Adolescents Explanations For Paramilitary Involvement

http://jpr.sagepub.com
Journal of Peace Research
DOI: 10.1177/0022343308094330
2008; 45; 681
Orla T. Muldoon, Katrina Mclaughlin, Nathalie Rougier and Karen Trew
Adolescents' Explanations for Paramilitary Involvement
http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/5/681
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
can be found at:
Additional services and information for
http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Email Alerts:
http://jpr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Permissions:
http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/45/5/681
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 20 articles hosted on the
Citations
© 2008 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at University of Limerick on September 3, 2008
Downloaded from

681
© 2008 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 45, no. 5, 2008, pp. 681–695
Sage Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore) http://jpr.sagepub.com
DOI 10.1177/0022343308094330
Adolescents’ Explanations for Paramilitary
Involvement*
ORLA T. MULDOON
Department of Psychology, University of Limerick
KATRINA MCLAUGHLIN
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast
NATHALIE ROUGIER
Geary Institute, University College Dublin
KAREN TREW
School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast
Current understanding of the motivations of young people who engage in paramilitary activity is poor.
The youth bulge literature has made important advances in understanding determinants of political vio-
lence at population level; however, the psychological processes that underpin engagement with political
violence among young people are less clearly understood. Further, the pathologization of terrorist activ-
ity has hampered deeper understanding of the motivations of those who seek to effect change using vio-
lence. This article explores the explanations offered by 14–16-year-olds regarding possible motivations
of young people who engage in paramilitary activities in Ireland. Seventy-four Protestant and Catholic
young people residing in the border regions of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic completed an
essay-writing task which elicited explanations for paramilitary involvement. Young people’s explanations
were multi-levelled and varied, reflecting the breadth and diversity of their personal circumstances and
experiences. The essays were analysed using a Grounded Theory approach, which generated four cate-
gories of explanations for paramilitary involvement, namely, social identification explanations, family
and socialization explanations, developmental explanations and pathological explanations. Though not
asked to express a personal judgement regarding such activity, a substantial proportion of respondents
did, with females being more likely than males to openly condone or condemn such activity. Discussion
and interpretation of these findings centre on understanding of paramilitary involvement in areas
affected by political violence.
*The authors gratefully acknowledge a research grant
from the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation,
as part of HEA North-South Strand 2 programmes.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the helpful
comments of Nils Petter Gleditsch and anonymous
reviewers on an earlier draft of this article. Correspondence:
orla.muldoon@ul.ie. The data used in this article can be
found at http://www.prio.no/jpr/datasets.
Downloaded from

journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume 45 / number 5 / september 2008
682
Introduction
The prominent role that youths play as pro-
tagonists of violence is widely acknowledged
(Cairns, 1996; Neumayer, 2003). This
prominence has been theoretically related to
the existence of a demographic ‘youth bulge’
often evident during times of political
upheaval (Goldstone, 2001). Historically,
the large cohort of youth in Germany
together with the economic depression have
been linked to the rise of Nazism (Moller,
1968). The high youth proportion is also
believed to contribute to political instability
in the Arab world (Zakaria, 2001). It is not
just the presence of a youth bulge that is
believed to precipitate political violence. The
prevailing economic climate, availability of
resources and employment are also seen to be
crucial contextual factors.
Two propositions purport to causally
determine youth bulge effects. The first is the
opportunity perspective (Collier, 2000),
which sees the youth bulge as an opportunity
harnessed by extremist or rebel groups. In
this context, the role of collective identifica-
tion or political motivations may be low;
rather, the gain of joining a paramilitary or
rebel group is relatively high and the cost low.
This is likely to particularly be the case where
other life chances are low, the social or mon-
etary gains of paramilitary membership are
high and government is not impacting suffi-
ciently on the activities of paramilitary
groups. The second theoretical explanation
of the youth bulge effect is the motive-
oriented tradition. It sees political violence as
a rational means of redressing economic
and political grievances (Sambanis, 2002).
Political violence motivations may hinge on
poverty, inequality, social exclusion or disen-
franchisement but are essentially related to
the notion that youth bulges force a redress-
ing of grievances. In effect, this explanation
sees the engagement with political violence as
a collective action interested in promoting
the collective good. This position is in direct
contradiction to the often assumed position
by some psychologists and many commenta-
tors and journalists that paramilitarism or
political activism is not a group-level behav-
iour. People acting in this manner are often
considered ‘terrorists’ and their behaviour
often identified as indicative of some form of
psychopathology (e.g. see Silke, 2004, for a
fuller review of these issues). This analysis of
terrorist or paramilitary activity prohibits a
deeper analysis of those factors that may
encourage or facilitate membership of such
movements and may also restrict and confine
explanations (Ottosen, 1995).
More recently, Urdal (2006) has empiric-
ally assessed the effects of youth bulges on the
likelihood of political violence, armed con-
flict, terrorism and riots. His analysis demon-
strates that youth bulges are integrally related
to increased risk of armed conflict. In line
with Urdal’s work, available evidence in
Northern Ireland suggests that a significant
increase in the young population predates
the onset of the period of political violence
dated from 1969. The birth rate in Northern
Ireland per 1,000 of the population rose
from 19.8 in 1931–40 to 21.7 for 1956–60
to a high of 23 per 1,000 of the population
in 1961–65, the period which preceded the
most intense period of political violence
during the 1970s (Bew & Gillespie, 1999).
The birth rate in Northern Ireland over the
last 10 years of relative political stability
postceasefire has fallen to 15.2 per 1,000 of
the population in 1991–95 and 13.9 for
1996–2000.1 However, despite this evi-
dence, Urdal’s analysis failed to identify the
opportunity or motive perspectives as the
dominant explanations for political violence.
On the other hand, psychology has trad-
itionally been concerned with explaining
motivations to engage in political violence.
Despite the fact that terrorists rarely act
alone, often belong to a collective group that
1 http://www.nisra.gov.uk/archive/demography/population
(accessed 1 June 2006).
Downloaded from

