Psychology of Far-Left Extremism

 

The Psychology of Far-Left Extremism: Hysteria, Subconscious Authoritarianism, and the Paradox of Political Resistance

Abstract

This paper explores the psychological and sociological dimensions of far-left extremism, particularly focusing on hysterical attacks against perceived far-right entities as a manifestation of deeper mental health dynamics. Drawing from psychoanalytic, personality psychology, and sociological frameworks, it argues that such behaviors stem from subconscious desires for external authority to compensate for internal lacks in self-discipline and accountability. The analysis extends to the paradoxical invitation of more authoritarian forces, such as through opposition to parties resisting Islamic influence in Britain, and examines how individual hysteria spills into collective manipulation. Sources from psychology and sociology substantiate these claims, revealing shared traits between ideological extremes.

Introduction

Far-left extremists often exhibit hysterical responses to perceived authoritarianism, targeting political groups they label as “far-right” regardless of accuracy. This behavior, as posited in the query, inadvertently invites more severe authoritarianism, such as from Islamic influences, which are argued to be more rigid than indigenous British parties seeking to preserve sovereignty. From a psychological perspective, this hysteria signals a subconscious yearning for imposed discipline to resolve internal chaos stemming from poor self-control and aversion to accountability. Sociologically, this friction escalates into community-wide phenomena, manipulable for political ends. This paper delves into these topics, integrating insights from key sources to provide a comprehensive analysis.

Section 1: Political Hysteria and Histrionic Traits in Far-Left Activism

Hysteria in far-left activism can be understood through the lens of histrionic personality disorder (HPD), characterized by excessive emotionality and attention-seeking. In political contexts, this manifests as dramatic moral theatrics and black-and-white thinking, often amplifying perceived threats to garner sympathy and dominance. As noted in discussions of Cluster B personality disorders influencing society, “Histrionic personality disorder exhibits excessive emotionality, sexual provocation, and attention-seeking, often to serve a pathological need for sympathy.”  This trait spills over into activism, where individuals escalate conflicts to maintain emotional intensity, perverting the quest for equilibrium into polarized attacks.

Sociologically, such hysteria aligns with models of political extremism under stress. Personal exposure to threats, real or perceived, heightens psychological distress, which in turn fosters exclusionist attitudes. “We argue that the personal exposure to political violence that results in psychological distress affects political worldviews.”  In far-left groups, this distress manifests as hysterical targeting of “authoritarian” symbols, symptomatic of unresolved internal conflicts rather than rational ideology. The collective amplification creates a feedback loop, where individual histrionics gain power through group resonance, leading to manipulable forces directed against convenient targets.

Section 2: Subconscious Desire for Authoritarianism

Psychoanalytic theory, particularly Freudian perspectives, illuminates the subconscious mechanisms driving far-left extremism. Extremist ideologies fuse primitive drives (id) with an authoritarian superego, allowing aggressive impulses to be morally sanctioned. Applied to politics, this suggests far-left hysterics subconsciously seek external authority to impose the discipline they lack. “Extremist ideology arises from the fusion of primitive drives (id) with an authoritarian superego… allowing violent or taboo impulses to be experienced as divinely justified acts.”  In secular contexts, this translates to a yearning for absolutist structures to end personal hysteria.

Research on left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) supports this, revealing traits like antihierarchical aggression and top-down censorship, akin to right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). “LWA attitudes are characterized by favoring punishment of those who dissent from group opinion, desiring to overturn existing hierarchies.”  Subconsciously, this reflects a need for collective security amid threat, where anti-authoritarian norms clash with innate authoritarian tendencies. “A long history of theory and research in psychology reveals a strong connection between authoritarianism and threat. This work suggests that authoritarianism often emerges in response to threatening circumstances – either threats to security or threats induced by uncertainty.”  Far-left individuals, perceiving societal chaos, subconsciously invoke authoritarianism to restore balance, perverting their liberty rhetoric into calls for imposed order.

