Violent extremism offenders are increasingly displaying an amalgamation of disparate beliefs, interests, and grievances. Despite the proliferation of terms such as “salad bar extremism,” there is no consensus on the nature of the problem. This has led to a lack of clarity, terminological profusion, and a tendency to conflate distinct activities and processes.
This new article proposed an original conceptual framework: composite violent extremism (CoVE). It consists of an overarching concept and underlying typologies of ambiguous, mixed, fused, and convergent violent extremism. This framework is designed to capture acts of violent extremism that genuinely challenge established categories by demonstrating an amalgamation of ideologies or associated sentiments rather than being a catch-all concept for any violent attack that might initially appear puzzling.
An immediate benefit of the CoVE framework is that clearly conceptualizing these unclear incidents makes it easier to count them and identify the extent to which the current experience of such incidents is genuinely novel. Additionally, accurate accounting of the totality of an individual’s profile could assist prevention efforts as a range of ideologies, sentiments, grievances, and vulnerability factors can influence people’s propensity to conduct an act of violence across the four categories of CoVE. A more granular understanding of the evolving radicalization cocktail could render prevention efforts more effective.
The authors acknowledge that the CoVE framework does not resolve all the conceptual dilemmas raised by the apparent increase in violent incidents with ideological idiosyncrasies. The field of terrorism studies has wrestled for decades with questions of what ideology is, what counts as a single discernible ideology, and how important ideology should be to definitions of terrorism. Nevertheless, the CoVE framework establishes a starting point, intended to be of value to scholars and practitioners in multiple ways.
In conclusion, the CoVE framework aims to address the lack of clarity, terminological profusion, and tendency to conflate distinct activities and processes related with violent extremism. The framework’s underlying typologies allow for greater tracking of the most effective methodological approaches for each subtype, thereby rendering prevention efforts more effective. While the CoVE framework does not resolve all the conceptual dilemmas, it establishes a starting point for scholars and practitioners.