Rethinking Radicalisation

In the early morning of 4^th Dec 2024, Brian Thompson, who was the CEO of the American healthcare insurance company UnitedHealthcare, was shot and killed in New York outside the entrance of a hotel. The man accused of his murder, 26 year old Luigi Mangione, was known for being hostile to the health insurance industry and wealthy executives in particular. Remarkably, Luigi, who was an Ivy League graduate with a clean criminal record, received a lot of praise online for his alleged actions. He now has an army of adoring female fans, there is Luigi-themed merchandise on sale and even a crowdfunding campaign to support his legal defence.

A few weeks later, a Saudi national called Taleb Al-AbdulMohsen, rammed a car into a Christmas market in the German city of Magdeburg, killing 5 people and injuring many more. Many assumed Taleb was an Islamist extremist but it later transpired he was an ex-Muslim, an asylum seeker and someone who harboured grievances against the German state for not agreeing with his stance towards Islam in Europe. This case surprised many since the backstory did not conform to what we have come to think inspires and animates terrorists.

On the 1st of Jan 2025, a Tesla Cybertruck packed with explosives blew up outside the entrance to the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. The perpetrator, Matthew Alan Livelsberger, who died from a self-inflicted gunshot died a few minutes before the explosion, was a former US soldier descried by close friends as a patriot. According to notes and messages left by Livelsberger, the incident was intended to be wake up call to the American public and an act of defiance against what he described as ‘weak and feckless leadership’.

In all of these cases, terror tactics were used by actors who were not necessarily influenced by extremist ideologies. There seems to be a new trend in which a diverse range of people are adopting these tactics to make a political point, representing a mainstreaming of these tactics. There also seems to be a much broader anti-establishment sentiment that is resulting in actions which seek to undermine the political class as a whole.

The term ‘radicalisation’ typically refers to the process by which vulnerable individuals adopt extremist ideologies, potentially leading to acts of political violence that seek to bring about political change. This conventional narrative suggests a linear progression from disenfranchisement to ideological indoctrination and, ultimately, to action. However, this framework is increasingly inadequate, as tactics previously considered extreme have permeated mainstream political activism. To comprehend this shift, we must reassess the concept of radicalisation and examine the socio-cultural forces propelling it in our globalised world.

Terrorism, by definition, denotes the rejection of the mainstream political system, democracy, the rule of law and the ability to bring about change through peaceful methods. Therefore, the adoption of terrorist tactics by a wider range of actors suggests a broader disenfranchisement with the political system and the ruling class, especially when it is adopted by political activists who do not hold extremist ideologies in the traditional sense. It suggests we are witnessing the radicalisation of the political activist class more broadly and a normalisation of violence as the means to change and signal protest.

These developments are intrinsically linked to the dynamics of globalisation. While globalisation fosters economic integration and cultural exchange, it also disrupts traditional anchors of identity such as community, nation, and faith. This disruption can lead to feelings of dislocation and alienation for those who are unable to thrive in a world in which previously reliable social structures have fragmented. In the absence of stable identities, individuals may gravitate towards causes that offer a sense of belonging and give their life purpose. Those causes are often even more attractive when they involve a rejection and condemnation of a system that is seen to the failing.

The Overton Window, representing the spectrum of acceptable political discourse, has shifted markedly in recent years. This shift is not confined to any single ideology but spans the political spectrum, leading to political divisions and tensions being the worst they have been in decades. This means people are increasingly deriving a sense of identity and purpose from political causes which are also globalised and decentralised in ways that make them unsuitable for offering belonging and meaning. It also means people are increasingly angry and are finding political causes to channel this anger.

This phenomenon is compounded by social media algorithms that reinforce fringe and extreme ideas to the point where individuals begin to accept them uncritically and become part of an online feedback loop that rewards their perpetuation. The decentralisation of information has also led to less trust in mainstream media and politicians which means a larger number of people now reflexively react negatively to the narratives that emanate from establishment figures. As such, more and more people feel something is wrong and that something needs to change drastically.

Addressing this complex issue requires more than countering extremist ideologies or policing violent actions. We can only mitigate the sense of dislocation that drives individuals toward extreme actions and ideas by re-configuring modern communities as a whole. This necessitates a comprehensive re-evaluation of societal structures to restore identity and belonging. It also involves re-shaping our political system so that it is inclusive and equitable whilst reforming communities so that they can offer a more localised sense of engagement.

We need to question how we achieve purpose and meaningful social networks in a globalised world which prioritises material advancement over human spiritual and social needs. We need to re-invigorate political activism so that it can be impactful beyond elections and voting. We need a democracy that is responsive to how people think and feel rather than merely offering a choice of increasingly ineffective political parties once every four years. We also need an information space that is less driven by profit incentives and can offer a balanced news diet.

Only through such holistic approaches can we hope to address the root causes of this evolving phenomenon in which violent tactics and extreme ideas are increasingly gaining wider acceptance and adoption. Until then, the current cycle of alienation and reaction will persist, with devastating consequences for us all.