Conceptual language

On reading the literature review in Chapters 2 and 3, the reader may have noticed traces of complexity language, both explicitly and implicitly, within the description of organised crime, terrorism and the crime-terror nexus. These traces appear as likenesses or similarities in the descriptions, that resonate with the core concepts of complexity, and therefore, may form a conceptual basis to develop the new model. As noted by Bousquet and Curtis (2011:59), ‘some of the conceptual language of complexity simply did not exist more than a few decades ago’.

As a recap from Chapter 3, complexity is concerned with the behaviour of a system, meaning that any single part of a system can only be understood with reference to the entire system which requires a consideration at both the local and global level. The system comprises multiple elements that are interconnected through local interactions that tend to be non-linear, feedback on each other and do not have to be physical, i.e. can transfer information. Fractals identify patterns

that are easy to see at one scale, but not at another. Attractors produce an order within the disorder of the system, and in doing so create patterns and structures that give a complex system its stability and as such, both order and disorder can coexist. The Lorenz attractor, also known as a butterfly attractor, has the shape of two wings or outcome basins with a clear nexus between the two; the point of most uncertainty is at this nexus. The boundaries between the system and its environment are indistinct and dynamic and more importantly, the system can adapt to changes in its internal and external environment. The system has a history, which largely determines its current structure, internal organisation and behaviour, and is often capable of learning and self-organisation, which allows the system to adapt, evolve and survive. Finally, the system demonstrates emergent properties as the whole is more than a sum of its parts. When two or more complex systems reciprocally affect each other’s evolution, they co-evolve and allegiances and alliances may form. For allegiances and alliances to form, complex systems must be sensitised to one another and feel some sense of common identity or common purpose. Each complex system maintains its own identity and focuses on its own well-being, but certain parts will change to the extent needed to accommodate one another and compromises made.

In Chapter 2, in the descriptions of organised crime, terrorism and the crime-terror nexus, the following traces of complexity language may be found with emphasis added that resonate with the core concepts of complexity and thus lend themselves to explanations through the new model.

Organised crime

In the description of organised crime by Levi (2007:795), organised crime may be considered as a ‘dynamic process that evolves as offenders adapt (or fail to adapt) to their changing environment’. Moreover, according to a report from the Australian Crime Commission (2015:7-10), organised crime has an ‘increasingly complex nature’ and is global with the ability to adapt to market requirements and demands. More importantly, Findlay (2008:68) argues that organised crime ‘requires comparative analysis from the local to the global if the complex nature of criminal enterprise is to be understood at all the vital phases of its organisation’. In relation to the two-tiered structure of criminal groups, Levi and Maguire (2004:398) argue the concept of a fractal, in that ‘although small organisations and even individuals may be socially dangerous…larger criminal organisations develop reputational

benefits as well as economies of scale…creating a cumulatively greater social threat’. Von Lampe (2016:5) also notes, ‘one of the main challenges in the study of organised crime is to sort through the myriad social relations of criminals and to understand how these relations influence and shape criminal behaviour’. Furthermore, the structures formed are also influenced by the type of criminal activities carried out and ‘the notion that criminals organise themselves to respond to specific needs’ (von Lampe 2016:101). As pointed out by van de Bunt et al (2014:321), while ‘organised crime groups are often portrayed as entities that derive their strength from strong internal cohesion’, at the same time, ‘instead of operating in a social vacuum, organised crime has a habit of interacting with its social environment’.

Terrorism

In terrorism, English (2015:20) argues that ‘the emergent picture…will be complex’ and Hoffmann (2006:4) points out that the Reign of Terror where the word terrorism was first coined ‘was neither random nor indiscriminate…but was organised, deliberate, and systematic’. As Franks (2006:34) argues, ‘societies can be sensitised to accept different levels of violence depending on their history and experience’. For example, in South America, Africa and the Middle East, a culture of violence has developed that ‘tends to perpetuate itself’ (Franks 2006:34). Moreover, White and Perrone (2015:296) note that terrorism ‘has layers of complexity that need to be drawn out’.

