Affording New Futures: The Neuroscience and Cognition of Reintegration and Reconciliation

March 2020 No Comments

“Affording New Futures: The Neuroscience and Cognition of Reintegration and Reconciliation“

Author | Editor: Wright, N. (Intelligent Biology)

Executive Summary

[B4] How do you reintegrate radicalized people back into society? Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have centers focussed on this problem. What should the international community do with people who cannot be reintegrated into society? Are there lessons from other regions on reintegration and reconciliation that could be applied to the central region?

Reintegrating radicalised or violent people back into society requires focussing on two elements: the person themselves; and the society into which they might go. Here I apply cognitive and neuroscientific insights to help CENTCOM better address both.

Part I considers the radicalised or violent person themselves. What cognitive factors affect their process of disengagement and reintegration – and how can we influence their decision-making?

Recommendation One: CENTCOM should reframe their question away from just radicalisation (i.e. beliefs), because both beliefs and behaviours matter. Behavioural disengagement should be the main aim. Behaviour can beget belief.

Recommendation Two: Individuals often disengage from violent extremist activity (or civil war) and CENTCOM should use evidence-based methods to influence that process. This includes:

Audience: Put the target audience’s decision-making at the heart of the influence process. Practical tools help put one in the audiences’ shoes. For terrorism or those caught in civil war, identify the costs/benefits of continuing (e.g. dissatisfaction with day-to-day tasks) versus leaving (e.g. money).
Messengers: Audiences to be disengaged will often not perceive CENTCOM as the appropriate voice, so CENTCOM should act with trusted local, civil society and other actors. Local tailoring is key for Pakistani and Saudi centres.

Furthermore, societies must consider what should be done with those who cannot be reintegrated. Cognitive insights, e.g. for risk-assessment, can help marginally but offer no panacea. More research is needed for these specific cases.

Part II considers the societal scale. In a society as dislocated as Syria’s, what cognitive factors affect reconciliation between its factions, and what opportunities does Syrian society afford people who might—we hope—reintegrate?

Recommendation Three:Help society afford individuals options to disengage.A useful concept is that of “affordances”, which are the possibilities for action that an actor perceives that their tools or environment gives them.

Afford people plausible pathways to futures outside violence, e.g. CENTCOM can work with partners to prioritise economic development, safety, family and social networks.
Order or predictability provided by formal laws or informal rules is a key psychological need for populations – and CENTCOM should work with partners (local, allies, civil society) to generate societal order.

Recommendation Four: Syrian “society” fractured in civil war and CENTCOM should use long-term, evidence-based interventions for predictable psychological forces (e.g. fear, self-interest, fairness) that obstruct societal reconciliation.