Right- and left-wing challenges to democracy make the problem of expertise especially difficult today. At times these two converge in a challenge to scientific findings and funding, most noticeably in the biomedical area. The United States is an extreme example.

This is an introductory chapter highlighting how ISIS constructs its worldview by misinterpreting Islamic foundational texts and presenting human ideologies as divine revelation. It explains that ISIS ideologues, beginning with figures such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, isolate Quranic verses from their broader exegetical context and use these distorted readings to justify violence. Central to this process is the concept of takfīr, or excommunication, which became ISIS’s tool for claiming authority over who belongs to Islam and who does not. The chapter stresses the importance of distinguishing between sacred texts and the long history of human interpretations, a distinction ISIS intentionally neglects so that it can legitimize its political and military aims. It also surveys three common narratives about ISIS: that it is a Western creation, that it continues the legacy of the Kharijites, and that it reflects Islam as a whole. By outlining the weaknesses of these views, the chapter argues that understanding ISIS requires examining its own literature and hermeneutical practices. This sets the foundation for interpreting ISIS as an ideological phenomenon rather than an Islamic one.

Extremism is often regarded as an exceptional or pathological state, typically associated with ideology, violence, or deviance. Yet psychological extremism can also emerge in the rhythms of ordinary life – through devotion to work, relationships, parenting, wellness, or digital identity. This chapter reframes extremism as a motivational imbalance, a condition in which a single need dominates attention, suppressing alternative needs and relaxing their constraints on behavior. Such imbalance may lead to rigidity, burnout, and suffering when behavior chosen to address the dominant need undermines other fundamental concerns. Drawing on empirical research and theoretical models of significance-seeking, goal systems, and self-complexity, the chapter illustrates how modern environments – shaped by media algorithms, economic pressure, and norms – can amplify extreme behavior without ideology or coercion. Also explored are early indicators of imbalance and the psychological and social mechanisms that sustain it. The chapter concludes by proposing interventions to redirect the need for significance toward more pluralistic, flexible, and sustainable engagement.

This introduction examines the widespread contemporary use of “fascism” as both a historical term and a lens for understanding current political movements. It argues that fascism is increasingly invoked to describe phenomena ranging from populist far-right parties to extremist groups, reflecting fears that its appeal is pervasive, emotionally resonant, and resistant to legal containment. Recent publications, often aimed at broad audiences, have popularised diagnostic approaches, such as Umberto Eco’s concept of “Ur-Fascism,” which identifies recurring ideological traits without offering a precise definition. The discussion extends these concerns into the realm of music, questioning simplistic assumptions about fascist aesthetics and highlighting the complexity of cultural participation under such regimes. It proposes that music’s role in fascism cannot be reduced to propaganda but must be understood across broader social practices and historical contexts. The text introduces a volume that adopts a comparative, flexible approach to analysing the multifaceted relationship between music and fascism across time and place.

Qualitative and quantitative methods can help make sense of the range of meanings connected with concepts, mapping usage and clarifying alternatives so people can position their intended meanings with respect to the space of existing alternatives. Likewise, qualitative and quantitative methods can help clarify where measurement problems come from, and can be used together to turn abstract ideas about measurement error into far research conversations about how social dynamics work to produce social science measures in the first place. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to conceptualization and measurement involves familiar tensions between deep attention to texts versus breadth and representation across a broader collection; between human comprehensibility and optimal work with complex, multidimensional mathematical and linguistic representations; and between familiarity and precision. Good research designs, like those discussed in this chapter, mitigate these tensions and emphasize the strengths of both methods.

This book, the culmination of research initiated in 2013, offers a comprehensive examination of the persistent failure to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine. It contends that peace must be understood as a strategic necessity rather than a tactical manoeuvre, requiring sustained commitment, institutional trust and mutual restraint. Drawing on historical analysis, interviews and comparative case studies, the book identifies the structural, political and moral factors underlying the collapse of major peace initiatives – from Oslo to Camp David to Annapolis – and proposes an evidence-based framework for future negotiations. It argues that genuine reconciliation demands the renunciation of violence, control of extremist elements, and the cultivation of a shared political language grounded in recognition, empathy and coexistence. By situating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within broader international experiences – such as the Northern Ireland peace process, post-apartheid South Africa and Nordic reconciliation – the study demonstrates that protracted conflicts can be resolved through visionary leadership, ethical governance and equitable compromise. Ultimately, it asserts that peace constitutes both a moral imperative and a strategic prerequisite for the long-term stability, legitimacy and survival of Israel, Palestine and the wider region.