Crime-terror nexus

In the statement by the United Nations Secretary-General, Ki-moon (2015), reference was made to ‘terrorists and criminals around the world are coming together and feeding off each other...we must take a comprehensive approach…we must work to stop crime and extremism being seen as attractive or necessary options’. According to Shelley et al (2005:4), the ‘interaction between terrorism and organised crime is growing deeper and more complex all the time’. Furthermore, the Australian Federal Justice Minister, Michael Keenan, observes that, ‘the links between terrorism and organised crime are [still] emerging and complex problems’ (interview in Box 2015). Moreover, ‘the fluid environment within which terrorist and organised crime groups operate provides both threats and opportunities’ (Grabosky & Stohl 2010:71). As Makarenko (2011:238) argues, ‘the better an

organisation learns and adapts to its environment in the context of the crime-terror nexus, the greater the threat it is likely to pose on a multiple of levels’. Grabosky and Stohl (2010:79) also summarise the increasing networks arising between criminals and terrorists as ‘temporary, dynamic, emergent, adaptive, entrepreneurial and flexible structures’. Of particular note, as organised crime and terrorist groups seek similar operational environments, ‘it is natural that their paths converge’ (Joint Forces Staff College 2015:17). Essentially this growing trend of illicit partnership is fuelled by ‘ungoverned spaces’, where both groups prosper, leading to ‘a pattern [that] is self-perpetuating’ (Joint Forces Staff College 2015:17). Moreover, in organisational studies (Uhl-Bien & Marion 1999), interconnectivity is associated with a shared need where individuals interact to accomplish a task, goal, objective, or vision. If a shared need is not felt, then individuals will not be motivated to engage. In interpersonal networks, Granovetter (1973:1360) argues that ‘small-scale interaction becomes translated into large-scale patterns, and that these, in turn, feed back into small groups’. Finally, Grabosky and Stohl (2010:127) recognise that ‘the problems of organised crime and terrorism have long histories and deep roots within the communities in which they have arisen’ and that any approach to understanding these problems must recognise ‘the history and context in which the problems and the organisations have emerged’.

Based on this analysis, the conceptual language of complexity lends itself well to organised crime, terrorism and the crime-terror nexus. This conceptual resonance with complexity is expressed in the very language itself. The common features are surprisingly many: systems operating at both a local and global level, the co- existence of order and disorder in a dynamic and non-linear fashion, the application of fractals, attractors and feedback loops, the ability to learn and adapt, the notion of a nexus between two worlds and systems reciprocally affecting each other’s evolution where allegiances and alliances may form.

As such, in developing the new model through a complexity lens, as highlighted and summarised in Chapter 1, new definitions of organised crime, terrorism and the crime-terror nexus may be constructed as follows:

• Organised crime: a complex system (i.e. a criminal group) comprising a

number of interacting, self-organising, dynamic and emergent properties, including individuals, and also interacts with other groups, individuals

and its environment, all of which are mutually influencing.

• Terrorism: a complex system (i.e. a criminal or criminalised group)

comprising a number of interacting, self-organising, dynamic and emergent properties, including individuals, and also interacts with other groups, individuals and its environment, all of which are mutually influencing.

• Crime-terror nexus: a complex system (i.e. a criminal or criminalised

group) which evolves, or two or more complex systems which evolve and reciprocally affect each other’s evolution and co-evolve to form a different or new complex system or systems (i.e. groups).

Supporting this approach, is the philosophical lens of epistemology and ontology (eds Arrigo & Williams 2006; Byrne & Callaghan 2014). As highlighted in Chapter 1 and subsequently discussed in Chapter 8, in developing a new model of complexity, reality is seen through a world of complex systems, and if we want to understand organised crime, terrorism and the crime-terror nexus through the new model, we need to understand it in those terms.