Orla T. Muldoon et al. EXPLANATIONS FOR PARAMILITARY INVOLVEMENT 683
aims to effect change, and openly claim and
emphasize this group membership, some
psychologists attempt to explain activism by
early mother–child relationships, subcon-
scious motivations, malignantly high self-
esteem and psychopathology (Baumeister,
Smart & Boden, 1996; Post, Keven & Shaw,
2002). However, Crenshaw (2000) has
argued that the group is essential to terrorist
behaviour and, in some cases, the motivation
to join a group is a more powerful incentive
for an individual to join than the need to
express political or social grievances. The
social identity approach within psychology
has also emphasized the importance of col-
lective- or group-level explanations of vio-
lence. Social movement research, in
particular, has advanced our understanding
of the processes behind public demonstra-
tions (Drury & Reicher, 2000) and high-
lighted that, although such demonstrations
may become violent, participants rarely set
out with violent intent. Reicher & Levine
(1994) argue that violence arises as a result
of a number of factors, such as violation of
perceived norms, perceived aggression of the
other party, and de-individuation. Similarly
Reilly, Muldoon & Byrne (2004) found that
young men explained their violent behaviour
(be it against women, political or criminal)
as being thrust upon them by the situation
in which they found themselves.
Context would appear to be crucial to
understanding the development of political
violence. Urdal suggests that contextual
factors may be central to the form of violence
which arises within a given society. Similarly,
contextual factors are likely to increase or
reduce the salience of particular social iden-
tities. The allocation of resources by group
(as occurs when educational or health
resources are funded via religiously or racially
segregated systems) will serve to heighten the
salience of social identity, particularly where
resources are scarce. As a result, Brown
(2000) has argued coherently that such
behaviours occur at a group level and are best
construed and understood at the intergroup
level. The development and maintenance of
political violence has also been understood
through reference to social identity A sub-
stantial amount of literature has explored the
relationships between identity and conflict,
using Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel,
1978) and Self-Categorisation Theory
(SCT) (Turner, 1991). While Cairns (1994)
criticized SIT for prioritizing cognitive
processes and for neglecting to take account
of the emotional aspects of conflict, there is
no doubt that the group-level psychological
perspective has enhanced understanding of
the underlying social causes and conse-
quences of political violence (Cairns, 1996;
Kelman, 1999).
The Current Study
Our data were collected along the border
between Northern Ireland and the Irish
Republic, an area that has seen a considerable
level of paramilitary activity over the last 35
years as a result of the conflict in Northern
Ireland. This border area was chosen for two
reasons. First, being a border area, it is an area
where both identity and territory are con-
tested. As such, residents in Northern Ireland
and the Republic assert differences between
and within their jurisdictions in terms of per-
ceived and felt ‘Britishness’ and ‘Irishness’.
Given our interest in social identification
phenomena, this region appeared to be par-
ticularly appropriate. Second, as this is an
area that has seen a high level of paramilitary
activity over the course of the Troubles, the
opportunity to engage in such activity may
arise perhaps more easily and/or more
acutely than in other areas further South – or
indeed further North. Moreover, while it is
likely that only a very small proportion of
young people growing up in such a contested
environment would engage in political vio-
lence, understanding adolescents’ views of
Downloaded from

684
the contributing factors provides an interest-
ing – though often ignored – perspective on
these issues.
Further, there remains a lack of research
on the nature of the relationship between
paramilitary groups and the(ir) wider com-
munities. Some exceptions include
Cavanaugh’s (1997) ethnographic study in
loyalist and republican communities in
Belfast. These findings suggested that the
communities are not passive entities but are
integral to the analysis of political violence in
Northern Ireland. Similarly, Burton (1978)
argues community support for the IRA is a
complex entity and not at all static, as it is
sometimes thought. He believes that, aside
from approximately one-third of the com-
munity who remain steadfast, there is essen-
tially a see-saw relationship between the
remainder of the community and the IRA.
Burton suggests that this relationship is so
fast-changing that beliefs and allegiances
need constant reappraisal and are very much
swayed by recent events. People in the com-
munity can view their situation militarily at
one time or politically or historically at
another, and each, in turn, results in a dif-
ferent perspective. Further, allegiances will be
dependent upon individuals’ political views,
their personal experience of the IRA and the
current behaviour of the British Army and
Protestant paramilitaries. As such, commu-
nity opinion can range from viewing the IRA
as ‘hoods’ and ‘mad bombers’ to the belief
that they are the very backbone of a people’s
liberation army.
The complexities of the community–
paramilitary relationship are also discussed
by Brewer, Lockhart & Rodgers (1998), who
found evidence of an extended family net-
work, a sense of neighbourliness and com-
munity identity that extended beyond the
policing role often assumed by paramilitary
organizations. Smith (2003) found that atti-
tudes towards paramilitaries among 12–20-
year-olds can be very complex. Often, the
paramilitaries can be viewed as cool, having
status and being potential role models for
young people. On the other hand, their
research also showed how some young people
resented the paramilitaries for constantly
harassing them and believed them to be
hypocritical, doling out punishment beatings
for the behaviour that the paramilitaries
themselves had often engaged in when they
were younger (Smyth, 2004).
Brett & Sprecht’s (2004) work on young
people’s motivations to voluntarily join the
state army mirrors some of the issues dis-
cussed within the youth bulge literature on
political violence. Brett & Sprecht (2004)
showed how, very often, joining these armed
organizations provides young people with
opportunities that may not have been readily
available to them. For example, joining may
provide employment and a wage, or allow
young people to escape from a difficult
family situation. Furthermore, young people
emphasized the importance of military role
models and the status attached to armed
service, as well as serving a particular cause;
for instance, a political, patriotic, religious or
ethnic motivation. In addition to these
opportunity- and motivation-style explan-
ations for joining up, Brett & Sprecht (2004)
highlighted the importance of family factors;
often, young people who had joined armed
forces had followed in their parents’ foot-
steps. The authors go on to assert the view
that this may be because it has been encour-
aged within the home, or because the young
person views military life as the norm.
The current article aims to advance exist-
ing knowledge in a number of ways. First, it
aims to examine the evidence that young
people consider opportunity-type explan-
ations for political violence and motive-type
explanations for engagement in political vio-
lence, as well as other types of explanations.
We chose adolescents to take part in our
study. Available research evidence suggests
that engagement with paramilitary activity
Downloaded from