This chapter makes the argument that anti-Zionism and antisemitism have been mainstreamed in Norway in a way that is uncommon in Western countries. To help generalize these insights, the chapter looks at how the concept of mainstreaming is used in social science to analyze developments on the radical right in politics. Mainstreaming in social science refers to a process through which ideas, attitudes and practices that were previously considered peripheral and extreme become accepted and normalized within mainstream politics. The concept of mainstreaming is a theme, and a word, running through the chapters, which should help the reader make sense of the main narrative of this book. Revealing such mechanisms, it is hoped that the book can become a contribution to our understanding of antisemitism in particular and extremism in general.

While the emergence of the far right is not a recent development and has extended globally, Latin America has only recently begun to witness the rise of far-right leaders and parties. This relative novelty has led to a scarcity of comparative research on the phenomenon, limiting our understanding of the similarities and differences among far-right actors within Latin America and between them and their counterparts globally. To address this research gap, the introductory chapter presents a comprehensive analytical framework. It synthesizes the ongoing debate surrounding the concept of the far right and offers practical guidelines for its examination within the Latin American context and beyond. Additionally, the chapter explains the rationale behind the case selection for this edited volume, provides information on the electoral strength of far-right actors in the region, and offers preliminary insights into the contributions included in the book. Furthermore, the chapter discusses various factors contributing to the electoral rise of far-right forces across Latin America, despite their diverse ideological and organizational trajectories.

Given the surprising emergence of the far right in Latin America, there is a notable scarcity of studies on this phenomenon. The conclusion of this edited volume synthesizes the primary findings and offers comparative insights from both cross-national and cross-regional perspectives. It emphasizes identifying ideological convergences and divergences among far-right actors in Latin America. Additionally, it examines their organizational dynamics and speculates on their potential to solidify their presence in the electoral arena. The chapter also highlights some unexpected findings that are crucial for understanding the electoral successes and failures of far-right forces across the region. Finally, it places the far right in Latin America within a broader comparative framework, distinguishing its regional peculiarities and common traits from its counterparts in other parts of the world.

This chapter examines the human rights implications of the UK’s legal response to terrorism, focusing on the ECHR. It explores the significant body of terrorism legislation that has evolved over the past three decades, considering also the legacy of The Troubles. There are myriad rights that may be impacted by terrorism legislation including the right to life, freedom from ill-treatment, right to liberty, right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to enjoy such rights free from discrimination. Having regard to the evolving nature of terrorist threats including, for instance, inceldom and right-wing extremism, and the increasing role of online modes of communication, the chapter examines the potential limitations of the existing legal framework in responding to terrorism. The chapter further explores the role of the derogation power under Article 15 ECHR in the counter-terrorism context and the potential for a progressive dilution of rights as courts are called upon to accommodate within the existing rights rubric increasingly restrictive terrorism legislation.

Globalization has become a profound and transformative force in modern societies. Increasing connectivity has disrupted traditional sociocultural ways of life while new cultural influences suggest new ways of living. The neoliberal underpinnings of globalization have exacerbated inequality and prioritized profit-seeking over environmental concerns. Accordingly, the negative consequences of globalization have challenged central human needs such as local embeddedness, contextual predictability, justice, security, and sense of safety. As a result, the overarching processes of globalization have given rise to perceptions of threats in different locations, triggering extreme psychological reactions that may manifest through violent means. Thus, violent extremism rooted in globalization emerges in response to increased feelings of uncertainty, insignificance, and injustice driven by accelerating connectivity. Whereas the manifestations of globalization-based violent extremism may vary in different contexts, a key characteristic is mutuality and interconnectedness. Events and ideas resonate across the globe, amplified within online echo chambers, leading to heightened polarization and enclave deliberation. To counteract globalization-based violent extremism, we must foster a sense of stability and belonging and promote tolerance at the local level. Additionally, developing deliberative competencies to navigate the complexities of an increasingly plural and fluid world is crucial in mitigating the challenges posed by contemporary globalized connectivity.

When reflecting on this book’s insights, a key question is highlighted: What is the prospect for effectively preventing and resolving armed intrastate conflicts globally? The threat of such conflict erupting remains a constant risk for policy-makers and researchers to investigate, and to prepare for constructive intervention. As discussed throughout this text, the challenges inherent to establishing effective peacekeeping policies and resolving intrastate conflict remain. Furthermore, this chapter addresses how areas of non-violent conflict, but high tension, threaten to escalate in the future. Is it possible to successfully intervene and to deescalate future intrastate violence? From the timing of intervention to international cooperation, the debates and critical lessons that we conclude with here will encourage thought-provoking discussions on formulating effective policies to prevent and end intrastate violence.