Collective Violence exam

Strong partisanship

When third parties:

1. Support one side against the other

2. Are solidary among themselves

The collectivisation of violence is a direct function of strong partisanship

Collective violence (as function)

Is the joint function of strong partisanship toward the alleged victim and weak partisanship toward the alleged offender

Course definition of collective violence

Violence (i.e., intentionally harming another person(s)) causing bodily injury or death that is carried out on behalf of one’s group

(You can be in a group without committing violence, they do it for you)

Violent group

A collective that uses violence to achieve its political, economic, or social goals

(i.e. a group that engages in collective violence)

Collective violence as social action

A number of people act meaningfully (not accidentally) together in response to the (perceived) actions of others in the past, present or future

Social identities (and collective violence)

How people relate their sense of self to the belief that they belong to a group, and the value and emotional significance they attach to such belonging

(Inter- and intra-group processes)

Push & pull factors (terrorism studies)

Push: root causes

Pull: ideology

However, neither are sufficient to explain people turning to violence → narratives

3-N model of radicalisation

Narrative, Needs, Network

3 Ns

Need: recognition, meaning, (self-)worth

Narrative: why is there suffering and how can it be solved?

Network: who do I belong with? who affirms me/gives me idenitity?

Narratives

Explicit: series of events/experiences

Implicit: explanation, belief, worldview

Tacit: what is not being said but implied

Purpose of narratives

• Justify violence to insiders and outsiders

• Provide a shared identity and culture

• Provide order in a chaotic world

Othering

Group/cultures that we do not understand are generally perceived as “outsiders” or “others”

→ Powerful tool to create a strong in-group

Dehumanisation

Portraying the enemy as animals, machines, diseases, etc. (as either too inferior or too cruel to be human)

Clears the last moral barrier to violence: if enemies are not human, then killing them is not murder

Othering and dehumanisation

Othering increases in-group solidarity

Dehumanisation increases out-group rejection

Narratives as aesthetics & affects

1. Narratives not only persuade but can inspire

2. Narratives shape culture, which in turn can shape ideology

3. The appeal of narratives are more complex and subtle than the messages they contain

Counter-narratives

Present alternative stories to reduce the appeal of extremist narratives

Critiques of counter-narratives

• They underplay the significance of identity, grievances, and trust

• They neglect the role of the affective and aesthetic

• They often place content over form

• Overemphasis on online form

• Shaky and sparse empirical foundation

• Superficial

Why do people join violent groups?

• Socio-economic deprivation or ideology are insufficient explanations

• Narratives are a bridge between the individual and the collective

Role of collective violence

Not always instrumental, but can also be performative

Not just about language but about aesthetics and affects

Difficult and counter-productive to fight with counter-narratives

Terrorist narratives

(attempt to) satisfy internal logic while remaining true to the real world (events that happened/triggered) → coherence & fidelity

Dehumanisation effects

1. Actual destruction of the human body

2. Symbolic humiliation and subordination of the person

Leaders

• Initiate, plan and enable collective violence

• Often have the capacity to avoid/stop the violence if they wanted to

• Not coerced → personal ambition and motivation → highest moral agency

Followers

• The ones who get their hands dirty

• Moral choice to obey → leaders are powerless without them

• (Usually) conscious decision to join a group that justifies violence

Bystanders

• May enable violence through inaction

• Send a message of tolerance/acceptance through silence

• Have more freedom to intervene

  • Greater responsibility when they do not

  • But structural/practical limitations

Purpose of violence by followers

• Gain status/significance

• Compensate for marginalisation

• Achieve short-term recognition

Purpose of violence avoidance by leaders

• Maintain strategic discipline

• Avoid alienating supporters

• Minimise long-term costs

  • Unconstrained violence is often detrimental to their goals

CV group leader characteristics

• Violent groups favour strong, hierarchical and authoritarian leadership

• Favour prototypical leaders (= a leader that embodies the ideas and beliefs of the group)

• Leaders thrive on members’ uncertainty → they desire certainty

Interventions against leaders

After leaders are taken down violence becomes less selective and civilians are increasingly targeted because low-level members are empowered and less experienced, less strategic, and more prone to radical behaviour

Behaviour under (self-)uncertainty

People are drawn to high-entativity groups:

• Well-structured (often hierarchical)

• With clear boundaries and group identity

• Internally homogenous

• Defined by shared goals and predictability

Identity fusion

Group entitativity may cause identity fusion: personal identity becomes deeply fused with a group identity, to the point where the boundaries between self and group dissolve

