Dawson (2021b), ‘Bringing Religiosity Back In (Part II).’
Citation: Dawson, Lorne L. (2021b), ‘Bringing Religiosity Back In: Critical Reflection on the Explanation of Western Homegrown Religious Terrorism (Part II),’ Perspectives on Terrorism, 15:2, pp. 2-22.
Time Period Covered:
Theory, Research Question, Hypothesis:
Relationship to Other Research/Ideas Contested/Noted Gaps:
Concepts and Definitions:
Method:
Primary/Original Data:
Argument/Conclusion:
Limitations/Flaws:
Abstract: An unusual feature of the social scientific study of religious terrorism is the erasure of religiosity as a significant motivational factor. This article delineates and criticizes the presence of this peculiar interpretive preference, demonstrating that it is methodologically unsound and theoretically and empirically unhelpful. In Part I of the article, published by the same author under the same title in the February 2021 issue of Perspectives on Terrorism, the foundations of the critique were established. In this article, Part II, three types of arguments commonly used to minimize the role of religiosity in motivating religious terrorism are examined. These arguments are identified by the primary interpretive errors they rely on. Some arguments (1) mistakenly treat the religious background and knowledge of homegrown jihadists as a sound indicator of their religiosity; others (2) inappropriately apply a modern Western normative conception of religion to homegrown jihadists; and some arguments (3) rely on an overly dichotomized conception of the relationship of social processes and ideology in the process of radicalization. The critique argues the need to develop a more refined conception of the role of ideology, and more specifically religiosity, in the determination of the actions of religious terrorists.
Notes:
Dawson (2021b:4): Notes consistent difficulties in measuring religiosity. Also notes that sociologists “have consistently found a low correlation between levels of religious knowledge and levels of religiosity.” Thus, rejecting claims of religious motivations on the grounds of lack of knowledge of the religion, or a lack of prior religious background, is dubious.
Dawson (2021b:4): “In principle and practice, neither depth of knowledge of a religion nor the length of time someone has been involved are reliable indicators of the authenticity and effectiveness of someone’s commitment.”
Dawson (2021b:5): Notes a consistent data problem, in that many sources do not report on the religiosity of those involved in terrorism. Argues broad claims are often made on the basis of scarce data.
Dawson (2021b:5): “There is no simple correlation between criminality, past and present, and lack of religiosity.”
Dawson (2021b): Critiques the prevalence of a Western conception of religion, which sees religion as a private matter distinct from the political realm. Cites as an example a paper by Schuurman and Horgan, which repeatedly uses evidence of religion as proof that the terrorists under consideration were motivated by personal not political motives.
Dawson (2021b): Notes problems of specificity and talk to action: The difficulties of determining who, out of all those who hold or espouse particular beliefs, will go on to engage in violent behaviours.
Dawson (2021b:14): “To reduce the impact of the problem of specificity, we need to recognize that ideology matters, at least to some degree, and more, we need to adopt a more integrated, and hence realistic, approach to the interplay of ideology and social processes (i.e., social-psychological and social) throughout the process of radicalization.” [One way we can do this is by not seeing ideology and identity construction as distinct processes]
Dawson (2021b:14): “Few scholars of note, or otherwise really, argue that ideology is the only significant factor in determining who radicalizes.”
Dawson (2021b:14): “stop working with overly formal conceptions of codified ideologies, and recognize that ideologies, especially the ones that have shaped societies, are living and evolving systems of beliefs (like religions), with variable influence on the actions of individuals.”