Understanding Grotesque Transparency as a Strategy for Fundamentalist Radicalization: Implications for Social Marketing Theory and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background To counter the effects of radicalization, we should first understand the persuasion mechanisms used by fundamentalist organizations to reach and engage with potential candidates to religious radicalization, particularly in Western societies. Focus of the Article The paper analyzes ISIS and Al-Qeada (AQ) propaganda as grotesque transparency strategy, with particular attention to the so-called “Islamic State.” Research Questions The main research question guiding this case study is: how the “grotesque transparency” strategy is articulated in the context of radicalization propaganda by Islamist terrorist organizations? The secondary research question is: how the understanding of the “grotesque transparency” strategy could inform social marketing and policy initiatives to counter the effects of such propaganda? Importance to the Social Marketing Field The novelty of grotesque transparency in the context of digital networks lies in the ease with which potentially everyone can be a propagandist, transforming the strategic prescriptions of the organized terrorist into an individual “creative” tactic or action. In this context of media fragmentation, the notion of social marketing as mainly a strategic endeavor to favor general change of attitudes and behaviors may be reconsidered as a more dialogic and individualized interaction to understand the expectations, needs and ideas of the “tribal groups.” Methods By applying the “aquarium metaphor”, the author describes the narrative of such radical groups, including the visual elements that are key in the case of grotesque transparency in the digital media ecosystem. Results The visually grotesque gives meaning to events in a world of excess, fragmentation, and disenchantment. The language of the ocular reduces ambiguity, privileges the concrete, and facilitates moral judgments. It has become a way of “knowing” based on emotion. Recommendations for Practice Social marketing experts and officers might reconsider the very notion of strategy when trying to counter the effects of grotesque transparency radical propaganda among certain groups of the population, moving beyond the more traditional approach of control-command to a more open and interactive process to engage in a dialogue and connect with individuals, their families and peers through strategizing. Limitations The analysis presented here of the Islamist terrorist propaganda is based on a literature review and some empirical research. The question of reception and tactical appropriation by some groups remains an important area to be explored in future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".