Section 3: Lack of Self-Discipline and Accountability

A core psychological driver is the refusal of accountability, rooted in low self-control and emotional reactivity. Far-left ideologies often emphasize freedom without boundaries, masking an inability to self-regulate. LWA correlates with narcissism and psychopathy, fostering aversion to personal responsibility. “Based on existing research, we expected individuals with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism to also report higher levels of narcissism.”  This lack exacerbates internal friction, leading to hysteria as a maladaptive coping mechanism.

Sociologically, this manifests in group dynamics where accountability is externalized onto “oppressors,” allowing unchecked behaviors. “The key predicate of an external locus of control is a generalized sense of powerlessness or a perceived lack of self-efficacy.”  In far-left collectives, this refusal amplifies, creating environments where hysteria thrives on unaccountable emotional outbursts, further entrenching the need for external authority.

Section 4: The Paradox: Attacking Authoritarianism While Inviting Greater Threats

The horseshoe theory elucidates the paradox: far-left attacks on “far-right” parties resisting Islamic influence inadvertently invite more authoritarian elements. “Proponents of horseshoe theory argue that the far-left and the far-right are closer to each other than either is to the political center.”  Both extremes share authoritarian leanings, such as intolerance and desire for control. “As the political horseshoe theory attributed to Jean-Pierre Faye highlights, if we travel far-left enough, we find the very same sneering, nasty and reckless bully-boy tactics used by the far-right.” 

In Britain, opposing parties preserving sovereignty is seen as inviting Islam, which sociological analyses link to higher authoritarianism. “The evidence presented here, however, reveals a link that is too stark and robust to ignore, neglect, or dismiss.”  “At the present time, however, the evidence shows that Muslim countries are markedly more authoritarian than non-Muslim societies, even when one controls for other potentially influential factors.”  This paradox stems from subconscious projection: attacking symbolic authority while craving absolutism.

Section 5: Sociological Implications: Community Spillover and Manipulation

Individual hysteria spills into communities, gaining manipulable power for political ends. “Such psychological distress, in turn, exacerbates perceptions of threat, which further invoke ‘threat buffers’ such as political exclusionism.”  In far-left networks, this creates echo chambers where histrionics resonate, perverting equilibrium-seeking into extremism.

Sociologically, this force is targeted against symbols of needed discipline, manipulable by elites. “The basic idea that left- and right-wing extremists share a range of psychological similarities is consistent with theories of extremism and radicalization.”  Collective well-being suffers as unaddressed lacks foster cohesive yet dysfunctional groups.

Conclusion

Far-left hysteria reflects a subconscious quest for authoritarianism amid self-discipline deficits, paradoxically inviting greater threats. Integrating psychological and sociological insights reveals a pathway to equilibrium through accountability. Future research should explore interventions addressing these dynamics.

Index of Titles and Authors

•  Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left-Wing Authoritarianism in the United States - Conway et al.

•  The Cluster B Society - Christopher F. Rufo

•  A Freudian Analysis of Religious Extremism - Rishikesh Pelluri

•  Islam and Authoritarianism - M. Steven Fish

•  The Psychology of Left-Wing Authoritarianism - Joseph P. Forgas

•  The Curious Case of Left-Wing Authoritarianism: When Authoritarian Persons Meet Anti-Authoritarian Norms - Luciano García-Conway et al.

•  Is the Myth of Left-Wing Authoritarianism Itself a Myth? - Thomas H. Costello et al.

•  Horseshoe Theory - Jean-Pierre Faye (attributed)

•  A New Stress-Based Model of Political Extremism - Daphna Canetti-Nisim et al.

•  Psychological Features of Extreme Political Ideologies - Kirsten van Kessel et al.

•  Relations to the Dark Personality Traits, Altruism, and Social Justice: Understanding Left-Wing Authoritarianism - Ann Krispenz and Alexander Bertrams

•  Exploring the Well-Being Costs of Leftist Ideology - Elizabeth A. Schultheis

•  American Hysteria: The Untold Story of Mass Political Extremism in the United States - Andrew Burt

Transactional Analysis of Islam

 

Islam as an Abusive System: A Transactional Analysis of Pathology and Abuse

Introduction

Transactional Analysis (TA), pioneered by Dr. Eric Berne in works such as Games People Play (1964), provides a framework for understanding human interactions through ego states—Parent, Adult, and Child—and the unconscious “games” individuals play to fulfil ulterior motives, often at the expense of intimacy and autonomy. These games, as Berne defines them, are “an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome,” which can perpetuate cycles of manipulation and emotional harm. 

