Denunciation and the construction of norms in group conflict: Examples from an Al‐Qaeda‐supporting group

Abstract

In situations of violent group conflict, group members often argue about how to deal with the outgroup. While some argue for aggression, force, and separation, others argue for negotiation and cooperation. Each side attempts to persuade the group that their own position is normative and is most in line with the interests and essence of the group. These arguments often involve denunciations of opponents as disloyal or deviant. In such situations, definitions of group identities and norms, and what counts as loyalty and deviance, are therefore disputed. This article analyses how a UK-based Al-Qaeda-supporting organization denounces 'moderate' Muslims in the United Kingdom who engage with secular institutions and who ally themselves with non-Muslims in political disputes. Drawing on theological, historical, and political arguments, a prescriptive norm is constructed whereby the correct behaviour of Muslims in the West is to avoid participation in secular political systems and to avoid political cooperation with non-Muslims. Muslims who are seen as breaking these norms are denounced and denigrated in a variety of ways by assigning them a range of deviant identity positions. Denunciations involve explanatory accounts which construct opponents as unworthy representatives of the group based on their deviation from Islam, or from ignorance, cowardice, mental weakness, or self-interest. This article illustrates that the practice of denunciation is an important aspect of the organization of group conflict. Finally, it argues that it is dangerous for social psychologists to treat group norms and prototypes as consensual.

From Theorizing Radicalization to Surveillance Practices: Muslims in the Cross Hairs of Scrutiny

“…These contrasting diagnoses of the bases for Muslims’ marginalization give rise to contrasting arguments within the community as to how they could and should act to change their predicament. Moreover, such arguments often entail dispute about the nature of Muslim identity (Hopkins & Kahani‐Hopkins, ; Hopkins, Reicher, & Kahani‐Hopkins, ), and in extreme cases, this can take the form of denunciation geared to galvanize support for projects in which the authorities are clearly defined as outgroup (Finlay, ).…”

Self-censorship in conflicts: Israel and the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

“…Broadly defined, these sanctions may include criticism, isolation, social rejection, termination of funding for operations, difficulty in disseminating various types of texts, confiscation of materials, arrests, and even physical harm (e.g., Austin, 2007; Hutt, 2006; Nets-Zehngut, 2011a; Ngok, 2007). More specifically, research from conflict zones such as Turkey (Burris, 2007) and Israel (Finlay, 2005), and with conflict-related groups such as supporters of Al-Qaeda (Finlay, 2014), has shown that individuals who publically disseminate information contradicting an official narrative are perceived by their group members as deviants and labeled as self-hating, traitors, disloyal, mentally weak, ignorant, or even pathological. Consequently, these people become more restrained in their maverick activity to avoid these social sanctions.…”

‘You sick, twisted messes’: The use of argument and reasoning in Islamophobic and anti-Semitic discussions on Facebook

“…Logic and reasoning are used on both sides of a debate, even when Facebook users display violent, visceral, expressions of hatred. This has been shown to be a common strategy between two groups in conflict, whereby members try to persuade the opposing side that their position is a reasonable one (Finlay, 2014). The use of reasoning has also been found to be a strategy used by politicians to appear as rational when making potentially racist arguments over immigration (e.g.…”