How gender factors affect work to counter violent extremism
To improve its programs for countering violent extremism (CVE), the Australian government must better understand the gendered characteristics of extremism. And it needs to apply that knowledge to enhance the existing practices of CVE professionals who work with radicalised men.
While it is well established that a significant proportion of violent extremists are men, the underlying gendered factors driving male radicalisation remain poorly understood. This hampers the government’s ability to craft effective strategies in CVE.
Historically, CVE efforts have concentrated on individual risk assessments and community surveillance. While this is important work, by overlooking the critical role of gender in radicalisation processes we are potentially missing ways to improve the effectiveness of CVE. Yet, gender-sensitising CVE efforts is no easy task.
In our 2021 research we interviewed Australian CVE practitioners, exploring how conventional understandings of masculinity—particularly hegemonic masculinity, which normalises men’s dominance over women and puts high value on traits like strength and control—played a pivotal role in shaping the self-identities and views of men susceptible to extremist ideologies. Many of their clients aligned themselves with notions of masculinity that endorse violence and superiority, especially when they perceived these ideals as being under threat.
Our research reveals new insights about the influence of gender in CVE intervention. CVE practitioners, often on the frontline of deradicalisation, spend much time building relationships with such men. Through discussions with a diverse range of Australian practitioners, we uncovered a complex interplay between masculine identity and the effectiveness of interventions. We discovered that the process of deradicalisation was deeply influenced by the client’s views on gender roles as well as the gender dynamics between practitioner and client.
Many practitioners reported that male clients expressed rigid views on gender roles, which could affect their behaviour and responses to treatment. These views had to be carefully negotiated. For instance, one practitioner noted that a client struggled with feelings of inadequacy regarding his masculinity, making interactions with traditional authority figures—such as police officers—particularly challenging.
Interestingly, several practitioners observed that male clients with misogynistic views often engaged more positively with female practitioners than with their male counterparts. This challenges the stereotype that strong traditionalist beliefs would preclude men from seeking advice and mentorship from women.
The interpersonal relationships developed in CVE settings are crucial staging grounds for different ways of defining and developing masculinity. Here, masculine identities are enacted and shaped by both clients and practitioners, often reflecting broader societal norms and expectations. While some practitioners use traits associated with hegemonic masculinity to build trust and rapport, this approach risks reinforcing the very stereotypes that contribute to radicalisation.
We believe such insights are vital for refining CVE practices. There is an urgent need for practitioners to reflect critically on whether they are challenging harmful gender stereotypes or inadvertently perpetuating them.
The complexity of CVE work necessitates a nuanced approach that accounts for the multifaceted nature of gendered power dynamics. Practitioners must consider gender dynamics not only between men and women but also among men, women, boys and girls. This level of introspection is essential, as it encourages practitioners to question their assumptions and adapt their strategies accordingly.
To make CVE initiatives more effective, the government must urge practitioners to engage with diverse theories and understandings of gender and masculinity. Once they recognise that gender identities are socially and culturally constructed, they may have a more comprehensive understanding of how these identities influence the behaviours and interactions of young men. Then they can foster a reflective practice that interrogates gender norms, and create more inclusive and effective interventions that truly address the roots of radicalisation.
To this end, training and professional development should focus on gender sensitivity and awareness, so that practitioners are equipped with the tools to navigate these complex dynamics. By creating spaces for dialogue about masculinity and radicalisation, the government can empower practitioners to share experiences and strategies, fostering a collaborative approach to CVE.
As the field of CVE evolves, it is crucial for practitioners to incorporate gender analysis into their work. This involves not only recognising diverse expressions of masculinity but also understanding how these expressions can affect relationships with clients. They can develop strategies that both deradicalise individuals and dismantle the harmful stereotypes that contribute to violent extremism.
Ultimately, a comprehensive approach to CVE that embraces a nuanced understanding of gender dynamics will help build more resilient communities that are better equipped to prevent various forms of radicalisation in the first place.