In the context of Islam, this thesis posits the religion as an abusive system that systematically promotes imbalanced ego states and coercive games, fostering pathology through enforced submission. Islam’s core tenet of islam—meaning “submission”—encourages believers to operate predominantly from an Adapted Child ego state, responding to a Critical Parent archetype embodied by Allah and the Prophet Muhammad. This dynamic stifles the Adult ego’s rational autonomy and the Free Child’s spontaneity, leading to abusive pathologies such as chronic guilt, shame, and intergenerational trauma. Drawing on TA theory, the analysis reveals how doctrinal indoctrination teaches cultural games of obedience, mirroring abusive relationships where control masquerades as divine love.

Ego States in Islamic Doctrine: The Pathology of Perpetual Childhood

TA identifies three ego states: the Parent (nurturing or critical injunctions from authority figures), the Adult (objective, reality-based processing), and the Child (natural feelings and adaptations from early experiences). Healthy integration allows fluidity, but abusive systems rigidify these states, as Berne notes: “Each person shows three ego states: parent, adult, and child. In the ego state called parental behavior, individuals tend to behave similarly to how one of their parents acts, thinks, feels, talks, and reacts.” 

In Islam, Allah is portrayed as an omnipotent Critical Parent, issuing 6,236 commandments in the Quran that demand unquestioning obedience, evoking an Adapted Child response of fear-driven compliance. This pathology manifests in the believer’s suppression of the Adult ego, which Berne describes as essential for “awareness, spontaneity, and intimacy,” capacities eroded by threats of eternal hellfire for doubt.

Thomas A. Harris, building on Berne in I’m OK—You’re OK (1967), observes the Parent-Child imbalance in religions: “The Parent-Child nature of most western religions is remarkable when one considers that the revolutionary impact of most revered religious leaders was directly the result of their courage to examine Parent institutions and proceed, with the Adult, in search of truth.” 

Extending this to Islam, submission (tawhid) reinforces a “Not-OK Child” position, where believers internalize inferiority to divine authority, leading to pathological self-abnegation. As G. Henry Saruhan explains in “Transactional Analysis Theory and Spirituality” (2019), “People remember and become aware of spiritual and religious experiences through ego states. In their exteropsychic ego-state, people selectively interiorize models around the ideas, values, emotions, and behaviors offered by others.” 

In Islamic contexts, this interiorization via rote memorization of the Quran from childhood embeds punitive Parent messages, pathologizing natural curiosity as shirk (polytheism), thus abusing the developing psyche into chronic dissociation from the Free Child.

This ego-state rigidity perpetuates abuse, as believers project Critical Parent dynamics onto family and society. Women, for instance, are scripted into submissive roles per Quranic injunctions (e.g., Surah 4:34), fostering intergenerational Adapted Child behaviors that normalize coercive control, akin to domestic abuse where the Adult voice is silenced.

Games of Submission: Coercive Transactions in Islamic Practice

Berne’s games are cultural scripts taught from childhood, with Islam exemplifying games that reward submission while punishing autonomy. “Raising children is primarily a matter of teaching them what games to play. Different cultures and different social classes favor different types of games, and various tribes and families favor different variations of these,” Berne writes, highlighting how Islamic upbringing instills games like ritual prayer (salah), a five-daily transaction reinforcing Child-to-Parent deference. These games provide illusory strokes (recognition) but culminate in predictable payoffs of guilt avoidance, not genuine intimacy.

A prime example is the game Tove K terms “Agree With My Stupid Idea,” adapted from Berne: “Throughout history, the game Agree With My Stupid Idea has mostly been played within the framework of religion. More or less all religions build on implausible ideas that require adherents to believe. You can’t build a religion around what is obviously true.” In Islam, this manifests in affirming contradictory doctrines, such as predestination alongside free will, coercing believers into cognitive dissonance that pathologizes rational inquiry. The payoff? Social reinforcement from the ummah (community), but at the cost of Adult autonomy, breeding abusive isolation for apostates.