most often begins in adolescence (Cairns,
1996) and that it is during the early years of
the paramilitary career that individuals’
behaviour is the most violent (Silke, 2004).
We take an explicitly social-psychological per-
spective, to allow for an explication of both
individual and collective level explanations.
We hope to further extend existing work on
views of political activism, therefore, by
examining the range of familial, community
and developmental explanations understood
by young people to drive politically violent
behaviour, without giving primacy to any
explanation.
Method
Participants
Seventy-four young people, aged between 13
and 17 years (mean⫽14) and living along the
Armagh, Newry, Monaghan and Dundalk
border area, participated in the study. Forty-
six participants lived in the Republic of
Ireland and 28 lived in Northern Ireland; 33
were female and 41 were male. The gender,
religious and residential breakdown of the
sample is presented in Table I. The larger
sample from the Republic is, in part, a result
of class size and partly a result of the larger
schools that agreed to participate. The small
proportion of Protestants in Northern Ireland
resulted from the smaller school size and the
fact that all data were collected from a single
mixed-sex school. A boys’ school and a girls’
school were included from the Catholic sector
to ensure inclusion of both genders from this
religious background. Overall, mixed-sex
schools predominate in the controlled
(Protestant) school sector in Northern Ireland,
while single-sex schools are much more
common in the maintained (Catholic) sector.
Measure
Each young person was asked to complete a
brief questionnaire that included questions
regarding age, gender, perceived nationality
and religion. Attached to the questionnaire
was a simple and straightforward question,
described to participants as an essay question:
‘Why do you think young people join
paramilitary/terrorist groups?’ This question
was presented at the top of an A4 page, the
remainder of the page being left for partici-
pants’ free-hand responses. Other children in
the class group returned a different essay on
national identity. Owing to the very different
answers provided to these questions, the
essays were analysed separately.
The use of essay questions as a means of
data collection is a relatively underused and
distinctive method. Previously, however, it
has been used successfully as a window into
young people’s views (e.g. Hosin & Cairns,
1984). The advantages of this method are
numerous. First and foremost, essay ques-
tions allow young people to express their
thoughts and opinions in a way that is mean-
ingful to them. While a level of literacy is
clearly required, writing short essays in edu-
cational contexts is likely to be a highly
familiar task. Another major strength of this
method is that the young people are able to
think about the questions on their own,
without the pressure and discomfort that
Table I. Residential Jurisdiction and Religious Affiliation of Participants
Roman Catholic Protestant
Male Female Total Male Female Total Other Total
Northern Ireland 11 7 18 5 4 9 0 28
Republic of Ireland 9 15 24 13 10 23 4 46
Total 20 22 42 18 14 32 4 74
Downloaded from

686
may sometimes be associated with face-to-
face interviews, particularly given the sensi-
tive nature of this issue. They are also free
from distractions and peer pressure which
may be considered limitations of the focus
group method. This type of method lessens
the likelihood of social desirability biases to
which adolescents are particularly vulnerable
(Goffman, 1956). Overall, the essay-writing
task proved to be a highly efficient means of
collecting data and was a very manageable
task for the young respondents.
Procedure
Following satisfactory piloting of the essay
questions, eight schools along the border
were contacted and the nature of the research
and its procedures explained to the princi-
pals. In total, six principals agreed to allow
their schools to participate in the research.
The parents of all the young people were
contacted (through the schools) to request
consent for their children to participate in
the research. Each family received an infor-
mation package explaining the nature and
procedures of the research and an example of
the task that their child would complete. The
majority (99%) of parents gave their consent.
The essay questions were distributed to the
young people in their normal class setting,
made up of approximately 20 to 40 school
pupils. Participants were advised the partici-
pation was voluntary and that they did not
have to undertake the task. Two blank returns
were received both from young people who
described themselves as non-nationals. All the
young people taking part in the study were
supervised by the same researcher who was
available to answer questions and explain any-
thing that they did not understand.
Participants were encouraged to express
honest and open opinions and were assured
that all information they provided would
remain anonymous and strictly confidential.
Completion of the essay question in each
class took approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
Data Analysis
Data were analysed following the guidelines
of Grounded Theory (GT) (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). The GT approach is the ideal
approach to obtain a veridical perspective on
the subjective experiences, understandings
and interpretations of a set of individuals
(Charmaz, 1995). Participants are allowed to
generate their own responses within the tar-
geted field of enquiry, in a maximally open-
ended and unconstrained manner. Further,
the analytic method is designed to allow cat-
egories to emerge inductively from the data
themselves, with a minimum of interpreta-
tive ‘forcing’ into preconceived categories. In
this way, GT analysis differs fundamentally
from the content analytical approach; its
epistemology is fundamentally qualitative, it
seeks to describe and theorize the nature of
all constructions of individual’s experiences,
even the idiosyncratic. Thus, the conversion
of data for the purposes of frequency counts
is eschewed as it pulls against the very ration-
ale for conducting such an analysis in the first
instance.
The GT process involves a thorough and
detailed examination of the data and allows
the researcher to become increasingly familiar
with it. Transcripts are read and reread, in this
case by three researchers who highlighted
interesting concepts and identified key com-
monalities in young people’s explanations for
individuals’ paramilitary involvement. The
transcripts were then reread by another
researcher and an exhaustive set of potential
explanations was compiled. The process of
analysis continued by amalgamating inter-
related explanations. This phase of the analy-
sis resulted in a progression from purely
descriptive to more conceptual categories.
These higher order or conceptual categories
were generated collaboratively by the first two
researchers. Memos were also used to inform
this process, allowing both researchers access
to the ideas behind the synthesis of informa-
tion. Once a list of themes was finalized, it
Downloaded from

