Lec 7 - Radicalization & Dehumanization Flashcards
What is the definition of Radicalization?
Definition
- Attitudes that become more extreme
- Counter to societal norms
- Anti-democratic
- Supportive of Violence
What are the trends in radicalization research?
- Question: according to the editorial by Della Porta and LaFree, what different ‘branches’ do we see in radicalization research? →
- How individuals radicalize into joining extremist groups
- How groups radicalize towards greater support of violence
How do groups aid radicalization?
“Group opinions and attitudes tend to be more extreme than those held by its individual members, and individual opinions and attitudes tend to become more extreme in a group context.” (Handbook of Collective Violence, Chapter 8, p.101)
How do groups radicalize attitudes of individuals
Two key processes underlying radicalization
- Attitude Polarization (division into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs)
- Attitude Convergence (‘consensualization’)
Informational processes
- extreme arguments are remembered better
What is Persuasive Argument Theory
- Extreme arguments = more persuasive
- Groups = more arguments = more persuasive
What are social influence theories?
Social influence theories
- Discuss your beliefs and grievances with like-minded others (strengthening the attitude through exposure)
- Normative influence (shifting opinion because you think that is expected of you, because everyone else thinks that)
- Social influence (you want others to think well of you)
Key argument: people tailor their attitudes to what they think others believe (e.g. leaders)
What is the Role of Dehumanization in Violent Groups
Dehumanization is the only group process that is uniquely associated with violent groups, not really seen in the non-violent ones (see Mumford et al. 2008)
The other group processes are general effects that also contribute to collective violence (e.g. attitude polarization)
“They […] were just letting these insects crawl over them.” (Jackie, interviewed by Kimmel, p.81)
“Perceiving a person or group as lacking humanness” and therefore permissible to treat them worse
How does dehumanization normalise violence?
If “they” are not fully human, we can treat them worse
- Moral exclusion (Opotow, 1990)
- Reduced pro-sociality (Haslam and Loughman, 2014)
- Reduced empathy (Bandura, 2002)
- Perception that others don’t have feelings (Leyens, et al. 2003)
What is Infrahumanization?
Infrahumanization captures processes, can happen at quite an automatic level (infra referring to lower) (dehumanization is in part/can be an automatic, without conscious choice)
Two dimensions of dehumanization (Haslam’s Dual Model)
- Human Uniqueness: Human vs. Animal (rats, snakes, pigs)
- Human Nature: Human vs. Object (e.g. robots, monsters)
How does dehumanization happen?
Three mechanisms
- Criteria for humanness (Infrahumanization; Dual model)
- Relational (Stereotype content model)
- Mind perception
What is Self-dehumanization?
Self-dehumanization
- E.g. after violent video games, people rate themselves as slightly less human
- Bastian et al. 2021
- See McDoom: violence “brutalizes” perpetrators
Some people consider violence itself “animalistic”/brutal (engagement in violent can make people feel like they have lost a bit of humanness) → proposes a more general idea that violence and “humanness” are opposed? If you are violently victimized that breaks down an aspect of your humanity, if we are justifying violence we want to deny the humanness so we can commit the violence.
What is the relation between dehumanization and violence?
The link to collective violence is not super clear → as we saw earlier, relevance is often assumed rather than shown empirically
“Despite its intuitive appeal…” → what role does dehumanization really play in collective violence?
Empirical evidence is not as clear
- Rely on older studies
- Retrospective evidence
- “Proxies” vor violence → e.g. support for…
Evidence some link, but not often directly demonstrated
“Depending on how broadly the concept [of dehumanization] is understood, it is either integral to, or it is the fundamental ideational mechanism by which mass killing is to be explained.” (Ramsay, 2016, p.561)
“Dehumanization is one of the most invoked factors in analyses of mass atrocities […]. However, while its application is widespread, its relevance is often assumed a priori,, with claims regarding its empirical relevance often asserted rather than argued for.” (Michel, 2022)
“As this review shows, the explanatory value of ‘dehumanization’ is now in doubt. Whatever its intuitive appeal, the psychological concept of dehumanization might do more to distort than illuminate the history of collective violence.” (Lang, 2020)
Why is Dehumanization vague?
Isn’t it just a metaphor?
Dehumanization seems to operate on denying positive emotion and traits, but readily ascribing the more negative traits - dehumanization theory cannot account for this difference
What is the impact of justification of violence in regards to dehumanization?
Conclusion
Dehumanization is linked to instrumental forms of collective violence
Instrumental violence is more difficult to justify in general and that is where dehumanization steps in to help justify instrumental violence. In instrumental violence you do not need moral restrictions and that is why they get weakened here)
Five studies
- Study 1: Acceptability of harming people for instrumental (sweatshop workers) or moral (enemy soldiers) reasons
- Study 2: Approval of drone strikes for moral or instrumental reasons
- Study 3-5: Imagine you had the opportunity to break a stranger’s thumb for moral reasons (he’s a human trafficker) or instrumental reasons (get money)
Interpretation
- Instrumental violence: justified (in part) by dehumanization
- Moral violence: no role for dehumanization
Does dehumanization lead to violence?
- So what do we conclude from this debate? → collective violence is a field in development
- In terms of dehumanization → dehumanization is well-established as a psychological phenomenon
- In terms of the link between dehumanization and collective violence, dehumanization can encourage instrumental forms of collective violence and can help to justify collective violence afterwards/reduce guilt