Another game, “Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a Bitch” (Berne’s formulation for entrapment), appears in fatwas condemning perceived blasphemy, trapping dissenters in cycles of accusation and punishment. As Berne elucidates, “The favoured game of any individual can be traced back to his parents and grandparents, and forward to his children,” tracing Islamic games to Muhammad’s Medina constitution, which enforced tribal loyalty through shunning. This coercive pathology extends to jihad narratives, games of “Uproar” where outrage over cartoons or critiques justifies violence, fulfilling the Child’s need for Parent approval while abusing societal peace.

Pathology and Abuse: The Toll of Stunted Autonomy

The abusive core of Islam, per TA, lies in thwarting Berne’s triad of autonomy: awareness (suppressed by taqiyya—permissible deceit), spontaneity (curbed by haram prohibitions), and intimacy (redirected to divine rather than human bonds). Harris warns that unexamined Parent dogma breeds “fear and guilt,” a pathology echoed in Islamic eschatology’s graphic hell descriptions, inducing trauma akin to spiritual abuse. Saruhan notes, “Transactions can be experienced personally in the family and supportive of life, as well as punitively for justifying shame or limiting/restricting guilt,” illustrating how Islamic family structures—honor killings, forced marriages—punish via Child ego shame, perpetuating cycles of abuse.

This results in societal pathology: stifled innovation (Adult suppression), gender-based violence (Parent-Child coercion), and mental health crises, as believers remain “frogs” per Berne: “We are born princes and the civilizing process makes us frogs.” Reform is blocked by games like “If It Weren’t For the Infidels,” blaming external “others” for internal failings, a deflection that sustains the system’s abusive hold.

Conclusion

Through TA, Islam emerges as an abusive system engineering ego-state imbalance and addictive games that prioritize submission over human flourishing. As Berne urges escape via Adult awareness, deconstructing these dynamics offers pathology’s antidote: reclaiming autonomy to transcend coercive spirituality. This lens demands critical engagement to dismantle abuse masked as piety.

Index by Title and Author

•  Games People Play, Eric Berne

•  I’m OK—You’re OK, Thomas A. Harris

•  Games People Play (Public Edition), Tove K

•  Transactional Analysis Theory and Spirituality, G. Henry Saruhan

Islam as an Abuse System

 

Islam as an Abusive System: A Thesis on Indoctrination, Coercion, Control, Pathology, and Abuse

Introduction

Islam, as a religious and ideological framework, can be analysed through the lens of abusive systems, akin to cults or dysfunctional relationships where power dynamics perpetuate harm. Abusive systems thrive on mechanisms that erode individual autonomy, instill fear, and enforce compliance, often under the guise of moral or spiritual superiority. 

This thesis argues that Islam functions as such a system, drawing parallels to coercive control in cults and domestic abuse. It employs examples of indoctrination from childhood, coercion through threats of punishment, controlling behaviors embedded in doctrine and society, and the resulting pathological effects on individuals and communities. These elements create a cycle of psychological trauma, suppression of dissent, and generational harm. Critics have long highlighted these aspects, viewing Islam not merely as a faith but as a totalizing ideology that prioritizes submission over personal freedom.

Indoctrination: The Early Capture of the Mind

Indoctrination in Islam begins at birth, embedding beliefs before critical thinking develops, much like how abusive environments condition victims from infancy. This process mirrors cult tactics, where repetition, fear, and isolation shape identity. As Dan Burmawi notes, “Islam gets the first shot at the human mind. Every other violent or totalitarian ideology must fight its way into your worldview… Islam doesn’t need to do that. It gets there first.”  This early access allows Islam to fuse faith with self-concept, making questioning equivalent to self-betrayal.

