By Benedikt Büchsenschütz (Violence Prevention Network)

This blog article is based on a publication by Violence Prevention Network, released in December 2025 as part of the Violence Prevention Network Publication Series (Issue 15). The study presents original empirical findings on hybridisation, fragmentation and ideological fluidity in contemporary extremist milieus, combining large-scale social media network analysis with qualitative insights from prevention practice.

For readers seeking comprehensive methodological details, extended theoretical discussion and the complete literature review, we recommend consulting the full report which is available in German and English and can be accessed via the Violence Prevention Network website:

Hier klicken, um auf Violence Prevention Network Schriftenreihe Heft 15 auf deutsch zuzugreifen.

Click here to access Violence Prevention Network Publication Series Issue 15 in English.

Relevance of the Study

In recent years, both public debate and academic scholarship have increasingly addressed the apparent blurring of ideological boundaries within extremist milieus. Acts of political violence and radicalisation trajectories often no longer conform neatly to classical typologies such as “right-wing extremism” or “Islamist extremism”. Instead, observers describe hybrid, composite or “salad bar” forms of extremism, in which individuals selectively combine ideological fragments from different traditions (Baele, Brace and Coan 2023; Rousseau et al. 2024).

At the same time, digital platforms have transformed how extremist narratives are produced, circulated and consumed. Social media environments facilitate cross-ideological references, the spread of conspiratorial narratives and the emergence of “bridge narratives” such as antisemitism, anti-feminism or anti-globalism, which can link otherwise distinct ideological milieus (Meiering et al. 2019; Dziri and Foroutan 2019; Brace, Baele and Ging 2024).

Against this backdrop, the present study sought to examine whether we are indeed witnessing a fundamental hybridisation of extremist ideologies, or rather processes of fragmentation and individualisation. Combining a large-scale network analysis of Instagram accounts with qualitative expert interviews from prevention and disengagement practice, the study provides empirical insights into both structural online dynamics and lived experiences within advisory contexts.

Setting the Scene

The concept of hybrid or composite extremism has gained traction in recent scholarship. Baele, Brace and Coan (2023) refer to “composite extremism” to describe ideologies composed of elements drawn from multiple extremist traditions. Similarly, Gartenstein-Ross et al. (2023) propose typologies such as mixed, fused, convergent and ambiguous violent extremism, reflecting different constellations of ideological overlap.

Rousseau et al. (2024) identify a generational dimension: younger individuals appear more likely to adopt fragmented, unstable or dystopian belief systems, whereas older actors often integrate hybrid elements into more coherent ideological frameworks. Hemmila and Perliger (2024) emphasise that hybridisation complicates assessments of ideological causality in political violence, as it becomes increasingly difficult to determine which ideological elements are motivationally decisive.

Importantly, research on reciprocal radicalisation and “cumulative extremism” has long documented cross-references between Islamist and far-right milieus (Bartlett and Birdwell 2013; Suder and Lüke 2023). However, whether current developments amount to a structural fusion of ideologies or rather to situational borrowing and selective appropriation remains contested (Mattheis and Kingdon 2023).

Thus, the literature suggests growing ideological fluidity but also highlights definitional ambiguities and the need for systematic empirical research.

Methods and Sample

The study employed a mixed-methods design combining quantitative network analysis with qualitative expert interviews.

Network Analysis

A total of 924 German-language Instagram accounts were analysed. These accounts were selected through a multi-step process beginning with 45 “seed” accounts (15 each from the domains of far-right extremism, Islamist extremism and conspiracy narratives). From these, 12,154 unique followers were sampled, generating a dataset of over 11 million subscription relationships.

Accounts were included in the network visualisation if they were followed at least 300 times within the dataset. Each account was coded independently by two research teams regarding ideological content (far-right, Islamist, conspiratorial, hybrid, or non-extremist), thematic focus and perceived gender of visible actors. Disagreements were resolved through joint review.

Community detection identified four major clusters:

1. Celebrities and influencers
2. Islamist extremism and its milieu
3. Health, nutrition, coaching and conspiracy
4. Far-right extremism, political conspiracy and its milieu

Notably, 66.56% of the accounts were coded as non-extremist, 14.5% as far-right, 13.96% as conspiratorial, 2.38% as Islamist and 1.3% as explicitly hybrid.

Expert Interviews

Eight semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with experienced practitioners from Violence Prevention Network, covering both far-right and Islamist extremism. Interviewees had between two and over ten years of professional experience, working in custodial and non-custodial settings across different German federal states.

Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke (2006). Coding was inductive and supported by MAXQDA software. Four main thematic clusters emerged: (1) ideology, (2) clients and their lifeworlds, (3) macro-level influences, and (4) practitioner challenges.

Key Findings

1. Structural overlaps but limited full hybridisation

The network analysis revealed clear overlaps between conspiratorial and far-right accounts, particularly around political narratives. However, Islamist accounts were comparatively isolated and formed a distinct cluster. Fully hybrid accounts – understood as those systematically fusing elements from different extremist traditions – were rare (1.3%).

This suggests that while bridge narratives exist, especially between conspiracy milieus and the far right, there is limited evidence of widespread ideological fusion into coherent hybrid worldviews.

2. Fragmentation and selective appropriation

Expert interviews strongly supported the observation of fragmentation rather than systematic hybridisation. Practitioners described clients engaging in what one termed “tweezer work”: selectively adopting elements from different ideological traditions that resonate with personal experiences or emotional needs, without constructing a coherent system.

Antisemitism and conspiracy myths functioned as cross-cutting ideological fragments, appearing in both far-right and Islamist contexts. Yet practitioners did not report consistent, structured combinations of far-right and Islamist doctrines among clients.

