Existing efforts to disengage people from violent extremism are derived from security imperatives rather than from a peacebuilding ethos. This report—one of a series to be published by USIP’s program on violent extremism—presents a framework through which peacebuilders can foster disengagement from violent extremism and reconciliation between those disengaging and affected communities by examining the individual, social, and structural dynamics involved.

Frydenlund, a middle-class residential area on the outskirts of Aarhus, Denmark, is home to a number of men who fought for the Islamic State group in Syria, on December 8, 2014. (Jan Grarup/New York Times)
Frydenlund, a middle-class residential area on the outskirts of Aarhus, Denmark, is home to a number of men who fought for the Islamic State group in Syria, on December 8, 2014. (Jan Grarup/New York Times)

Summary

Disengagement from violent extremism is inherently social and behavioral. Rather than changing beliefs, ideologies, and worldviews, it involves rejecting violence as a way to resolve conflict, express grievances, or pursue a goal. Peacebuilding tools offer opportunities to contribute to disengagement by fostering reconciliation and addressing complex dynamics across individual, social, and structural dimensions. The framework for disengagement that this report presents is a deliberately noncontextualized ethos to guide the development of locally tailored programs and policies from a constellation of principles.

Although violent extremism is only one of a host of social challenges that result from similar drivers and risk factors, the dominant approaches to it since 2001 have been largely defined by law enforcement and security imperatives that have exceptionalized it. Decades of public and behavioral health practice have developed successful strategies to reduce harm from high-risk behaviors and prevent violence. Decades of psychology, sociology, and criminology research shed light on why and how people voluntarily exit groups, including violent and ideological ones such as gangs and cults. These bodies of knowledge underscore that routinized prosocial interactions between those disengaging and community members and institutions are key to building relationships, generating social bonds, and promoting a sense of belonging.

Disengagement and reconciliation is a two-way street that involves not only lowering barriers to prosocial behavior in the individual but also opening spaces for such engagement in affected communities. Although no clinical or diagnosable pathology definitively identifies a terrorist, healing trauma and addressing other mental and behavioral health challenges in people who are disengaging can encourage help-seeking behavior and a willingness to engage with others. Reconciliation and restorative justice principles can provide a sense of justice and reduce stigma against those disengaging, enabling routine and sincere prosocial engagement and offering a tangible alternative identity. People often disengage from violent extremism in the same environments in which they first engaged. Structural reforms to address legitimate grievances link prevention with disengagement, helping transform the dynamics that contribute to violent extremism and build more resilient communities.

About the Report

This report presents a framework with which peacebuilders can foster disengagement from violent extremism and reconciliation between those disengaging and affected communities by examining the individual, social, and structural dynamics involved. One of a series, the report was supported by the Center for Applied Conflict Transformation at the United States Institute of Peace.

About the Author

Chris Bosley is a senior program officer for the Program on Violent Extremism at USIP, where he leads the Institute’s initiative on Violent Extremist Disengagement and Reconciliation. Previously, he served for a decade as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy and as a senior advisor for counterterrorism and countering violent extremism in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Related Publications

Taliban’s Violent Advances Augur Bleak Future for Afghan Women

Taliban’s Violent Advances Augur Bleak Future for Afghan Women

Thursday, July 29, 2021

By: Belquis Ahmadi

Mere days after the United States failed to meet the May 1 troop withdrawal deadline stipulated in its 2019 deal with the Taliban, the militant group began launching major attacks on Afghan security forces and taking control of administrative districts. While disputed, some estimates suggest the Taliban now have control of half of the districts across the country. The violence has already wrought a heavy toll — and women and girls have borne the early brunt.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Gender; Violent Extremism

Five Keys to Tackling the Crisis in Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado

Five Keys to Tackling the Crisis in Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado

Wednesday, July 28, 2021

By: Thomas P. Sheehy

Since 2017, armed militants — often carrying the Islamic State flag — have been on the offensive in the northern Mozambique province of Cabo Delgado. The human toll of this violence is grave, with more than 3,000 killed, nearly a million displaced and an acute hunger crisis. Beyond the immediate priority of stemming the violence and addressing the dire humanitarian situation that is already affecting neighboring provinces, the crisis affords the government of Mozambique and the international community the opportunity to address long-standing challenges.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Violent Extremism

Processes of Reintegrating Central Asian Returnees from Syria and Iraq

Processes of Reintegrating Central Asian Returnees from Syria and Iraq

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

By: William B. Farrell; Rustam Burnashev; Rustam Azizi; Bakhtiyar Babadjanov

In the wake of the loss of the Islamic State’s territorial holdings, the return of foreign fighters and their families to their home countries is a top international concern. Among the short list of governments that have initiated repatriation programs, the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan stand out. This report examines the different approaches the three countries have taken and draws important lessons for other nations considering their own repatriation and reintegration programs.

Type: Special Report

Violent Extremism

View All Publications