Jihad John: The danger of radicalization
In the Washington Post article ‘Jihadi John’: Islamic State killer is identified as Londoner Mohammed Emwazi the deviant acts and background of the titular ‘Jihadi John’ are detailed. Mohammed Emwazi was born and Kuwait but spent most of his life growing up in a wealthy English household and graduated from the University of Westminster. His friends described him as being “polite and had a penchant for wearing stylish clothes while adhering to the tenets of his Islamic faith” (Mekhennet & Goldman 2015). He supposedly vanished from his home in 2012 only to resurface in 2013 under the guise of what would be recognized as ‘Jihadi John’ in a makeshift prison complex in Syria. Since his disappearance he had joined the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and quickly became a highly visible character in brutal video recorded executions of Western Hostages. His primary deviant act was the executions in of themselves, where he would behead defenseless hostages who were rarely ever more than journalists who happened to not share his faith or believe in ISIS’ ‘message’.
	When applied to Robert Merton’s adaptations to anomie, Emwazi fills very few of the typologies. He represents that antithesis of a conformist, he rejected both established cultural goals of his home or the institutionalized means of achieving those goals. Yet, at the same time he does not fall into the category of a retreatist, he may have rejected both cultural goals and legitimate means, but Emwazi is not “In the society but not of it” (Inderbitzin, Bates, Gainey 2013), he strives for a new order and the establishment of new goals and means. For this reason, he fills the role of rebellion in almost text book fashion. He rejected the common held goals and beliefs of England and the means to achieve those by joining a religious extremist state to “keep us firmer towards fighting for freedom and justice!!!” (Mekhennet & Goldman 2015). As such, he is fighting for new goals and new means to achieve those, which means he cannot fall into Ritualism or Innovation because those goals and means no longer apply to him.
		In light of Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin’s Differential opportunity and the subcultures that they propose, Emwazi falls into an interesting position. He is obviously deviant, and has committed deviant acts, yet he was not raised in a poor and impoverished area and had legitimate means presented to him through his whole life. Indeed, he even had a diploma and means to reach cultural acceptable goals. One can possibly extrapolate conflict subcultures to include touches on one’s spiritual level, he was not provided legitimate means to act on his faith and instead turned towards illegitimate means as he explored his faith. Through this process, he may have been radicalized through influences in his neighborhood or mosque, or was forced to seek those role models online or through other sources. Yet, the case can also be made that he aligned himself with a criminal subculture when he joined ISIS, with its rigid structure of criminal and illegitimate means. And, ironically enough, he may well be posing as one of those influential role models that encourage youth to take part in their subculture.
		Emwazi also clearly fit into Robert Agnew’s general strain theory, before joining ISIS he felt vilified and prosecuted because of his faith. For example, British internal security detained him several times and made it clear that he was being watched. This falls perfectly into two of the three major negative relations, Preventing or threatening to prevent achievement of valued goals and removal of positive stimuli. And after these threats, he lashed out and joined ISIS, perpetrating much graver acts than could have been anticipated by British police.
		Emwazi fits into the tertiary concept of deviant identity; he denies his deviant identity by rallying against the idea that it is truly deviant. He believes he is justified in his actions and that it is the rest of society that is wrong, he engages in identity politics by aligning himself with ISIS by quite literally recording himself executing people.
		Mohammad also represents a divergence from the concept of relative deprivation, which focuses on how absolute success or wealth is relative to that of those around you. Being a jihadist, where his acts of deviance are largely focused around cultural and social goals, it is hard to extrapolate that his deviance arose in comparison to other people. Indeed, even approaching it from a spiritual level, many of his friends did not ascribe to the same levels of faith as he did, so he had very little reason to become more and more deviant in comparison to them. As such, relative depravation in strain is more suited to deviance that has to do with positions of power or wealth than attainment of cultural goals. Though, the argument can be made that Emwazi’s increasing acts of brutal treatment against prisoners and executions can be linked to relative deprivation of those he is with now in ISIS, but that does not explain the emergence of his deviance.