Individual responsibility in highly entitative groups

1. Adopt group norms as moral imperatives

2. Transfer responsibility upward (“just following orders”)

3. See themselves as functionaries, not agents

Two bystander criteria (Verdeja, 2012)

1. Individual knowledge and acknowledgement of the crime/violence

2. Agency to intervene proactively

Bystanders (Verdeja, 2012)

Those individuals in a given territory who do not actively participate in violence, but who share the same politically salient identity as direct perpetrators

(Political allies of perpetrators)

Compassion fatigue

Exhaustion and disconnection that result from prolonged exposure to other people’s trauma/suffering

(There’s only so much suffering people can empathise with)

Motive to join a (extremist) group (Hogg & Adelman, 2013)

The reduction of feelings of uncertainty about or reflecting on one’s self and identity

Uncertainty-identity theory (Hogg & Adelman, 2013)

Feelings of (self-)uncertainty are aversive because uncertainty makes it difficult to anticipate events and plan action. Uncertainty motivates behaviour aimed at reducing uncertainty

Feelings of (self-)uncertainty in extremist individuals (Hogg & Adelman, 2013)

1. Strengthen identification with highly entitative or extreme groups

2. Enhance intentions to behave in more extreme group-serving ways and measures to protect the group

3. Enhance desire for in-group leadership

4. Build a preference for strong, hierarchical, autocratic leadership

Moral bystanders (Verdeja, 2013)

Those who bear some responsibility by virtue of being in a position to intercede and consequently alter the direction of events, and yet fail to act

Types of bystanders (Verdeja, 2013)

• Near-direct complicity

• Qualified support

• Beneficiaries

→ main characterisation “indifference & inaction”

Intergenerational transmission (IGT)

No universal definition but refers to:

• General continuity

• Behaviours and beliefs

• Parent (or caregiver) to child

• Mechanisms, not deterministic

The process through which purposively or unintendedly an earlier generation psychologically influences attitudes and behaviour of the next generation

Key findings on IGT (van Wieringen et al., 2025)

IGT does not always take place, in fact parents often do not aspire to transmit their violent ideologies to their children because:

1. They often do not want their children to grow up with violence and hatred

2. Parenthood can trigger deradicalisation

5 mechanisms of IGT (van Wieringen et al., 2025)

1. Discursive

   1. Parents’ verbal interactions with kids

2. Socio-spatial

   1. Parents involving kids in extremist networks

3. Temporal

   1. Long-term integration

4. Moral-educational

   1. Expectations & punishments/rewards

5. Symbolic

   1. Symbols reinforcing extremist identity

Protective factors (van Wieringen et al., 2025)

• Engagement in prosocial hobbies and friendships outside extremist circles

• Age (?) and critical thinking skills

• Non-extremist siblings challenging family ideology

• Exposure to alternative worldview (education)

Risk factors (van Wieringen et al., 2025)

• Parental membership in extremist groups

• Extremist siblings or multi-generational extremist families

• Neglectful and warm family relations can both facilitate transmission

• Transmission of collective victimhood

Victimisation vs victimhood

Victimisation: the process and the objective state of being unjustly harmed (real experiences)

Victimhood: the perception and subjective state of being unjustly harmed (social identity/narratives)

Dimensions of victim beliefs (Vollhardt, 2012)

1. Reference point

• Conflict-specific victim beliefs

  • Referring to a specific conflict in which the in-group was harmed

• Global victim beliefs

  • Broader historical and global in-group harm context

2. Scope

• Exclusive victim beliefs

  • Exclusive focus on in-group suffering

• Inclusive victim beliefs

  • Inclusion of similarities with other groups’ victimisation

2 types of IGT of collective victimhood (Taylor et al., 2020)

1. Direct transmission

• Parents explicitly talk about experienced violence

• Children mimic trauma-related behaviour

2. Indirect transmission

• Parenting styles, family dynamics, values, emotional tone

• Ethnic socialisation practices

Ethnic socialisation (Taylor et al., 2020)

Parenting strategies (mechanisms) that teach children about ethnic identity, history, group membership, and intergroup boundaries

Competitive victimhood (Vollhardt, 2012; Taylor et al., 2020)

The belief that the in-group has suffered more than the other party in the conflict

Extremists (van Wieringen et al., 2025)

Political actors who tend to disregard the rule of law and reject pluralism in society

Honour based violence

Violence, oppression and threats carried out to protect, defend or restore cultural beliefs or the honour of a family and/or community