The Quran and Hadith facilitate this through repetitive affirmations that believers are “witnesses” to divine acts they never saw, fostering a false sense of participation. As explained in a post by Ex-Muslims of Norway, “The contents of the Quran and Hadith are filled with repeated content part of the brainwashing process. But more disturbing is that it regularly suggests that ‘you’ were a witness to things that you could not possibly have been there.”  This technique, akin to coercive behavior in cults, repeats lies until they become internalized truths, leading to addiction-like dependence on the system for validation.

Children are taught to equate obedience with survival, suppressing natural curiosity. Sana Ebrahimi recounts her experience: “I felt so deeply sorry for my younger self… crying herself to sleep at night, terrified by the vivid, graphic descriptions of torture in hell that were supposedly waiting for ‘sinners.’”  Such indoctrination instills lifelong fear, pathological in its erosion of mental health, and ensures the system’s perpetuation across generations.

Coercion: Threats and Enforcement of Compliance

Coercion in Islam manifests through explicit and implicit threats, paralleling abusive relationships where leaving incurs severe penalties. Apostasy is treated as treason, with historical and doctrinal roots in viewing defection as a denial of allegiance. Wael Hallaq states that “[in] a culture whose lynchpin is religion, religious principles and religious morality, apostasy is in some way equivalent to high treason in the modern nation-state.”  This framing justifies coercion, from social ostracism to capital punishment, enforcing loyalty through fear.

In Islamic societies, this extends to everyday life, where deviation invites punishment. Bernard Lewis reinforces this by describing apostasy as “a withdrawal, a denial of allegiance as well as of religious belief and loyalty.”  Such doctrines create a coercive environment, suppressing intellectual freedom and innovation, as noted by C. E. Bosworth: “The traditional view of apostasy hampered the development of Islamic learning, like philosophy and natural science, out of fear that these could evolve into potential toe-holds for kufr.” 

Personal accounts highlight this pathology. Shelby Shelberson observes, “An ideology so sure of itself that it calls for those who wish to leave to be shunned and cast out. An apostate and for the really hardcore believers such apostates should be killed.”  This coercive framework breeds paranoia and self-policing, pathological traits that mirror trauma responses in abuse survivors.

Controlling Behaviours: Total Domination of Life and Society

Islam’s controlling nature permeates all aspects of life, from personal conduct to societal laws, resembling coercive control in cults where autonomy is systematically dismantled. Sharia enforces rigid norms, often justifying abuse under religious pretexts. In “Coercive Control of Muslim South Asian Women,” the experiences include “criticism and verbal abuse by perpetrators,” illustrating how doctrine enables control over women and minorities. 

The deity’s portrayal reinforces this: distant and punitive, demanding submission without reciprocity. Dan Burmawi describes it as “a God who is not for you but against you. He demands loyalty, submission, and sacrifice, but offers no love, no relationship, no assurance.”  This mirrors an abusive authority figure, fostering societies where control is normalized.

Critics liken Islam to a cult due to its totalizing demands. As one Reddit user states, “Islam fulfills the requirement needed to be cult. … A supremacist ideology: Muslims were taught to believe that they are right and superior to all other religions and humans.”  Such control extends to historical practices like slavery and imperialism, critiqued for impacting native cultures abusively. 

Pathology and Abuse: The Psychological Toll

The pathology of Islam as an abusive system lies in its infliction of trauma, akin to spiritual abuse in cults. “An Application of the Coercive Control Framework to Cults” notes that “Coercive control is defined as an abusive power dynamic maintained by the ongoing,” with elements like sexual coercion and degradation.  In Islam, this manifests in fear-based obedience and moral rigidity.

Dan Burmawi elaborates: “The image of God in Islam, distant, punitive, and obsessed with submission, functions psychologically like an abusive parent. … The result is generational trauma, encoded into law, culture, and identity.”  This leads to suppressed thought and survival-mode existence.

Spiritual abuse is defined as “control and coercion in a religious” context, often involving manipulation.  Sana Ebrahimi concludes, “You’ll never fully grasp the level of psychological abuse and hatred that’s baked into Islam. Every religion has its extremists, but Islam is a cult where even the so-called moderates cling to deeply harmful practices.” 

