This response engages Clark McCauley’s article on the analytic value of ideology in the study of radicalisation and deradicalisation. McCauley raises an important and constructive challenge: whether the broadened conception of ideology proposed in my earlier article—drawing on Michael Freeden’s morphological theory and the ideological triangle model—can maintain empirical precision, or whether the established diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames of social-movement theory offer a more tractable alternative. In this response, I argue that the ideological triangle is designed explicitly for the individual level of analysis, addressing the subjective configuration of beliefs, emotions, and motivations most relevant to deradicalisation practice. While the structure of the triangle parallels movement-level framing, its purpose is distinct: to model how individuals internalise, interpret, and personalise broader ideological signals, especially in an era of increasingly hybrid, unstable, and individualised extremism. I further contend that Freeden’s morphological approach, when translated to the micro level, provides a necessary account of the internal conceptual architecture that renders frames meaningful and motivational. Although the empirical operationalisation of morphological ideology remains in early stages, it is both feasible and essential for understanding cognitive rigidity, ideological narrowing, and the potential for “repluralisation” during disengagement.
Photo credit: Tetiana Yurchenko/Shutterstock.com
