respond to 4 post
cab61d7
respond.docxPlease respond to the 4 discussions below with 150 words each or more
1.Both schools discuss the reason behind why terrorism is a social process, that supports Chapter 1’s definition that terrorism is a social construct, a framework around the various aspects of a terrorist’s meaning of life and purpose (White 2014). In contrast, one focuses on what makes a person tick, what motivates them to do take certain actions. Motivation to do something is commonly fed by what a person feels has meaning, which is subjective. For example, my religious upbringing is the motivation behind why I volunteer my time to those that are less fortunate and someone else volunteering their time for the same event may be doing it because when growing up they did not have a lot and now they want to help those that are in the same position that they were once in; a completely different meaning. However, in the example given we were both acting for a common purpose – to help others less fortunate. In addition, another school focuses on terrorism being a social process because people can easily be recruited to act due to the purpose and structure of the group. Despite the subjective meanings that motivate people to take certain actions, terrorist groups are comprised of people who believe in a common purpose or goal. When people are seeking for meaning to their life, they often seek to be part of something big and have a purpose.
Personal needs such as, security and sense of belonging, are subjective to each person. Those needs give us meaning to why we do things out of our own volition. However, these needs are sometimes what makes us weak to being provoked to join a group that can provide those needs. Joining a group that for a common purpose or function is not always negative, but when an organized group network with other groups and justify their violence, it becomes a terrorism.
2.Terrorism, when studied as a social process, is primarily divided into a “meaning framework” and a “structural framework”. These frameworks provide applicable theories for criminologists, sociologists, historians, economic analysts, and counterterrorism agencies. By trying to understand why terrorism is motivated, we can attempt to prevent and predict what actions will be taken.
The meaning framework provides a simple theory that can become more complicated with dimensions. “Social scientists who study behavior from this perspective believe the way we interpret the world motivates the actions we take” (White, Page, 29). This initial theory can then be taken more in depth to explain many aspects of human behavior. The structural framework explains behavior based on social constructs or systems. Each system is organized and carries out actions because of loyalty to that structure. Major differences in each framework include, while meaning framework “focus on the interpretation individuals and groups give to the actions of others as well their own actions” (White, Page 29), the structural framework focuses on the system and structure of an organization, in which actions are taken because of that structure’s purpose. In my opinion, structural framework will be less useful in small “lone wolf” type groups while more effective in understanding large terrorist organizations.
Is it “meaning” that causes action, or is it “function of the structure” that causes action? I believe this is a, what came first? Chicken or the egg scenario. I believe both schools of thought are applicable to various forms of human behavior including terrorism. I think that it is the meaning, or interpretation, that allows the creation for specific structural systems to be created when those creators are aware of the desired goal. My thought is that someone is given credit for developing an organization, structure, or entity. That body is created in result of the creator’s “meaning”. For specific cases of human behavior, the circumstances of each situation will determine which school of thought best fit. Trying to dedicate all various forms of human behavior to one framework is impossible because of its subjective nature and certain behaviors clearly identify with one and not the other.
3.Radicalization influences can come from many different sources. A person who is radicalized in a belief no alienates him or herself from the rest of the world. “Many sociologist define alienation as a process by which an individual or group becomes separated from the values, norms, and mores of the dominant social world” (White, 2014 page 43). People generally alienate themselves because they don’t agree with what the masses believes or think they won’t understand them. A person or group decides to shut themselves off from the rest of the world because they only want to believe what they believe and don’t want their way of life threaten. It is when their way of life feels threaten is when violence erupts.
Radicalization does not always need to be violent. Sometimes it takes others with the same ideals to support each other and act on violent beliefs. Other times it takes trigger events or for something to happen to make them turn to violence, such as the perception of their belief being under attack.
Radical recruiters play heavily on the fact that inmates are in crisis mode while in prison. “Most people who enter prison have to adjust psychologically to the loss of freedom, constant monitoring, and threatened violence from other prisoners” (White, 2014 page 46). New inmates would be the best for radicalization due to the fact that they are probably alienating themselves from other social groups already due to the culture shock of being in prison.
One thing that is common among people who are radicalized is they seek others with the same beliefs out. Humans are social creatures, eventually a person with a strong belief that alienates themselves from people with other beliefs will eventually find people with the same belief as themselves. This fact could help law enforcement officials. They should know that not all radicals are violent but that doesn’t mean they are not in contact with radicals that could be violent. Proper monitoring and examining of radical groups could help root out the violent radicals.
4. Although every terrorist organization is different, many share a similar pattern used to recruit radicals into their organizations. According to Marc Sageman, there are six steps used to convert a recruit into a radical (White, 2014, p. 45). Recruiters unite alienated people with other alienated people, bonding them with a shared connection that molds into friendship. Religion is often a method used to connect the recruits. After time, competition is introduced to push and motivate recruits further into radicalization. The religious ideas originally introduced turn into more militarized ideas, introducing violent methods as a means to reach goals. At this point, the devoted stay and the less persuaded often leave the group. If the recruits are still interested they are formally introduced to the terrorist organizations and officially join the group. Prison radicalization is very similar to typical terrorist radicalization. Brand new inmates become exposed to a new environment where they become alienated and psychologically vulnerable. The leader of a gang often targets the new inmates that can be manipulated or forced into submission. These inmates can become radicalized either by the leader of the prison group, or by a different recruiter that offers salvation through religion or spiritual guidance (White, 2014, p. 46).
Regardless of the similarities or differences in radicalization methods, it is extremely important for law enforcement agents to understand common practices for prevention purposes. If law enforcement agencies understand the characteristics of radicalization, awareness will allow enforcement agents to correctly differentiate between terrorist behavior and typical deviant behavior, expediting action by properly equipped authorities for specific situations. Awareness of radicalization characteristics will also enable law enforcement agents with the ability to look for triggers that may lead to violent behavior, as well as educate the local community. In some cases, neighbors, friends, and family members become radicals, but the surrounding community neglects to see this transformation. The symptoms are present but often neglected or downplayed.
Some cultures share a history or social culture with terrorist organizations and their ideas and beliefs, enabling radicalization. Some followers who are radicalized don’t necessarily become violent radicals. Some members support by other means like financial contributions, information distribution, and safe haven opportunities. However, whether radicals become violent or stay nonviolent, most share characteristics of some kind of alienation or social unacceptance. Most radicals are also more educated than expected and come from a diversity of social and family backgrounds.