was verified by the third researcher who had
been involved with the raw data in the early
stages of the analysis.
Results
Young people’s responses to the question
‘Why do you think young people join para-
military groups?’ were highly variable. Some
responses were extremely short, no more
than one line, while others provided a lengthy
and detailed response to the question.
More often than not, essays detailed more
than one reason why someone may join para-
military groups; the mean number of reasons
given within the essays was 2.8 (SD⫽1.7).
Some young people explicitly argued that
involvement in paramilitary groups was likely
to be determined by a range of factors pecu-
liar to each individual rather than by one
factor alone. For others, this view was
implicit.
Four key factors were identified by our
young respondents as being relevant to explain
paramilitary involvement. These factors are
outlined and developed in the following sub-
sections and can be loosely termed as (1)
group identification explanations, (2) expla-
nations relating to issues commonly viewed as
particularly relevant during adolescence (i.e.
‘developmental factors’), (3) familial or envi-
ronmental explanations and (4) a final cate-
gory explaining involvement by reference to
‘badness’ or ‘madness’.
Group Identification Explanations
One explanation offered by our respondents
for young people becoming involved in para-
militaries was a group-level explanation and
involved references to individuals’ group
affiliations and/or identifications. Not sur-
prisingly, the groups most often referred to
were the prevalent national and religious
groups associated with the conflict (i.e. Irish/
British/Catholic/Protestant). These groups
were referred to rather interchangeably,
suggesting a potential perceived overlap
between religious and national categories for
these respondents. A 14-year-old male
residing in the Irish Republic, who defined
himself as an Irish Catholic, clearly exempli-
fied this overlap: ‘I think that most young
people join the groups of there religion as
they want to stand up for there country and
for wat they believe in’ (sic, #31).
These group-level explanations included
reasons that could be considered proactive
in terms of social identity, as well as more
reactive or oppositional ones. One proactive
group-level explanation for joining a para-
military group was patriotism. Effectively,
respondents believed that young people
joined out of a sense of group loyalty, because
they believed it was ‘the right thing to do’. For
instance, a 14-year-old female residing in
Northern Ireland stated, ‘I think young
people join paramilitary/terrorist groups
because they want to fight for their own
country. They believe what they are doing is
right and will do whatever it takes’ (#144,
self-defined as Irish Catholic). Others
believed that involvement in paramilitary
organizations was borne out of a desire to
assert their national identity (‘maybe they
think they have to do this to consider them-
selves British’, #115; ‘they want to support
or back up their own nationality’, #126) or
because they longed for group belonging or
distinctiveness. For instance, a 14-year-old
girl in the Republic stated that young people
may join ‘because they may want to belong
somewhere’ (#194, self-defined Protestant,
Irish), while another 14-year-old girl in
Northern Ireland believed that recruits
wanted ‘to make there religion stand out
from other religions more’ (sic, #71, self-
defined British, Protestant).
More reactive and oppositional forms of
identification were also outlined. Young
people believed that involvement in paramil-
itary organizations arose out of a desire to
assert the superiority of one’s own group over
Downloaded from

688
the other. Implicit in these statements was a
belief in a single ‘other’, or a single ‘opposing
group’. For instance, a 14-year-old female
residing in the Irish Republic wrote, ‘I think
young people join the paramilitary groups to
have a say and to be proud of what religion
they have and to make it clear that one group
is the best and one is not’ (#28, self-defined
Irish Catholic), while for a boy, ‘they want
their religion to be the best and most power-
ful’ (#217, Catholic, Northern Ireland).
Other reasons cited for becoming
involved implied a response to a perceived
past or present injustice, and/or perceived
inequity at group level. Effectively, respond-
ents made explicit references to the conflict
in Northern Ireland, which highlighted their
perception of the conflict as being the result
of a conflict of interests between two oppos-
ing groups. For instance, a 14-year-old male
residing in the Irish Republic argued that
‘they want to defend there country from the
british and the attacks that happen are the
cause of the british …’ (sic, #12, self-defined
Irish Protestant). Others believed that indi-
viduals’ involvement in paramilitary groups
allowed for their group’s voice to be heard.
Obviously implicit in this belief was that,
without resorting to such drastic measures/
tactics, often the group’s voice would not
normally be heard, which again is related to
youngsters’ perceptions of the balance of
equity and justice between the two groups –
or lack thereof.
Developmental Factors
The second category of explanations offered
by young people for involvement in par-
amilitary activity was one referring more
specifically to issues that are salient for ado-
lescents. Within this category, a range of
issues were outlined that may contribute to
young people becoming involved in paramil-
itaries. The first related to the perceived
social status associated with paramilitary
involvement. This was sometimes referred to
as ‘coolness’; as such, involvement was
believed to be associated with power, status,
street credibility and, potentially, money. For
instance, a 14-year-old girl residing in the
Irish Republic wrote ‘I think young people
join paramilitary groups because they think
they’ll be cool and look cool and people will
look up to them. They think it’ll give them
more power’ (#196, self-defined Protestant,
Irish). Also included in this subtheme were
statements that suggested that young people
thought ‘it would be cool to join’ (#184,
Protestant, Irish).
This construction of coolness and social
status was linked with a fascination with guns
and a perception that there was a particular
status attached to owning or brandishing a
weapon. Overt ownership and the public
display of weapons were believed to assist
impression management in terms of strength,
status and street credibility and were pre-
sented as a form of defensive aggression. For
instance, one Northern Irish male stated that
people join because ‘they think their hard or
the act hard or they want to be hard but real-
istically we know they are scared to be alone
they always fight or attack in groups …’ (sic,
#216, Catholic, Irish). The way in which
respondents referred to weapons suggested
that young people seem to perceive guns as
toys and/or to view paramilitary activity as a
potential pastime. For instance, a 15-year-old
Northern Irish male stated, ‘I think young
people join paramilitary or terrorist groups
because they like the fact that would be using
guns and stuff like that. Mostly because its
cool and most guys enjoy it’ (#72, no nation-
ality given, Protestant).
Another subtheme within this category
was the belief that many young people can
become involved in paramilitary activity in a
relatively passive way. Factors that contribute
to becoming involved in this way included
peer pressure, boredom and lack of available
and/or interesting alternative activities during
a period when young people are naturally
Downloaded from