Conclusion

Islam operates as an abusive system through indoctrination that captures minds early, coercion that punishes dissent, control that dominates life, and pathologies that inflict lasting harm. Unlike faiths emphasizing grace, Islam’s emphasis on fear and submission perpetuates abuse. Reform is stifled by its totalizing nature, demanding scrutiny to protect individual freedoms.

Index by Title and Author

•  An Application of the Coercive Control Framework to Cults, Anonymous (CUNY Academic Works)

•  Coercive Control of Muslim South Asian Women, Anonymous (University of Huddersfield)

•  Criticism of Islam, Wikipedia Contributors

•  Cults, Mind Control, Thought Reform, and Abusive Groups, Anonymous (Academia.edu)

•  Islam as an Abusive System (X Post), Dan Burmawi

•  Psychological Abuse in Islam (X Post), Sana Ebrahimi

•  Spiritual Abuse Among Cult Ex-members, Anonymous (ProQuest)

•  The Quran’s Brainwashing Process (X Post), Ex-Muslims of Norway

Invisible Violence in Islam

 

Forms of Invisible Violence in Islam: An Analysis through Bourdieu’s Symbolic Violence, Galtung’s Structural Violence, Stark’s Coercive Control, and Gramsci’s Hegemony

Abstract

This thesis examines manifestations of violence within Islamic contexts through interdisciplinary lenses of power and domination. 

Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, Johan Galtung’s structural violence, Evan Stark’s coercive control, and Antonio Gramsci’s cultural hegemony, it argues that Islam, as a socio-religious system, perpetuates subtle forms of harm through discourse, institutions, and relational dynamics. These theories reveal how violence is normalized, internalized, and reproduced, often without overt physical force. 

Using examples from Indonesian religious discourse, Quranic interpretations, patriarchal family structures, and political movements, the analysis highlights the interplay of these mechanisms in maintaining hierarchies. 

The study concludes that recognizing these invisible violences is essential for fostering equitable reforms within Islamic societies.

Table of Contents

•  Introduction

•  Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework

•  1.1 Bourdieu’s Symbolic Violence

•  1.2 Galtung’s Structural Violence

•  1.3 Stark’s Coercive Control

•  1.4 Gramsci’s Cultural Hegemony

•  Chapter 2: Symbolic Violence in Islamic Religious Discourse

•  Chapter 3: Structural Violence in Islamic Social Structures

•  Chapter 4: Coercive Control in Islamic Patriarchal Relations

•  Chapter 5: Hegemonic Reproduction in Political Islam

•  Conclusion

•  Bibliography

Introduction

Islam, as one of the world’s major religions, encompasses diverse doctrines, practices, and socio-political expressions. However, beneath its emphasis on justice (adl) and community (ummah), scholars have identified embedded mechanisms of domination that align with theories of subtle violence. 

This thesis applies Bourdieu’s symbolic violence, where domination is misrecognised as natural, to Islamic discourses that marginalise minorities. Galtung’s structural violence, embedded in unequal institutions, illuminates systemic inequalities in Muslim-majority societies. Stark’s coercive control framework exposes gendered entrapments in family dynamics, while Gramsci’s hegemony elucidates how Islamic ideologies secure consent for power imbalances. 

These lenses, interconnected through their focus on non-physical coercion, reveal Islam not as inherently violent but as a site where power asymmetries produce harm. By integrating quotes and examples from scholarly sources, this analysis substantiates a critical yet constructive perspective, advocating for awareness as a path to emancipation.

Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework

1.1 Bourdieu’s Symbolic Violence

Pierre Bourdieu conceptualizes symbolic violence as a form of power exercised through misrecognition, where the dominated collude in their own subordination by accepting imposed meanings as legitimate. As Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) state, it is “the violence which is exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity” (p. 167).  

This violence operates via habitusinternalized dispositions—and doxa—the unquestioned naturalization of social order—rendering inequality invisible. In religious contexts, language and symbols become tools of this imposition, as Bourdieu (1991) notes in Language and Symbolic Power: “language is an instrument of power and an object of symbolic struggles” (p. 105). 