3. Generational shift and psycho–social drivers

A pronounced demographic shift towards younger clients was reported. Practitioners observed that younger individuals often display weaker ideological coherence and stronger motivations related to belonging, identity and emotional expression.

The COVID-19 pandemic was described as a significant accelerator. Isolation, increased online engagement and psycho-social stress contributed to intensified exposure to extremist and conspiratorial content. Ideology frequently followed psychosocial needs rather than preceding them – echoing Borum’s (2011) argument that ideology often legitimises rather than initiates radicalisation.

4. Normalisation and social embeddedness

In certain regions, especially structurally socio economically weaker areas, far-right narratives appear normalised within youth culture. Offline structures (e.g., martial arts training, music events) complement digital dissemination, reinforcing a sense of community. Digital platforms amplify this normalisation through algorithmic visibility and emotionalised content, contributing to a gradual mainstreaming of anti-democratic narratives.

Discussion

Taken together, the findings do not support the hypothesis of a comprehensive ideological hybridisation resulting in stable, fused extremist ideologies. Instead, the data indicate processes of fragmentation and individualisation.

Ideological elements are increasingly detached from coherent traditions and reassembled situationally. Bridge narratives facilitate cross-ideological references, yet these often remain superficial or affect-driven rather than doctrinally integrated.

This pattern aligns with Rousseau et al. (2024), who identify generational differences in ideological coherence, and with broader sociological accounts of individualisation in late modern societies (Reckwitz 2017). Rather than the disappearance of classical ideologies, we observe their transformation into modular repertoires from which individuals selectively draw.

Practical implications and recommendations

1. Strengthening psycho–social prevention: Given the central role of identity, belonging and emotional regulation, prevention strategies should prioritise psycho-social resilience and community-based alternatives.
2. Addressing bridge narratives: Interventions must target cross-cutting narratives such as antisemitism and conspiracy myths, which function as connectors across milieus.
3. Enhancing digital literacy: As social media constitutes a primary radicalisation environment, critical media literacy and algorithm awareness should be integrated into prevention curricula.
4. Supporting practitioners: The increasing ideological ambiguity requires ongoing professional development and interdisciplinary exchange. Funding structures must reflect the complexity and intensity of contemporary disengagement work.

In conclusion, contemporary extremist landscapes are marked less by systematic hybridisation than by fragmentation, fluidity and individualised ideological bricolage. Recognising this distinction is essential for both academic analysis and effective prevention practice.

Benedikt Büchsenschütz is a Research Fellow at Violence Prevention Network, with a focus on gender in extremism, (online) radicalisation, and hybrid ideologies. He holds a Master’s degree in Crisis and Security Management: Governance of Radicalism, Extremism and Terrorism (MSc) from Leiden University.

Bibliography

Baele, Stephane J., Lewys Brace und Travis G. Coan. 2023. „Uncovering the Far-Right Online Ecosystem: An Analytical Framework and Research Agenda.“ Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 46 (9): 1599–1623. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2020.1862895.

Bartlett, Jamie und Jonathan Birdwell. 2013. „Cumulative radicalisation between the far-right and Islamist groups in the UK: A review of evidence.“ Demos 5 (3): 3–15. https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/demos%20-%20cumulative%20radicalisation%20-%205%20nov%202013.pdf. Last seen 12 September 2025.

Borum, Randy. 2011. „Radicalization into Violent Extremism I: A Review of Social Science Theories.“ JSS 4 (4): 7–36. https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.4.4.1.

Brace, Lewys, Stephane J. Baele und Debbie Ging. 2024. „Where do ‘mixed, unclear, and unstable‘ ideologies come from?“

Braun, Virginia und Victoria Clarke. 2006. „Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.“ Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Gartenstein-Ross, Daveed, Andrew Zammit, Emelie Chace-Donahue und Madison Urban. 2023. „Composite Violent Extremism: Conceptualizing Attackers Who Increasingly Challenge Traditional Categories of Terrorism.“ Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2023.2194133.

Hemmila, Tess und Arie Perliger. 2024. „Hybridization or Salad Bar Ideology? Testing Ideological Convergence Within the American Violent Far Right.“ Crime & Delinquency 71 (3): 830–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287241271288.

Mattheis, Ashley A. und Ashton Kingdon. 2023. „Moderating Manipulation: Demystifying Extremist Tactics for Gaming the (Regulatory) System.“ Policy & Internet 15 (4): 478–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.381.

Meiering, David, Aziz Dziri und Naika Foroutan. 2019. „Radikalisierung von Gruppen: Brückennarrative als verbindende Erzählungsstrukturen.“ In Gesellschaft extrem: Was wir über Radikalisierung wissen, hrsg. von Christopher Daase, Nicole Deitelhoff und Julian Junk, 91–130. Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag.

Reckwitz, Andreas. 2017. „Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten: Zum Strukturwandel der Moderne.“ Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Rousseau, Cécile, Janique Johnson-Lafleur, Cindy Ngov, Christian Savard und Samuel Veissière. 2024. „Hybrid Ideologies in Clinical Settings: Implications for Intervention of the Changing Landscape in Violent Extremism.“ PT 18 (3). https://doi.org/10.19165/2024.4965.

Suder, Piotr und Markus Lüke. 2023. „Neue Wege gegen Radikalisierung? Phänomenübergreifende Perspektiven auf Extremismus und Prävention: Gemeinsamkeiten, Unterschiede und Wechselwirkungen von extremistischen Strömungen und Schlussfolgerungen für die Präventionspraxis.“ Last seen 12 September 2025. https://www.vielfalt-mediathek.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Zusammemleben-in-der-Migrationsgesellschaft_Phaenomenuebergreifende-Extremismuspraevention.pdf.