The end of ideological violence
Abstract
Why does non-state violence without a clear ideology represent a problem for terrorism scholars? This comment on Horgan and Shayler, Perliger, Baele, and Cassam suggests that lone-actor perpetrators with no-or-mixed ideology are the beginning of the end of defining terrorists and violent extremist as ideologically motivated. An alternative is available that does not privilege broad conceptions of ideology. The role of ideas in radicalization to terrorism and violent extremism is better understood in terms of the three dimensions of a mobilization frame: diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing.
Fields of Study & Subjects
Terrorism
Counterterrorism
and Political Violence
Political Conflict and Governance
War
Ethics
and Justification
Publication details
- Journal / source
- advances in/psychology
- Publisher
- Advances.in Ltd.
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e145270–e145270
- Publication date
- 1 January 2026
- Language
- EN