CIRCUNSTANCIAS RELACIONADAS CON LA MUERTE DEL MESÍAS

Risk factors

Students recognised the impact that transactions in the microsystems could have on individuals and felt that some personality traits interacted with peer influences. Students referred to how people with ‘weak personalities’ who ‘can’t stand up for themselves’ and ‘just go with the flow’ can be influenced by peer and family systems. Students in all three schools felt that ‘peer pressure affects you a lot’ and that ‘you’re likely to want to follow them and do what they’re doing just because they’re your friends’. Students (particularly in North and South schools) also recognised that parents ‘have a big influence on your views’ and if parents have ‘very strong religious views’ it would make the ‘kids like them’. The DCSF (2009) toolkit promotes teaching skills for critically evaluating evidence to support decision making. This is helpful, but on the basis of this research there needs to be more consideration about the emotional impact of peer group relationships and the dissonance associated with wanting to ‘please your friends’ even if you ‘know it’s wrong’. Peer and family influences on behaviour need further consideration in the literature that explores preventing violent

extremism. The students in this research felt that peer influences were the biggest influences

in their lives from a conformity perspective. Zollman (2010) demonstrates that conformity can have an influence over belief formation and that when group members conform to the beliefs of a group, an individual is more successful within the group. Conformity research may offer some interesting insights when researching risk factors for engaging with extremism.

A major theme running through the discussion about risk factors in all three groups was that if people do not have fulfilling relationships within their microsystems, and experience rejection and isolation, this could potentially increase their vulnerability to extremist groups. Students did not discuss this in terms of an identity crisis or a conflict within oneself (as is suggested in some of the research, Wikorowitz, (2005) and Elsworthy and Rifkind, (2006)). Students instead talked about how feeling ‘alone’, wanting ‘popularity’ and needing to feel a ‘sense of belonging’ could make an extremist group attractive because they are ‘welcoming’ and could provide ‘a real sense of family’, ‘people who like you’ and protection:

‘If you’re some little geek who no body knows and people are horrible to you in school…a big gang is like: ‘Join our gang and everyone will be scared of you and no one will walk over you again.’’

Liese (2004) showed that children who are ostracised in school look to join others with similar experiences and that group processes then serve to promote and justify blame towards the out group. The students in the focus group suggested that similar experiences could occur with extremist groups, also specifically that it is not just similarity that attracts people to a group but the desire to have emotional belonging needs met. Students talked about feelings of isolation and rejection arising at the individual level as a result of unsuccessful transactions in the microsystems of the family, in that ‘their parents might not want them’ and school where ‘people are horrible to you’ and the exosystem of the community if you ‘can’t get to your

friends’. There is some support for the link between rejection and isolation and extremism in the literature as Hussain (2007) refers to his feelings of being ‘a misfit’ (Hussain, 2007, p.7) in school and how this contributed to his growing relationship with an extreme group. The right wing participants in Cockburn’s (2007) research also felt bullied and isolated from Asian youngsters at school. Joining with people who share similar experiences can lead to cognitive reconstrual to blame the out group for all negative experiences and suffering (Bandura, 1998).

Students recognised the impact negative emotions such as ‘hate’, ‘anger’ and ‘revenge’ had in contributing to violent extremism and that these often arose from unsuccessful transactions in the microsystem and that violent extremism can occur as ‘a way to get your anger out’.

Students in all three schools did not feel that experiencing difficulties with one’s identity was a risk factor for engaging with violent extremism and talked about processes of isolation and rejection rather than uncertainty within the self. Students did not report experiencing any identity difficulties themselves and adult theory of mind literature suggests that without experience, it is very difficult to put oneself in the position of another to consider this hypothetically (Keysar et al, 2003). Generally, the students felt that identity developed through the natural processes of maturity (but could be influenced by peers and parents) and that by Year 9, identity was a stable construct that did not change. This is not in line with Erickson (1956) (as cited in Newman and Newman, 2008) or Marcia’s (1980) theory of identity development which suggests students in Year 9 are likely to be questioning and experiencing challenges with their identity.

Ways to build resilience

Students’ reflections on the link between isolation, rejection and extremism in the

microsystem, have implications for the inclusion agenda and preventing violent extremism in education. Inclusion has traditionally been seen as giving children with special educational needs equal access to mainstream education (Education Act, 1996), although should have an equal focus on including all children as active participants in school life. This has been reflected in more recent guidance (Children Act, 2004; HMG Report, 2006). As well as children with identified special educational needs, schools should be ensuring that children who are vulnerable to isolation have friendship groups and experience a sense of belonging in school. The students in all three focus group referred to the possibility of extremist groups meeting young people’s belonging and safety needs, two of the key motivational forces on human behaviour that were identified by Maslow (1943). If education can strive to meet these needs in school it may build resilience against extremist groups and reduce moral

disengagement with society (Bandura, 1998). The DCSF (2009) toolkit refers to ‘creating explicit value statements that are inclusive of all students’ and ‘focusing support on those at risk of being isolated’ (DCSF, 2009, p.22) which is in line with the views of the students in this research.

Discussion in the focus group about preventing violent extremism within microsystems focused on the benefits of supporting young people’s social and emotional wellbeing to promote social skills and positive relationships with others. Students recognised that schools were already engaged with work in this area and talked about the benefits of circle time activities exploring diversity, and Personal, Social Development days that encourage students

to learn life skills and interact with other year groups. Some of the students felt that circle time and PSD days should be built upon to increase the focus on moral education around violence and how to resolve conflicts appropriately. This is reflected in the DCSF (2009) toolkit strategy that promotes restorative justice approaches in school to teach children how to manage conflict and difference without building resentment.

Students in Central School felt that schools had a role in supporting children in the family systems by ‘getting really connected with homes to make sure everything’s okay’ for the child. The DCSF (2009) toolkit refers to developing home/school relationships but this is with the intention of developing understanding about community issues rather than to check on individuals at home. Increased links between home and school to ‘make sure everything’s okay’ for individuals may be something for schools to consider if they feel a student is at risk, rather than as a general preventative measure.