significant factor, and it is a situation where a person wants to become respected. It becomes essential when such significance is lost, primarily through personal failure, rejection and humiliation. People may also become extremists by becoming socially alienated. Social alienation is when a person becomes culturally and socially detached (Bélanger et al., 2019). It can occur when a person is dissatisfied with certain structural elements of society related to economic and political elements. There is also a psychological perspective where a person has no genuine social bonds or rejects society's values. These individuals are less interested in public affairs and do not identify with political figures. The model argues that when the personal worth is lost, individuals focus on retaining it, and they do so through retaliation. Social alienation also leads to cognitive openness and increasing receptiveness to violent ideologies (Bélanger et al., 2019). However, the SDMR model indicates that ontological (developmental factors) and proximal radicalization processes play crucial roles in the radicalization process. The SDMR differs from 3N model because it suggests that the developmental process of an individual determines how a person grows up and influence their behavior and cognitive development. At the societal level, risk factors such as intergroup conflicts, civil wars and intergroup threats increase the radicalization process. Additionally, societal factors such as economic crisis, societal inequality, disintegration and marginalization also increase deviance and radicalization. Notably, as the risk increases, the deviance also increases (Beelmann, 2020). The lack of a proper family socialization process, such as failure to impact values, and factors such as prejudiced parents, discrimination, and social exclusion increase the chances of the radicalization process. Individual factors such as a lack of self-esteem, authoritarian personality, and social dominance are associated with radicalization. Early antisocial behaviors are associated with an increased risk of radicalization in adulthood. However, protective factors such as intelligence, emotional support, and radicalization-specific factors, like a good relationship with schools, having democratic values and being law abidance gained during development reduce the radicalization process (Beelmann, 2020). The SDMR model suggests that the chronic imbalance between risk and protective factors leads to radicalization (Beelmann, 2020). However, the imbalance does not automatically lead to radicalization, but it must be chronically from childhood until early adulthood. Although the two models approach radicalization differently, they also have some similarities. The 3N model suggests that people who have lost significance become angry, humiliated and frustrated and usually want revenge on those who have caused their suffering (Bélanger et al., 2019). However, since violence is not permissible in society, an ideological framework must legitimize it. As a result, ideology plays two critical factors in the radicalization process: it provides moral justification for violent actions and belief systems and actions required to achieve significance. The third requirement is network, whereby a person must look for people with a moral narrative that justifies their violent behavior to restore significance. Ideally, people with extremist ideology are more likely to be motivated to find people who share the same beliefs.. This is similar to SDMR, which also suggests that unfulfilled needs for appreciation, prejudice, acquisition of political and religious extremist ideologists, and antisocial behaviors lead to radicalization (Beelmann, 2020); these factors constitute the proximal radicalization process. Prejudice creates a lack of experience in social diversity and specific cognitive deficits like cognitive differentiation and lack of empathy. The lack of age-related social rules and norms and having aggressive, oppositional and deliquesce behaviors increases the radicalization process. The factors associated with the proximal radicalization process have a narrower connection to political and religious extremism. This radicalization process extends from early adolescence to middle adulthood, and the factors described account for 90 per cent of the process. Preventive and Disengagement Strategies Researchers argue that there is a need to facilitate studies that focus on deradicalization and disengagement from terrorist groups. Such studies provide insights into factors that create fertile ground for radicalization and those that contribute to the disintegration of terrorist groups (Corner & Gill, 2020). De-radicalization and disengagement are two social and psychological terms that are interchangeably used. Disengagement is a behavioral change of relinquishing the use of violence to achieve change. However, this does not necessarily mean a change of beliefs. On the other hand, deradicalization means a fundamental cognitive change in understanding (Horgan et al., 2017). While youths join extremist groups in the quest for social camaraderie, they also leave because of social “push” and “pull” factors that force them out of those groups. Push factors include social environment, the disillusionment of the leaders or group activities, rejecting violent activities and stress resulting from living a secret life with the group (Braddock, 2018). The pull factors include a longing for everyday life, increasing pressure from partners and families, and the need to engage in less threatening social and economic activities with long-term social and economic prospects. Notably, Fink et al. (2008) found that withdrawing from an extremist group was effective on a personal level rather than a collective decision. The authors also note that cognitive opening accelerated...