By Benedikt Büchsenschütz (Violence Prevention Network)

In 2025, Violence Prevention Network published in its publication series the issue “Hybridisation, Fragmentation, Individualisation – Are Extremist Ideologies Changing?“ by Niklas Brinkmöller, Benedikt Büchsenschütz and Luis Kreisel. The study investigates whether extremist ideologies are currently undergoing structural transformation and how these developments affect prevention and disengagement work.

The publication combines two complementary research approaches. First, an exploratory network analysis of 924 Instagram accounts provides insights into the structure and connectivity of extremist and adjacent online milieus. Second, eight qualitative expert interviews with practitioners working in prevention and disengagement programmes offer practice-based perspectives on how ideological developments manifest in real counselling situations.

Taken together, the findings suggest that the current extremist landscape is less characterised by the emergence of stable “hybrid” ideologies than by increasing fragmentation and individualisation of ideological elements. Only a very small share of the analysed social media accounts displayed clearly hybrid ideological configurations. Instead, ideological fragments from different milieus appear to be selectively combined in fluid and situational ways.

While the report brings together insights from both methodological perspectives, this blog article focuses specifically on the findings from the expert interviews, which provide particularly valuable insights into the everyday realities of prevention and disengagement work.

Methodological note

The insights presented here are based on eight qualitative expert interviews with practitioners working in prevention and disengagement programmes. The interview partners were selected through theoretical sampling to capture a broad range of professional perspectives. The sample included practitioners from different federal states in Germany as well as counsellors working within Violence Prevention Network’s own programmes. The participants had experience working with both right-wing and religiously motivated extremism and operated in different settings, including community-based interventions and prison contexts. The semi-structured interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis in order to identify recurring patterns and practice-based insights emerging from the practitioners’ experiences.

Radicalisation in times of polycrisis

One of the central themes emerging from the interviews is the influence of broader societal crises on contemporary radicalisation dynamics. Practitioners repeatedly referred to what researchers describe as a “polycrisis”: overlapping crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, climate anxiety and increasing political polarisation.

According to the interview partners, the COVID-19 pandemic in particular acted as a significant accelerator of radicalisation processes among younger people. During lockdowns, many adolescents experienced a sudden loss of everyday social structures such as school, leisure activities or peer interactions. At the same time, their time spent in digital environments increased significantly.

Practitioners observed that this combination of social isolation and increased online exposure created fertile ground for ideological influences. Many young people entered digital spaces not with a clear political orientation but with a broader search for meaning, belonging and identity. Extremist narratives were then encountered within this process rather than serving as its starting point.

In this sense, ideology often appears less as the initial driver of radicalisation and more as a later interpretive framework through which personal experiences and frustrations are articulated.

Socialisation instead of ideological conversion

Another key observation from the interviews concerns the role of local social environments in radicalisation processes. Practitioners working in structurally disadvantaged or rural regions described situations in which extremist symbols, narratives and attitudes have become partially normalised within certain youth milieus. In these contexts, extremist groups sometimes function less as ideological organisations and more as social communities offering belonging, shared activities and identity.

This dynamic can lead to radicalisation through socialisation rather than conscious ideological commitment. Young people who enter these environments may initially be motivated by social needs – for example friendship, recognition or leisure activities – while ideological narratives are gradually absorbed as part of the group culture.

This phenomenon significantly complicates prevention and disengagement work. When extremist narratives are embedded in social networks and everyday practices, ideological argumentation alone often proves insufficient.

Fragmented ideologies and “tweezer work”

A particularly striking insight from the interviews concerns the changing nature of ideological belief systems among clients. Practitioners increasingly observe that individuals do not necessarily adopt coherent ideological worldviews. Instead, they often selectively combine fragments from different ideological traditions in ways that reflect their personal experiences, grievances or identity needs.

One interview partner described this process metaphorically as “tweezer work”: individuals pick isolated ideological elements from different sources – sometimes even contradictory ones – and assemble them into a personalised worldview.

These fragments can include anti-feminist narratives, anti-Semitic tropes, conspiracy beliefs or anti-scientific attitudes. Such elements often function as “bridging narratives”, connecting otherwise distinct ideological milieus through shared antagonisms towards liberal democracy, pluralism or modern gender norms. Rather than producing stable hybrid ideologies, this process tends to result in fluid, situational and emotionally driven ideological constructions.

Challenges for prevention and disengagement work

From the perspective of practitioners, these developments create new challenges for prevention and disengagement work. Traditional intervention strategies often rely on identifying and critically addressing coherent ideological belief systems. However, when ideological positions are fragmented, opportunistically adapted and emotionally motivated, they become more difficult to confront through purely argumentative approaches.

Establishing stable relationships with clients and understanding their individual life situations becomes central for creating openings for reflection and change. In many cases, addressing underlying psychosocial dynamics – such as experiences of marginalisation, identity conflicts or the search for belonging – is more relevant than confronting ideological arguments.

Conclusion: understanding extremism beyond ideology

The expert interviews highlight an important shift in how extremist beliefs emerge and function today. Rather than adhering to stable ideological systems, many individuals construct fragmented and highly individualised worldviews that draw selectively from different ideological sources. Emotional dynamics, identity struggles and the search for belonging often play a more decisive role than ideological coherence.

For practitioners working in prevention and disengagement, this development has significant consequences. When ideological positions are fluid and situational, approaches that rely primarily on ideological confrontation or counter-argumentation become less effective. Instead, interview partners emphasise the growing importance of relationship-building, trust and biographical work. Understanding clients’ personal experiences and vulnerabilities is often a prerequisite for addressing extremist attitudes.

At the same time, practitioners stressed that these changing dynamics place increasing demands on prevention work. Fragmented ideological orientations and faster radicalisation processes require more flexible and time-intensive counselling approaches.

Several interview partners also highlighted structural needs within the field. These include stronger professional exchange and knowledge-sharing between practitioners, as well as closer interdisciplinary cooperation with youth services, psychosocial counselling and therapeutic support structures. Since radicalisation processes are often linked to personal crises and social vulnerabilities, effective responses frequently require coordinated support across multiple sectors.

Finally, the interviews underline the importance of stable and adequately resourced prevention infrastructures. As extremist environments become more dynamic, digital and fragmented, the role of specialised prevention and disengagement programmes becomes increasingly crucial.

Taken together, the findings suggest that responding to contemporary extremism requires not only a deeper understanding of ideological developments but also sustained investment in the professional structures and relational work that enable practitioners to support individuals in distancing themselves from extremist milieus.

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.