Ben Adams

Marginalisation underpins many discussions surrounding the over-representation of men in violent extremism. Preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) practices have often focused on minority groups – specifically Muslim men – as quintessential terrorist perpetrators, entrenching ‘pre-existing racist notions of Muslim ‘subject communities’ to be governed and policed’ ( Rothermel & Kelly, 2024 , pp. 2–3). It is argued that socioeconomic inequality fuels ‘feelings of disadvantage and marginalisation’ which ‘prompt resentment and anger in young males’ ( Treadwell & Garland, 2011 , p. 621). The radicalisation of (often) young, white men into forms of far-right or esoteric extremism – including misogynistic subcultures associated with the online manosphere – feeds a ‘crisis of masculinity’ backlash against the supposed excesses of contemporary feminism ( Pease, 2020 ). Drawing from our research interviewing CVE practitioners and policy-makers in Australia, along with growing scholarly literature critiquing the ‘gender blind spot’ in P/CVE strategies ( Agius et al., 2022 ), this chapter argues for reconceptualising the relationship between masculinities, violent extremism and state P/CVE efforts, framing men across intersecting racial, class and cultural demographics as ‘marginalised’ by continual logics of hegemonic masculinity. Our research captures some of the ways essentialist masculine norms are often reinscribed by P/CVE approaches, even as they seek to mitigate the violent extremes of (some) men’s actions ( Stahl et al., 2024b ). We argue mainstream masculine norms act as templates for extremist behaviour, for example, the lauding of power, strength and violence, or the importance of hierarchical belonging more broadly. Simultaneously, they provide grounds to punish (in particular) racialised and/or socioeconomically marginalised men for taking these norms too seriously and manifesting them in violently extreme ways.

In Australia today there is a growing panic concerning the radicalisation of youth (Cherney et al., 2022) and especially young men (Roose, 2024). As part of this perceived crisis, there is particul...

Research on social mobility continues to foreground the role of familial relationships. Studies of students who are first-in-family to attend university have often highlighted the intensity of familial obligations. Drawing on longitudinal research with upwardly mobile young men from working-class (and working-poor) backgrounds, this article presents three case studies focused on their relationship with their brothers who were on different, less upwardly mobile pathways. We understand gender to be discursively constructed and relationally negotiated through various interactions and the roles individuals come to embody. Research into caring masculinities foregrounds the various ways men are no longer disconnected from traditional feminine practices, particularly those concentrated on caring for others. We draw on the words of three upwardly working-class young men regarding how they perceived their relationship with their younger brothers, focusing specifically on the subjectivities they present as protector, supporter and familial caregiver.

Within the field of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) male clients are overwhelmingly represented, which reflects the key and complex significance ‘masculinity’ has for understanding susceptibility to violent extremism, processes of radicalisation and related issues. This article analyses the perspectives of 12 CVE Intervention Practitioners (n = 8 female, n = 4 male) in Australia and their views on the role gender plays in their work. We focus on the practitioners’ experiences with male clients and how they understood the relationship between gender, rapport building and (de)radicalization. The practitioners highlight how a common aspect of their clients’ ideology involved either explicit misogyny or quite rigid opinions regarding the roles of men and women in society. They often mentioned their male clients experienced difficulties in expressing and understanding their own masculinity. However, while it is important to identify commonalities within the gendered dynamics present in CVE work, the data suggest the interaction between practitioner and client continues to be quite varied. We argue that this highlights not only how masculinities are discursively produced, but how male clients may shift between identity positions during deradicalization depending on their interpersonal interactions.

Educators continue to struggle with how masculinities are performed and regulated in spaces of learning. In a time of rapid social change, there is a renewed impetus for gender justice reform in schooling, though these approaches themselves remain a shifting picture. Adding a new layer of complexity, we are now witness to educational policy recommendations around surveillance which are designed to counteract boys’ and young men’s vulnerabilities to be radicalised into the misogynies of the ‘manosphere’. These recommendations exist despite limited research and significant gaps in our understanding regarding both the manosphere as well as the emotional lives of young men. The article intentionally shifts the conversation from reactive surveillance in schools to educative gender justice approaches. We focus, in particular, on the significance of ‘pedagogic discomfort’ in terms of fostering gender transformative dialogue which is critical of ideas associated with the manosphere. We consider how a constructive dialogue might be fostered with a particular focus on pedagogies that recognise the emotional intensities of gender justice work.

Schools worldwide are increasingly enmeshed in discourses of securitisation. Efforts to prevent or counter violent extremism (P/CVE) are a manifestation of this. P/CVE in education takes various forms; the pilot explored here is considered super-soft in that no mention was made of violent extremism. Attention was given to schools’ capacities to enhance social cohesion through Restorative Practices (RP) – a method for building social capital. We use an affective-discursive lens to explore how affects/emotions are caught in a dispositif of governance fundamental to efforts to regulate youth through this method. Specifically, we focus on extreme emotional incidents that highlight norms and practices in which violence and emotions are entangled, which expose limits and implications of RPs. While holding promise for transcending punitive disciplinary methods, we argue that RPs rely on logics that limit how violence is understood, locating violent problems within the problem bodies of marginalised youth.