6 features of crimes of honour (Sen, 2005)

1. Gender relations problematise and control women’s (sexual) behaviour

2. Women play an important role in policing, monitoring & controlling

3. Collective decisions about the type of violent sanctions

4. Women sometimes participate in killings

5. Ability to reclaim honour through enforced compliance (marriage) or killing

6. State sanction of such killings and motivation for mitigation of punishment

2 forms of honour based violence against women

• Purification: restoring honour/quality of the family

• Punishment/revenge: defending one’s honour

2 types of honour norms (Thrasher & Handfield, 2018)

• Assurance/Striking outwards

  • To show they are willing to fight and show that the women are pure marriage partners

• Deterrence/Striking inwards

  • To punish the women who are perceived to have been transgressive of the sexual honour norm (deter unchaste behaviour)

Honour norms group (Strid et al., 2021)

Individuals who are not allowed to have a romantic relationship, and whose families expect them to remain virgins until marriage, and/or expect daughters/girls to remain virgins until marriage

4 types of isolation in honour norms groups (Strid et al., 2021)

1. Structural and socioeconomic

2. Everyday (restriction in activity participation)

3. Social (lack of interactions with outside groups; hinders access to support)

4. Ideational (internalisation of group norms, values and beliefs)

Intersectionality (Strid et al., 2021)

How complex inequalities intersect and mutually shape the experiences of violence and abuse

3 dimensions of toxic masculinity

• To have power over women

• To present as a manly heterosexual

• To engage in (aggressive) competition and to win

Conditions that foster toxic masculinity (and belief in rape myths, and sexually coercive behaviour)

• High status male peer groups that tend to value dominance, competition and aggression are conducive to ideas about male superiority

• These young men are socialised through gender segregated activities (e.g. sports, Greek system)

Rape culture (Canan et al., 2016)

An environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalised and excused, creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety

• Belief in token resistance

• Belief in rape myths

• (naturalisation of) Sexually aggressive behaviour

Token resistance (Canan et al., 2016)

The belief that women often say no to sex, but mean yes and intend to consent

Rape myths (Canan et al., 2016)

Attitudes and beliefs that are generally false but are widely and persistently held, and that serve to justify male sexual aggression against women

Social geometry

Inequality between two parties that makes a third party move to one of the two directions (partisanship)

Riots (Wilkinson, 2009)

Sudden (though not necessarily unplanned) incidents in which a crowd of 30 or more individuals damage or seize property, and/or who (threaten to) assault someone to attain a common purpose

Clientelistic-democratic societies

The state is a democracy but particular civilians have a lot of control over the political outcomes. The bureaucratic process is not effective so it is easier to bribe or be politically connected to get things done. Clients deliver a lot of state services/resources

Flashpoint

A symbolic moment that provides immediate meaning to the riot, set against its social and spatial context

(A triggering event that makes people realise they have to act now, bringing people together that share similar grievances)

The influence of LeBon(ian) theory

When people assemble they strongly feel part of the group and become susceptible for emotional contagion → stopping to think for themselves, becoming mindless and dangerous → not accurate but a lot of police training is still based on this

Flashpoint model levels (Wilkinson)

• Structural-material

  • (Lack of) resources

• Political

  • Degree of political representation

• Cultural

  • How are grievances shared/united

• Contextual

  • Local relationships police & people

• Situational

  • What opportunities do people have

• Interactional

  • Interaction police & people during portest

Situational asymmetries conducive to tension and fear becoming emotional dominance (Nassauer, 2016)

• Lines break up

• Opponents fall down

• One party is outnumbered

When does violence occur? (Nassauer, 2016)

If actors are pushed over the inhibition threshold due to emotional dynamics

Two steps:

1. Tension and fear rise to a high level

2. An actor establishes emotional dominance over an(other) actor, which enables them to carry out violence

Life-cycle model of riots (Newburn, 2016)

• Context

• Dynamics

• Nature

• Response

Crimes considered grave moral transgressions

• Child abuse

• Robbery and violation of property rights

• Blasphemy

Lynchings (Asif et al., 2023)

A form of vigilante violence in which alleged offenders are punished and killed, often by torture and mutilation, in suspension of state law by a group that claims to act on behalf of a moral community

Penal excess and surplus meaning (ChatGPT)

Penal excess: punishment that goes far beyond any lawful or proportional penalty

Surplus meaning: symbolic or social messages produced by lynchings beyond killing the individual