1.2 Galtung’s Structural Violence

Johan Galtung extends violence beyond direct acts to structural forms inherent in social arrangements that prevent human potential. He defines it as “violence without this relation [to a personal actor], built into structure,” where inequality in power distribution is the core formula (Galtung, 1969, p. 171).  

Complementing this is cultural violence, which legitimizes structural harms through ideologies like religion. Galtung (1990) elaborates: “The general formula behind structural violence is inequality, above all in the distribution of power” (p. 291).  In Islamic societies, this manifests in institutionalised disparities, such as gender or sectarian inequalities.

1.3 Stark’s Coercive Control

Evan Stark reframes intimate partner abuse as coercive control, a liberty crime that erodes victims’ autonomy through isolation, surveillance, and exploitation, rather than isolated incidents. He describes it as creating “an unreal world… entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction and fear” (Stark, 2007, p. 256).

Grounded in gender privilege, it treats abuse as a course of conduct subverting equality. Stark (2007) emphasizes: “Coercive control is a framework of abuse that erodes a victim-survivor’s autonomy and agency” (p. 5).  Applied to patriarchal religions, it highlights how doctrinal norms enable entrapment.

1.4 Gramsci’s Cultural Hegemony

Antonio Gramsci’s hegemony describes how ruling classes maintain dominance through cultural and ideological consent, rather than coercion alone. In Prison Notebooks, he argues that “every relationship of hegemony is necessarily an educational one” (Gramsci, 1971, p. 350).  Similar to symbolic violence, it involves organic intellectuals disseminating dominant ideas. In Islam, this appears in how political movements like the Muslim Brotherhood construct consent for Islamist governance.

Chapter 2: Symbolic Violence in Islamic Religious Discourse

Bourdieu’s framework illuminates how Islamic discourse in Indonesia perpetuates symbolic violence by naturalizing dominance. Alfian (2022) argues that discourses like “agama vs. kepercayaan” and “moderasi beragama” position Islam as the benchmark, marginalizing indigenous beliefs and dissenting sects. 

As Alfian notes: “The dominant class in the religious aspect in Indonesia is… Islam. This dominant class can impose all its views… and the views of this dominant class then justify their treatment and actions towards other classes” (p. 208). 

In “agama vs. kepercayaan,” Islam monopolizes legitimacy, labeling local faiths (e.g., Tolotang) as inferior, coercing conversions via ID card requirements. This echoes Bourdieu’s doxa, where victims internalize inferiority. Similarly, “moderasi beragama,” ostensibly anti-extremist, euphemistically represses groups like Ahmadiyya or HTI. Alfian quotes policy documents: “religious moderation was developed as ‘ammunition… in tackling extreme religious beliefs’” (p. 212), leading to textbook revisions removing “jihad” and “khilafah.”  

The 2021 burning of an Ahmadiyya mosque in Sintang exemplifies this: officials cited non-compliance with “Islamic criteria” (Alfian, 2022, p. 212). Thus, symbolic violence renders Islamic hegemony as “natural,” silencing dissent through misrecognition.

Chapter 3: Structural Violence in Islamic Social Structures

Galtung’s structural violence reveals how Islamic institutions embed inequalities, often justified culturally via Quranic interpretations. While some analyses apply this to anti-Muslim pogroms, the framework adapts to intra-Islamic harms, such as sectarian or gender disparities. 

In Violence Inflicted on Muslims, Chakravarti (2011) describes how “direct violence reinforces structural violence, and how cultural violence is used to justify both” (p. 15), a dynamic mirrored in societies like Pakistan, where blasphemy laws structurally marginalize minorities within Islam. 

Quranic teachings, per Ghaffari (2020), refute structural violence, emphasizing equality, yet misapplications perpetuate it. Ghaffari argues that verses on prophetic missions oppose “taghut” (oppressive structures) akin to pharaonic inequality, aligning with Galtung’s power disparities. 

However, in practice, patriarchal inheritance laws (e.g., Quran 4:11 favoring males) institutionalize gender-based deprivation, causing “unequal chances at living and thriving” (Galtung, 1969).  In Saudi Arabia or Iran, guardianship systems structurally limit women’s mobility, echoing Galtung’s inequality formula. Cultural violence, via hadith interpretations, legitimizes this as divine order, perpetuating harm without direct intent.