curious and energetic. For instance, one 14-
year-old female stated, ‘I think young people
join paramilitary/terrorist groups because
their friends are doing it and they want to do
it too’ (#200, self-defined Irish Protestant).
Others saw young people getting somewhat
trapped by their immediate environment and
caught by community pressure as exemplified
by the following statement: ‘Another reason is
that they may be forced to join. If they come
from a particular area, they may just get
caught up with a particular group and end up
joining or getting involved’ (#194, self-
defined Irish Protestant). Respondents also
hinted that macro social factors could con-
tribute to the phenomenon; for instance,
a 14-year-old male in the Irish Republic
stated that ‘there also may not be a lot of facil-
ities for children to do stuff and our very
bored so that gives them something to do’
(sic, #33, self-defined Irish/American Catholic).
Similarly, a 14-year-old male residing in
Northern Ireland stated that recruits joined
because ‘there might be nothing to do were
they live so they join to give them something
to do’ (sic, #68, self-defined Protestant,
British).
Familial Explanations
Young people highlighted the importance of
family and suggested a range of familial
processes that could contribute to paramili-
tary involvement. Respondents believed that
parents and the wider family directly passed
political values on to their children and that,
if the family had a history of paramilitary
involvement, this could then directly lead the
new generation to get involved with para-
military groups. Responses that exemplified
this position included, for example: ‘Maybe
their mothers and fathers very much approve
of them joining these groups. Maybe there is
a family history of this or a background to
this’ (#149, self-defined Irish Catholic
female). Only one young person outlined
their own family’s history of paramilitary
involvement, which probably reflects the real
and felt need to be secretive around the issue
of paramilitary involvement.
While this argument was constructed as
self-evident (as above), others viewed the
transmission of political values as the remit
of those with particularly strong views. For
these respondents, only staunch parents were
likely to transmit their – entrenched and
prejudiced – views. For instance, one young
respondent, writing in relation to political
and moral values, stated, ‘If you grow up in
a family that strongly believes in something
you are most likely to grow up believing in it
yourself’ (#111, self-defined Irish, Protestant
female). Others believed that the sin could be
as much one of omission as one of commis-
sion. For instance, respondents believed that
paramilitary involvement resulted from a
lack of understanding of the other group.
This arose, they believed, as a result of fami-
lies having no contact with the other party to
the conflict, as well as the result of a lack of
education and ignorance of others’ views.
Parents’ failure to adequately supervise
their children during adolescence was also
believed to result in anti-social activities such
as drug-taking and paramilitary activity. This
view was overtly linked to the perception that
paramilitaries are involved in the marketing
of illegal substances and are an integral part
of the hidden economy that is undesirable at
best and extremely dangerous at worst. For
instance, a 14-year-old male stated, ‘Sometimes
may be there father leaves them and then
they get into a gang and into drugs. And to
get drugs they maybe have to go to para-
militaries. They offer to give them a free one
if they sell the rest. And this gets them
involved’ (sic, #156, self-defined Irish Pro-
testant). In direct contrast to the view that
permissiveness could be at the source of the
problem, respondents also stated that overly
strict and harsh parenting could result in
young people gravitating towards drug
misuse and paramilitary activity. In both
Downloaded from

690
cases, however, it was clear that respondents
perceived an inextricable link between illicit
drug supply and paramilitary activity.
Badness and Madness
The final category of explanations offered by
our young respondents with regard to involve-
ment in paramilitary activities construed
those involved as either unhinged, unhappy or
consumed by hatred. This explanation was
never mentioned in isolation; rather, it was
seen as one of a set of motivations. This point
is probably best exemplified by the following
quote from a 14-year-old male’s essay: ‘I think
young people join paramilitary/terrorist
groups because they want to fight for their
country to be equal. And some may join
because their mad in the head’ (sic, #210 Irish
Catholic).
Young people effectively discussed indi-
viduals’ motivations to join paramilitaries in
a number of ways. A combination of nega-
tive – or at least difficult – childhood experi-
ences and/or residing in areas where
sectarianism is endemic, were viewed as
major contributors to intergroup hostility.
Indeed, a 14-year-old female indicated that
this was the motivation behind her own out-
group hostility and the main factor under-
pinning her support for the paramilitaries.
She wrote, ‘Members of my family have been
killed in the troubles in the north and that is
why I realy cant stand protestants. I am
against British people as much as they are
against me. I am proud to vote for the IRA
and to be a real Catholic’ (sic, #28, self-
defined Irish Catholic). This respondent per-
ceived and expressed her support for the
paramilitaries as a way of asserting her reli-
gious identity in the face of perceived injury.
Anger, due to one’s life experiences or
because of social isolation, for instance, was
also believed to motivate young people to
join paramilitary groups. This explanation
was akin to the psychological explanations of
acting out or externalizing behaviours
(see Cairns, 1996, for a review of their role
in situations of political violence). For instance,
a 14-year-old female residing in the Republic
stated, ‘I think young people join these
groups because maybe there angry for some
reason and fighting helps them to get over it’
(sic, #39, self-defined Irish Catholic).
Finally, respondents also argued that some
young people’s motivation to join paramili-
tary groups could have a more pathological
origin. This type of explanation identified a
category of young people who were viewed as
inherently bad and for whom paramilitaries
provided an outlet, a means or perhaps a
niche to express and channel pathological
tendencies. These young people were vari-
ously described as individuals who were con-
sumed by hatred and who enjoyed or had an
intrinsic interest in or need for violence. For
instance, a 15-year-old male wrote that some
people are motivated to join because they are
‘big into violence and this is what they enjoy’
(#115, self-defined Irish Protestant).
Value Judgements
During the GT analysis, it was evident that
a substantial proportion of young people
(32%) included clear judgements of value in
their responses, even though they were not
explicitly or directly asked about their per-
sonal attitudes to paramilitary involvement.
A post-hoc decision was therefore made to
code this information separately using a
simple content analysis. Though reduction
of category content to quantitative indices is
eschewed by the GT approach, it was felt that
the value judgements offered warranted sub-
sequent analysis. Content analysis was suit-
able as it allowed the reduction of qualitative
statements into quantitative categories that
could then be examined in relation to gender
and jurisdiction. That is, content analysis,
unlike the GT analysis, allowed comparison
of valence information across groups.
In the first instance, the valence of the
response was assessed as either ‘positive’ or
Downloaded from