Patriarchal approach

“Our women and daughters are in danger and we have to protect them”

Politics of lynching

Religious-political leaders’ claim to represent the moral community remains uncontested and valid, even more so when they claim greater judicial power than the state

Lynching as social control (Mexico) (Nussio, 2024)

In societies where state capacity is limited, lynching is a form of social control

Community ties, as solidarity and peer pressure, explain the variation of lynchings across individuals and communities

Lynching as incapacitation (Nigeria) (Tiwa, 2022)

Prevention of the (alleged) offender committing future crimes but also to avoid retaliation of a non-fatal lynching

(Preventive rather than retributive)

Collective effervescence (Asif et al., 2023)

Feelings of group membership when participants develop a shared focus of attention and attain bodily synchrony

Lynchings by marginalised groups (Asif et al., 2023)

A way to gain access to resources and gain political influence

Weak states & violence (Nussio, 2024)

A weak state creates opportunity for non-state violence, motivates citizens to take justice into their own hands and makes violent self-justice a legitimate practice

Lynchings (Nussio, 2024)

Publicly displayed physical violence against alleged wrongdoers perpetrated by a group of civilians

Two drivers of lynching violence (Tiwa, 2022)

1. The will to ensure that caught offenders will no longer victimise anybody

2. The need for perpetrators of lynching to mitigate the risks associated with their participation

Serious beatings (Tiwa, 2022)

Non-lethal incapacitation (lynching) appropriate for crimes that do not involve grievous physical or psychological abuse

Long-lasting or permanent injuries would teach them a moral lesson and prevent them from committing future crimes

What is specific about colonial violence?

It is very brutal and civilians who are initially not involved in the violence become targeted

Colonial violence (wars) (MacDonald, 2023)

Fought by states and their intermediaries against 1) non-state adversaries 2) outside a state’s recognised international boundaries 3) with the aim of either establishing or sustaining hierarchic relations of imperial rule

Guerilla tactics

Used by indigenous people in response to colonial violence

• Knowledge of the natural terrain makes it easier to manoeuvre and strike suddenly

• Allows a party that lacks technology and manpower to gain an advantage

• Colonial powers respond to this with “scorched earth” tactics

Scorched earth tactics

Targeting civilians directly because then the cost of violence becomes really high, the guerilla fighters need the support of local communities → instilling fear through targeting civilians

When colonial states are more likely to target civilians

• Indigenous adversaries adopt guerilla tactics

• Indigenous adversaries are perceived as having a distinct and inferior racial identity

• Large populations of settlers are present

• Indirect rule colonies

Transimperial

The extreme violence is often believed to be related to a specific national identity but in reality a lot of these traits are present in a lot of/all of the empires, and are not nationalist-exceptionalist

Moral effect (Menger, 2022)

A (transient) moment of shorter duration of shock in war, which then was to lead to the (re-)establishment of a more long-term European moral ascendancy (“prestige” or “awe”)

→ Moral lesson: do not resits colonial power

Three wartime practices to determine intensity of violence (MacDonald, 2023)

1. Civilian victimisation

2. (Degree of) brutality

3. Mass killings

Patronage/clientelistic networks

Emerge because citizens need to rely on mediation to gain access to state institutions and resources

(The state is unable to/takes too long to provide these resources so citizens need to find another way to get them)

Four psychological processes of polarisation

• Boundary activation

• Out-group negativity

• Out-group homogenisation

• In-group solidarity

Who participates in killing (McDoom, 2013)

• Men who are household heads are more likely to participate

• Living in a household/neighbourhood in which the proportion of killers is higher, increases likelihood of participation in killing

Crisis frame (Oberschall, 2000)

A history of violence, and emotionally charged memories revolving around fear

Enemies in polarisation

• Internal

  • Traitors (squeezing out the moderate voices to increase in-group solidarity)

• External

Role of mass media

• Fear arousal (attention)

• Repetition

• Fake news and echo chambers

• Fear mongering

Due to the spread of fear, extremist nationalist politicians gain power in elections

Formation of violent ideology/crisis frame (Oberschall, 2000)

1. Collective guilt

• Entire out-group bears it

2. Revenge and retaliation

• They did X and they will do it again

3. Deterrence/First strike

• Disable them before they strike

4. Danger/survival

• Extraordinary times, it’s them or us

5. Legitimacy

• Left to ourselves, justifies actions

Intergroup violence common characteristics (McDoom, 2013)

1. Violence is collective

2. Committed by civilians

3. Group identity of victims and perpetrators is integral