Chapter 4: Coercive Control in Islamic Patriarchal Relations

Stark’s coercive control applies to Islamic family law, where patriarchal norms entrap women through isolation and surveillance, often doctrinally sanctioned. 

In Muslim South Asian contexts, Thiaré (2020) documents how in-law abuse deploys coercion, exploiting religious ideals of obedience (e.g., Quran 4:34 on wifely submission). Stark’s model fits: abusers create “confusion, contradiction and fear” via fatwas threatening divorce or hellfire (Stark, 2007, p. 256). 

UK studies on Muslim domestic abuse highlight coercive tactics like monitoring veiling or mobility, grounded in gender privilege (Shah, 2023). As Stark (2018) updates: “Coercive control… obstructs the equality project by subverting… efforts” (p. 10).  

Polygamy allowances (Quran 4:3) enable exploitation, isolating wives economically. In mediation, Islamic evaluative processes can reinforce control, preventing divorce and entrenching dependency (Abu-Lughod, 2025). This “liberty crime” (Stark, 2007) underscores how religious patriarchy normalizes entrapment.

Chapter 5: Hegemonic Reproduction in Political Islam

Gramsci’s hegemony complements prior theories by explaining consent in Islamist movements. In Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Kandil (2021) applies Gramsci: “hegemony and education are interlinked,” where the group educates masses to consent to Sharia governance (p. 350).  This mirrors symbolic violence, as ideologies like “revelation or revolution” secure dominance (Sayyid, 2003).

In Turkey’s AKP, Tugal (2025) describes an “Islamically toned neoliberal hegemony,” where cultural symbols co-opt dissent, akin to Galtung’s cultural violence. Gramsci’s organic intellectuals—clerics—disseminate this, naturalizing inequality. Al-Qaeda’s terrorism, per E-International Relations (2019), challenges Western hegemony but reproduces internal coercion, demanding consent through fatwas. Thus, hegemony sustains invisible violence by framing Islamist rule as consensual progress.

Conclusion

This thesis demonstrates how Bourdieu, Galtung, Stark, and Gramsci unveil invisible violences in Islam: symbolic misrecognition in discourse, structural inequalities in institutions, coercive entrapments in families, and hegemonic consent in politics. Quotes like Bourdieu’s complicity and Galtung’s inequality underscore their substantiation. 

While Islam’s core texts advocate peace, misapplications entrench harm. Future research should explore emancipatory counter-hegemonies, such as feminist ijtihad, to dismantle these structures. Ultimately, visibility is the antidote to these violences, enabling transformative justice.

Bibliography

•  Abu-Lughod, L. (2025). Muslim Women’s Experiences of Islamic Evaluative Mediation. Taylor & Francis.

•  Alfian, A. (2022). Symbolic Violence in Religious Discourse in Indonesia. ResearchGate Publications.

•  Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.

•  Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press.

•  Chakravarti, U. (2011). Violence Inflicted on Muslims: Direct, Cultural and Structural. Economic and Political Weekly.

•  E-International Relations. (2019). Terrorism and the End of Western Hegemony: A Gramscian Perspective. E-International Relations.

•  Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research.

•  Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research.

•  Ghaffari, M. (2020). An Investigation into Peace and Violence in the Quranic Teachings. Peace Dialogue Magazine.

•  Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers.

•  Kandil, H. (2021). The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: A Gramscian Re-Examination. Sage Journals.

•  Sayyid, S. (2003). Revelation or Revolution: A Gramscian Approach to the Rise of Political Islam. Taylor & Francis.

•  Shah, S. (2023). The Role of Religion in Domestic Violence and Abuse in UK Muslim Communities. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion.

•  Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Oxford University Press.

•  Stark, E. (2018). Coercive Control: Update and Review. Sage Journals.

•  Thiaré, A. (2020). Coercive Control of Muslim South Asian Women. University of Huddersfield.

•  Tugal, C. (2025). An Islamically Toned Neoliberal Hegemony Project. Springer.