‘negative’ by the first author. It was subse-
quently examined in relation to young
people’s gender, religious affiliation and resi-
dential jurisdiction. Interrater reliability was
then assessed in 20% of responses, and a high
level of agreement was established (96%).
Responses that condoned such involvement
were categorized as ‘positive’, those con-
demning it were categorized as ‘negative’,
and those that expressed no opinion were
categorized as ‘neutral’. Overall, 11% of res-
pondents provided statements that could be
categorized as ‘positive’ (i.e. as condoning
paramilitary activity), 19% gave responses
condemning such activity and 67% ex-
pressed no clear judgements of value. No sig-
nificant variation in the valence of responses
was evident in relation to self-defined nation-
ality (␹2 ⫽6.3, p ⬎.05), religion (␹2 ⫽10.1,
p ⬎.05), or residential jurisdiction (␹2 ⫽2.1,
p ⬎.05). However, a significant relationship
was observed between gender and valence of
responses, as boys were more likely than girls
to offer no opinion regarding paramilitary
activity (␹⫽14.7, p⬍.01). None of the boys
condoned paramilitary activity in their
essays, 15% condemned it, and 85% ex-
pressed no opinion. On the other hand, 24%
of the girls explicitly condemned paramili-
tary activity, while another 24% condoned it,
and 52% offered no opinion.
Discussion
Theoretically interesting propositions have
been offered as to the causal explanations for
youth bulges increasing the likelihood of
political violence. While this relationship has
been demonstrated cross-nationally, most
recently by Urdal (2006), to date population
level analyses have failed to reveal whether
this effect can be attributed to opportunity
(Collier, 2000) or motive (Sambanis, 2002)
explanations. Our data provide a window
into how these factors may influence young
people growing up in an area affected by a
longstanding history of political violence,
namely, Northern Ireland. The most preva-
lent explanations young people perceived for
individuals’ paramilitary activism were ones
which relied on social identification issues,
such as patriotism and collective action,
emphasizing the position of the group and
perceived group inequities and griev-
ances. Implicit in many of these statements
was a belief that group-level inequities and
injustices continued in Northern Ireland and
that disenfranchised groups could potentially
make their voices heard through the use of
violence. Indeed, the views expressed would
suggest many of the young respondents felt
disenfranchised and marginal to the current
political process. These explanations are
those most often related to motive explan-
ations of political violence associated with
youth bulges.
However, paramilitary members were also
perceived as having status and may, thus, rep-
resent potent role models for some young
people anxious for respect and status in their
community (Smyth, 2004). This is a view
more consistent with the potential for oppor-
tunity factors to play a role in increasing the
likelihood of young people engaging in polit-
ical violence. Our view is that both are likely
to operate as motivations at the individual
psychological level, consistent with Urdal’s
(2006) caution against exaggerating the dif-
ference between the two perspectives, given
that opportunity on one side can be con-
sidered a motive by the other.
No clear differences in the explanations
offered regarding jurisdiction were apparent.
The higher level of direct exposure to para-
military violence, for those living in Northern
Ireland, does not, therefore, seem to have
affected young peoples’ explanations, despite
the longstanding concern that violence has
become normalized in Northern Ireland
(Cairns, 1987). Given the emphasis in young
people’s explanations of activists as patriotic
defenders of their communities and as
Downloaded from

692
righting perceived injustices, national and reli-
gious identification (which is important in the
North and South) is perhaps more important
in determining perceptions of political
activism and violence. Clearly, of course, the
young people’s accounts are representations of
their views, and it is possible and indeed likely
that their use of identification and motive
explanations is highly strategic. The notion
that identity can be used strategically is
not a new contention (Reicher & Hopkins,
2001) and one that may be said to be partic-
ularly prevalent in situations of political
conflict (Cairns, 1996). What this study
demonstrates – and which is both interesting
and concerning – is the ease with which the
power of identity talk can be harnessed by
young people in such situations.
A factor often invoked as an explanation
of paramilitary behaviour is family influence.
In line with Brett & Sprecht’s (2004) find-
ings related to military volunteering, family
background was often seen as highly influ-
ential. Some respondents reflected on how
young people’s upbringing in families with
strong republican or loyalist sympathies and
histories could affect their experience of and
attitude towards paramilitaries. This finding
emphasizes not only families’ responsibilities
in the transmission of sectarian outlook/
values but also young people’s perceptions of
the role played by families in the perpetua-
tion of sectarian attitudes and in the ‘acting-
out’ of these attitudes/values. These familial
explanations, together with many of the
other reasons provided for joining paramili-
tary groups, such as patriotism and perceived
status, mirrored those highlighted by Brett &
Sprecht (2004) in relation to motivations
that young people have for joining the armed
services. This similarity highlights a level of
legitimacy enjoyed by paramilitaries within
communities affected by political violence.
Despite this, the relationship between
young people and the paramilitaries is
complex. Smyth (2004) found that some of
the young people she interviewed feared and
reviled paramilitaries because of their heavy-
handed approach to ‘justice’ and their lack of
accountability when meting out punishments
within their own communities, as well as the
terrible violence they have perpetrated. The
young people in the present study were rela-
tively knowledgeable about the paramilitaries
and demonstrated a multi-levelled awareness
of the possible processes and circumstances
that may explain engagement in paramilitary
activities. Participants offered both individ-
ual-level (i.e. idiosyncratic) and group-level
(i.e. social) explanations of young people’s
involvement with paramilitary groups.
However, they never explained involvement
by individual-level factors only; the ‘badness-
madness’ explanations were always offered in
addition to social identification, developmen-
tal or familial explanations. Further, the fact
that most young people usually offered more
than one explanation for paramilitary activity
demonstrates that they are aware of the com-
plexity of the phenomenon.
Overall, we can observe that many respon-
dents struggled with the rights and wrongs of
paramilitary involvement. Previous authors
have suggested that children growing up in sit-
uations affected by political violence, and
minority group youth, often struggle with
issues of authority, justice and policing (Emler
& Reicher, 1995; Heskin, 1980). Indeed,
young people’s motivations for joining para-
military groups can be understood only with
reference to the historical, political and eco-
nomic contexts within which they live.The fact
that many respondents spontaneously offered
judgements of values, even though they were
not required to do so is, in itself, noteworthy.
The tendency for a substantial proportion of
young people in this study to offer value judge-
ments spontaneously suggests that many par-
ticipants felt the need to go beyond explanation
and take a stand in relation to paramilitarism.
However, there were clear gender differences
that merit further consideration.
Downloaded from

