Islamist terrorism as identity threat: the case of ambivalent identification and self‐stereotyping among Turkish Muslims

Abstract

Terrorist attacks committed in 2003 by Turkish Islamist extremists threatened the social identity of Turkish Muslims by associating them with terrorism. Using a 2 × 3 experimental design, we categorized Turkish respondents and terrorists as members of a shared superordinate group (“Muslims”) or as members of separate subgroups. When sharing superordinate group membership with terrorists, less identified Turkish respondents experienced ambivalent identification, i.e., they sought to maintain attachment to their group while simultaneously seeking distance from it. Ambivalent identification was reduced when respondents emphasized their typicality as members of a Muslim subgroup that did not include terrorists. The discussion focuses on ambivalent identification as a response to identity threat, and the implications for Islamist terrorism for the social identity of Muslims.

Being a ‘suspect community’ in a post 9/11 world – The impact of the war on terror on Muslim communities in Australia

“…Distancing and alienation can be other individual reactions (Rousseau & Jamil, 2010;Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2014). Distancing may involve openly stressing that Islamic terrorists are different from the majority of Muslims (and hence themselves).…”

“…As Breen-Smyth (2014) states, the discourse and practice surrounding CT influences how Muslims see themselves and the attributions they attach to others. Such perceptions can generate a number of responses (Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2014).…”

“…Research has documented how the WOT has strengthened Muslims' sense of identity and involvement in political activism that aims to produce expressions of solidarity and unity (Nagra, 2011;Rousseau & Jamil, 2010;Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2014). Distancing and alienation can be other individual reactions (Rousseau & Jamil, 2010;Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2014). Distancing may involve openly stressing that Islamic terrorists are different from the majority of Muslims (and hence themselves).…”

“…This is a form of distancing that stresses that Islamic terrorists are different from other Muslims and are not following the true meaning of Islam. This dis-identification aims to downplay the importance or affiliation of particular individuals (terrorists) who are seen as linked to, and constituting, part of one's broader social group (Muslim) (Doosje, Spears, & Ellemers, 2002;Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2014). The use of the term distancing is not used here to imply that participants were avoiding some level of collective responsibility, unwilling to confront the accusation their religion might legitimise and breed violent extremism.…”

Victimisation-by-ingroup Consciousness: Its Antecedents and Impact on Radicalism

“…Also, victimisation-by-ingroup consciousness constitutes the perceptions of ideological intragroup polarisation, denoting contradictions between ingroup members’ different beliefs, attitudes and values pertaining to the ideal social order (Harel et al, 2020). In the context of our study, such polarisation corresponds with different visions between the Muslims who justify the use of violence for political ends and those Muslims who disagree with such a violent ideology (Esposito & Mogahed, 2013; Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2014; Uz et al, 2009). It thus makes theoretical sense to find how victimisation-by-ingroup consciousness reduces Muslims’ radical tendencies given its role in motivating Muslims to perceive intragroup violence as illegitimate.…”