This paper demonstrates possibility and practicability of using anthropological approaches to the study of activities of religious extremist groups. It is based on M. Douglas’ concept of binary oppositions – the opposition of «purity» and «impurity». The content of the categories of «purity» and «impurity» has been considered in relation to religious extremists, Islamic extremists in particular. When considering extremist activity a legislative aspect has been emphasized. Institutional arrangements and manifestations of religious radicalism demonstrate a specific worldview, shaped in keeping with political goals. This makes it possible to consider the activity of religious radicals in the frame of the religious community or the extremist religious community depending on the action committed. A distinctive behavior pattern and way of thinking, peculiarities of the participants’ worldview make it possible to study their activity as the activity of holders of the «religious extremist culture». The author has described the mechanisms of the influence on the behavior and consciousness of religious extremists based on natural psychological properties. Binary perception of the reality, attitude to purity and impurity, the desire to protect themselves from harmful phenomena are aimed at establishing the position of «we-they» by religious extremist organizations. This is revealed while interpreting processes and phenomena focusing on ideologically justified ones and those corroborating verity, other ones being presented to be unsubstantial. The extremist community members declare their intention to provide assistance to any person, reveal his or her spiritual nature, provide opportunities for personal realization, and at the same time there is gradually individual worldview is replaced by collective ideas. Thus, when interpreting social reality, religious extremist organizarions function as thinking communities.

Izluchenko Tatyana Vladimirovna, Candidate of Sciences (Philosophy), Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Siberian Federal University, 79, Svobodny av., Krasnoyarsk, 660041, Russian Federation, tel.: 8(391)2062669, e-mail: izluchenko@mail.ru

Izluchenko T. V. The Concepts of «Purity» and «Impurity» in Religious Extremism. The Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series Political Science and Religion Studies. 2018, vol. 25, pp. 103-119. https://doi.org/10.26516/2073-3380.2018.25.103 (in Russian)

1. Akkuratova L.O. Problematization of order and desecration in the work of Mary Douglas «Purity and danger». Light of Christ enlightens all: almanac of St. Philaret Orthodox Christian Institute, 2014, vol. 9, pp. 32-43. (in Russian)
2. Astakhova L.S., Tokranov A.V. Destructiveness in religious behavior: on the methodology of studying new religious movements. Scientific notes of Kazan state University. Series: Humanities, 2007, N 5, pp. 23-32. (in Russian)
3. Gavrilov S.O. «Zakonomernosti korreliatsionnykh vzaimosviazei religioznogo i sotsialʹnogo». Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2014, N 2-2, pp. 215-219. (in Russian)
4. Douglas M. How institutions think. Sociology of power, 2012, N 4-5, pp. 188-217. (in Russian)
5. Douglas M. Social control of consciousness: some forms of perception of acuity. Sociology of power, 2015, N 4, pp. 195-219. (in Russian)
6. Douglas M. Purity and danger an analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. Moscow, Kanon-press-TS, Kuchkovo pole Publ., 2000. 120 p. (in Russian)
7. Durkheim Ė. Sociology. Its subject, method, purpose. Moscow, Canon Publ., 1995. 352 p. (in Russian)
8. ZHuravskii A.V. Islam. Moscow, Whole world Publ., 2002. 224 p. (in Russian)
9. Kilkeev V.N. «Klifford Girts: the concept of culture and the semiotic approach to its study. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk state University, 2009, N 11, pp. 138-142. (in Russian)
10. Kutb S. War, peace and Islamic Jihad [Electronic resource]. Available at: http://www.strana-oz.ru/2003/5/voyna-mir-i-islamskiy-dzhihad (date of access: 20.05.2018). (in Russian)
11. Markova M. [Purity and danger: an analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo] / in-t sotsiologii ran, etc.; introd. art., comment. S. P. Bankovskaya. Moscow, Canon-press-C: Kuchkovo field Publ., 2000. 286 p. Social and human Sciences. Domestic and foreign literature. Series 5: History. Abstract journal, 2002, N 2, pp. 140-146. (in Russian)
12. Moiseev S. V. Islamic religious extremism as a factor of instability in modern Russia. Altai legal Bulletin, 2013, N 2, pp. 4-7. (in Russian)
13. Frazer Dzh. The Golden bough: a study in magic and religion. Moscow, Politizdat Publ., 1986. 706 p. (in Russian)
14. CHesnov IA.V. How to think anthropologically? Philosophy and culture, 2012, N 5, pp. 15-28. (in Russian)
15. Shahnovich M.M. Modern problems of cognitive religious studies. Analytical scientific review [Electronic resource]. Available at: http://philosophy.spbu.ru (date of access: 20.12.2017). (in Russian)
16. Al-Zewairi M., Naymat G. Spotting the Islamist Radical within: Religious Extremists Profiling in the United State. Procedia Computer Science, 2017, vol. 113, pp. 162-169.
17. Chan M., Madan Ch., Singhal A. The effects of taboo-related distraction on driving performance. Acta Psychologica, 2016, vol. 168, pp. 20-26.
18. Christianson K., Zhou P., Palmer C., Raizen A. Effects of context and individual differences on the processing of taboo words. Acta Psychologica, 2017, vol. 178, pp. 73-86.
19. Falco Ch., Rotondi V. The Less Extreme, the More You Leave: Radical Islam and Willingness to Migrate. World Development, 2016, vol. 88, pp. 122-133.
20. Hogg M., Meehan Ch., Farquharson Ja. The solace of radicalism: Self-uncertainty and group identification in the face of threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2010, vol. 46, pp. 1061-1066.
21. Juergensmeyer М. Religious Nationalism and the Secular State. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015, pp. 401-405.
22. Khalil R., Richa S. On cognitive debiasing and the judgment of suicide-attackersÀ propos de la correction du biais cognitif et du jugement des agresseurs-suicidaires. L'Encéphale, 2018. In Press.
23. Lambek M. Taboo. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001, pp. 15429-15431.
24. Levy N. Religious beliefs are factual beliefs: Content does not correlate with context sensitivity. Cognition, 2017, vol. 161, pp. 109-116.
25. Osei-Tutu P. Taboos as informal institutions of local resource management in Ghana: Why they are complied with or not. Forest Policy and Economics, 2017, vol. 85, is. 1, pp. 114-123.
26. Różycka-Tran J. Love thy neighbor? The effects of religious in/out-group identity on social behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 2017, vol. 115, pp. 7-12.
27. Stankov L. Psychological processes common to social conservatism and terrorism, Personality and Individual Differences, 2018, vol. 120, pp. 75-80. (in Russian)
28. Chorus C., Pudāne B., Mouter N., Campbell D. Taboo trade-off aversion: A discrete choice model and empirical analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 2018, vol. 27, pp. 37-49.
29. Yunos R., Mahmood Ch., Mansor N. Understanding Mechanisms to Promote Halal Industry-The Stakeholders’ Views. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014, vol. 130, pp. 160-166.