In terms of engagement with political vio-
lence, there can be little doubt that males
report higher levels of violent conflict-related
experiences and are more likely to be protag-
onists in such conflicts than females (Cairns,
1996). In Northern Ireland, this pattern is
clearly demonstrable, as boys report more
experience of conflict than girls (Muldoon &
Trew, 2000); young males accounted for 89%
of deaths in the 15–19-year-old age bracket
and 94% of deaths in 20–29-year-olds over
the course of the troubles (Fay, Morrisey &
Smyth, 1999). Lifetime experience confirms
the same pattern of higher experience among
males than females (Muldoon et al., 2005).
This position has led some to argue that poli-
tical violence and war are essentially male
pursuits (McWilliams, 1998). However, in
this study, although similar proportions of
boys and girls condemned paramilitarism,
girls were more likely to condone paramilitary
activity publicly than boys, who were totally
unwilling to do so. This finding demonstrates
two points. First, assuming support for para-
militarism is at least equal among males and
females (although it is arguably higher among
males, given the higher male propensity to
engage in political violence, as well as extant
attitudinal indicators), the study illustrates
that, by early adolescence, young men who
support political violence are loathe to express
their support, which is doubtless motivated
by concerns for their safety. On the other
hand, in line with Ruddick’s (1995) claims
and contrary to the idea that war is essentially
a male pursuit, it is clearly evident that girls
and women can play a public role that sup-
ports war and political violence.
In conclusion, this study has offered
insights into young people’s perceptions and
appraisal of paramilitary groups, as well as
the social and psychological motivations
that they perceive may underlie involvement
with these groups. While the essay approach
adopted surmounted many of the practical,
ethical and methodological difficulties
associated with researching this sensitive
topic with young people, it is, nonetheless,
constrained by a number of limitations. First,
educational standards must be good and
young people should be of an appropriate age
before they can undertake the task. Second,
while the approach may be less prone to
social desirability demands than a one-to-one
interview situation, the task cannot avoid the
self and group-level presentation biases. In
essence, the explanations offered may be
strategic, particularly given the heightened
salience of social identities in situations of
political violence. Third, the explanations
offered were those of young people who may
or may not have engaged in political violence
previously. Owing to the sensitive and ethical
issues associated with asking such questions,
we have no access to young people’s actual
experience of political violence at a personal
or family level as either victims or perpetra-
tors. Clearly, the explanations provided by
those engaged in political violence are an
important future research endeavour. Fur-
thermore, the research presented here con-
centrated on young people’s perceptions of
why others join paramilitary groups. It did
not directly address the perceived barriers to
joining paramilitary organizations or percep-
tions of nonviolent activism. Given the in-
creasing emphasis on Citizenship Education
within schools (Kerr, McCarthy & Smith,
2002; Smith, 2003), as well as community
based anti-sectarian interventions, future
research should consider the impact of these
proactive programmes on young peoples’
perceptions of paramilitary and political
activity. Nonetheless, the current approach
has successfully highlighted the complexity
of young people’s views with regard to para-
military organizations. Communal responsi-
bilities, religious and political identification
and patriotism, as well as social status, repu-
tation and peer pressure, represent a power-
ful range of behavioural influences.
Underlining this complexity, our findings
Downloaded from

694
demonstrate that the opportunity- and
motive-oriented explanations (Urdal, 2006)
are both viewed as potential contributors to
young people’s behaviours rather than mutu-
ally exclusive explanations.
References
Baumeister, Roy E.; Laura Smart & Joseph M.
Boden, 1996. ‘Relation of Threatened
Egotism to Violence and Aggression: The
Dark Side of High Self-Esteem’, Psychological
Review 103(1): 5–33.
Bew, Paul & Gordon Gillespie, 1999. Northern
Ireland: A Chronology of the Troubles
1968–1999. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.
Brett, Rachel & Irma Sprecht, 2004. Young
Soldiers: Why They Choose To Fight. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner.
Brewer, John D.; Bill Lockhart & Paula Rodgers,
1998. ‘Informal Social Control and Crime
Management in Belfast’, British Journal of
Sociology 49(4): 570–585.
Brown, Rupert, 2000. ‘Social Identity Theory:
Past Achievements, Current Problems and
Future Challenges’, European Journal of Social
Psychology 30(6): 745–788.
Burton, Frank, 1978. The Politics of Legitimacy:
Struggles in a Belfast Community. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Cairns, Ed, 1987. Caught in Crossfire: Children
and the Northern Ireland Conflict. Belfast:
Appletree.
Cairns, Ed, 1994. A Welling Up of Deep
Unconscious Forces; Psychology and the Northern
Ireland Conflict. University of Ulster, Centre
for the Study of Conflict.
Cairns, Ed, 1996. Children and Political Violence.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Cavanaugh, Kathleen A., 1997. ‘Interpretations
of Political Violence in Ethnically Divided
Societies’, Terrorism and Political Violence 9(1):
33–54.
Charmaz, Kathy, 1995. ‘Grounded Theory’, in
Jonathan A. Smith, Rom Harre & Luk van
Langenhore, eds, Rethinking Methods in
Psychology. London: Sage (27–49).
Collier, Paul, 2000. ‘Doing Well Out of War: An
Economic Perspective’, in Mats Berdal &
David M. Malone, eds, Greed and Grievance:
Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. Boulder, CO
& London: Lynne Rienner (91–111).
Crenshaw, Martha, 2000. ‘The Psychology of
Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century’,
Political Psychology 21(2): 379–413.
Drury, John & Stephen Reicher, 2000. ‘Collective
Action and Psychological Change: The
Emergence of New Social Identities’, British
Journal of Social Psychology 39(4): 579–604.
Emler, Nicholas & Stephen Reicher, 1995.
Adolescence and Delinquency. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fay, Marie T.; Mike Morrissey & Marie Smyth,
1999. Northern Ireland’s Troubles: The Human
Costs. London: Pluto.
Glaser, Barney G. & Anslem I. Strauss, 1967. The
Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine.
Goffman, Erving, 1956. The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Goldstone, Jack A., 2001. ‘Demography,
Environment and Security’, in Paul F. Diehl &
Nils Petter Gleditsch, eds, Environmental
Conflict. Boulder, CO: Westview (84–108).
Heskin, Ken, 1980. Northern Ireland: A Psychological
Analysis. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Hosin, Amir & Ed Cairns, 1984. ‘The Impact of
Conflict on Children’s Ideas About Their
Country’, Journal of Psychology 118(2):
161–168.
Kelman, Herbert C., 1999. ‘The Inter-
dependence of Israeli and Palestinian National
Identities: The Role of the Other in Existential
Conflicts’, Journal of Social Issues 55(3):
581–594.
Kerr, David; Stephen McCarthy & Alan Smith,
2002. ‘Citizenship Education in England,
Ireland and Northern Ireland’, European
Journal of Education 37(2): 179–191.
McWilliams, Monica, 1998. ‘Violence Against
Women in Societies Under Stress’, in Rebecca
E. Dobash & Russell P. Dobash, eds,
Rethinking Violence Against Women. London:
Sage (111–140).
Moller, Herbert, 1968. ‘Youth as a Force in the
Modern World’, Comparative Studies in Society
and History 10(3): 238–260.
Muldoon, Orla & Karen Trew, 2000. ‘Children’s
Experience and Adjustment to Political
Conflict in Northern Ireland’, Peace and
Downloaded from

Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 6(2):
157–176.
Muldoon, Orla; Katharina Schmid, Ciara
Downes, Karen Trew & John Kremer, 2005.
The Legacy of the Troubles: Experience of the
Troubles, Mental Health and Social Attitudes.
http://www.legacyofthetroubles.qub.ac.uk
(accessed 19 June 2006).
Neumayer, Eric, 2003. ‘Good Policy Can Lower
Violent Crime: Evidence from a Cross-National
Panel of Homicide Rates, 1980–97’, Journal of
Peace Research 40(6): 619–640.
Ottosen, Rune, 1995. ‘Enemy Images and the
Journalistic Process’, Journal of Peace Research
32(1): 97–112.
Post, Jerrod M.; Ruby G. Keven & Eric D. Shaw,
2002. ‘The Radical Group in Context: 1. An
Integrated Framework for the Analysis of
Group Risk for Terrorism’, Studies in Conflict
and Terrorism 25(2): 73–100.
Reicher, Stephen & Nick Hopkins, 2001. Self and
Nation. London: Sage.
Reicher, Stephen & Mark Levine, 1994.
‘Deindividuation, Power Relations Between
GroupsandtheExpressionofSocialIdentity:The
Effects of Visibility to the Out-Group’, British
Journal of Social Psychology 33(2): 145–163.
Reilly, Jacqueline; OrlaT. Muldoon & Clare Byrne,
2004. ‘Young Men as Victims and Perpetrators
of Violence in Northern Ireland: A Qualitative
Analysis’, Journal of Social Issues 60(3): 469–484.
Ruddick, Sara, 1995. Maternal Thinking: Towards
a Politics of Peace. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Sambanis, Nicholas, 2002. ‘A Review of Recent
Advances and Future Directions in the
Quantitative Literature on Civil War’, Defence
and Peace Economics 13(3): 215–243.
Silke, Andrew, 2004. ‘An Introduction to
Research on Terrorism’, in Andrew Silke, ed.,
Research onTerrorism:Trends, Achievements and
Failures. London: Frank Cass (1–29).
Smith, Alan, 2003. ‘Citizenship Education in
Northern Ireland: Beyond National Identity?’,
Cambridge Journal of Education 33(1): 15–31.
Smyth, Marie, 2004. ‘The Impact of Political
Conflict on Children in Northern Ireland’,
Institute for Conflict Research, March.
Tajfel, Henri, 1978. Differentiation Between Social
Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of
Intergroup Relations. London: Academic.
Turner, John, 1991. Social Influence. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Urdal, Henrik, 2006. ‘A Clash of Generations?
Youth Bulges and Political Violence’, Inter-
national Studies Quarterly 50(3): 607–629.
Zakaria, Fareed, 2001. ‘The Roots of Rage’,
Newsweek 138(16): 14–33.
ORLA T. MULDOON, b. 1969, BSSc
(Queens University Belfast, 1993), PhD
(Queen’s University Belfast, 1996); Senior
Lecturer in Psychology, Queen’s University
Belfast (1998–2007); Professor of Psychology,
University of Limerick (2007– ). Current
research interests: social identity change and
development; psychological consequences of
political violence.
KATRINA MCLAUGHLIN, b. 1972, BSSc
(Ulster, 1997), PhD (Queens University
Belfast, 2002); research fellow, Health Services
Research Unit, Queen’s University Belfast
(2006– ). Current research interests: social
identity and adjustment.
NATHALIE ROUGIER, b. 1970, Licence,
Maîtrise, DEA (Clermont-Ferrand, 1991, 1992,
1993), PhD (Ulster, 2001); research fellow,
Geary Institute, University College Dublin
(2004–06). Current research interests: identity
development and change, ethnic and national
identifications and intergroup relations.
KAREN TREW, b. 1943, BSc (Queens
University Belfast, 1965), PhD (Queens
University Belfast, 1971); reader in Psychology,
Queen’s University Belfast (1986– ). Current
research interests: intergroup conflict and social
identity development and change among chil-
dren and adults.
Downloaded from

Adolescents Explanations For Paramilitary Involvement

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Adolescents Explanations For Paramilitary Involvement

Similaire à Adolescents Explanations For Paramilitary Involvement (20)

Plus de Mary Montoya

Plus de Mary Montoya (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Adolescents Explanations For Paramilitary Involvement