Living on the Edge: Extremism as an Existential Pursuit

By Sophia Moskalenko & Arie W. Kruglanski

Georgia State University & University of Maryland. April 30, 2025.

We live in an age of extremism. Political polarization, social media sensationalism, and escalating demands on achievement and identity made moderation an increasingly rare stance. But extremism, as we understand it, is far more than a political position or an act of terror. It is a psychological state—a motivational imbalance—that prioritizes one concern or idea above all others. Whether this pursuit results in greatness or catastrophe depends less on the psychological engine than on the road it travels.

In our recent book, The Psychology of the Extreme (2025), we explore the roots, expressions, and consequences of extremism in everyday life. Drawing on decades of empirical research and case studies that span from terrorists to Nobel laureates, we argue that extremism is not confined to the fringe but is a fundamental feature of the human condition (Kruglanski et al., 2021). This article highlights three key themes from the book that we believe offer a meaningful contribution to existential psychology: the search for significance, the dual nature of extremism, and the existential cost of living extremely.

The Quest for Significance

At the heart of extremism in most of its social manifestations lies the search for significance (Kruglanski et al., 2021). This motivational force—to matter, to be respected, to live a meaningful life that lends one worth—is universal. But when frustrated or threatened, the quest for significance can intensify and narrow in focus, leading individuals to adopt extreme goals and behaviors as a means of restoring self-worth. Whether the individual is a political radical, an extreme athlete, a religious devotee, or a workaholic, the dynamic is strikingly similar: a single-minded devotion to a cause or identity that promises to fulfill their existential needs.

This motivational dynamic echoes concerns at the heart of existential psychology: the drive for meaning, coherence, and purpose in an unpredictable world. We all seek to know that our lives matter. Extremism arises when this need is unmet or when the path to fulfillment becomes exclusive and consuming. Just like a need for food becomes an overwhelming obsession and singular pursuit when an individual is starving, so too, deprivation of personal significance results in its relentless and all-consuming passion. Thus, extremism is not merely a deviance from the norm but an intensification of a deeply human impulse.

To better understand this, consider the idea that our sense of identity is built through the stories we tell about ourselves—narratives that locate us in time, in society, and in moral space. Extremism emerges when one narrative becomes so dominant that all others fade away. The self becomes consumed by a single idea: I am a warrior, a martyr, a genius, a savior. In this reduction, clarity is gained, but nuance is lost. The world becomes black and white, us versus them, mission versus distraction. This clarity can be intoxicating, particularly in a world that feels fragmented and overwhelming.

The theory of significance quest, developed over years of research, posits that loss of significance—through humiliation, rejection, failure—can spark a compensatory effort to restore self-worth, often through extreme means (Kruglanski et al., 2021). Radical ideas, addictive behaviors, or obsessive pursuits offer a promise of redemption, a way to reclaim agency and importance. In this sense, extremism is a response to existential injury, a threat to one’s existential need to matter, to be important and respected.

Webber et al., (2018) conducted correlational survey studies among captured Islamic militants in Philippines (Study 1) and Tamil separatist fighters in Sri Lanka (Study 2), and experiments among the general American public (Studies 3-4). The experiments found that priming a loss of significance increased extreme (but not moderate) beliefs, and all studies found that loss of significance was associated with need for closure which was in turn associated with extremism.

For example, field studies utilizing semi-structured interviews and correlational survey studies with convicted political extremists imprisoned in the Philippines and Sri Lanka (Webber et al., 2018) assessed personal loss of significance (e.g., humiliation, marginalization) and measured need for closure (a desire for certainty) and the extremity of political attitudes. The results confirmed that the significance loss among these participants was positively related to their need for closure, and both were related to the extremity of political attitudes. In other words, in these populations with a history of extremism, participants who experienced greater loss of personal or social significance were expressing greater support for extreme ideologies or radical actions, particularly when seeking cognitive certainty.

These correlational findings were confirmed in laboratory experiments with American adults, where loss of significance was manipulated by having them recall and reflect on a time in their past when they suffered humiliation, and need for closure and politically extreme views were measured by self-report survey measures (Webber et al., 2018). Those participants who experienced experimentally induced loss of significance, as compared to those who did not, reported an increased need for closure, which was associated with increased political extremism. Experimental findings (Webber et al., 2018) extend the correlational, naturalistic research by showing the causal relationship between loss of significance and extremism.

Significance, however, is not always sought in isolation. Social contexts matter. Research shows that environments of instability, inequality, and marginalization tend to produce more individuals susceptible to extremist narratives (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2020; Kruglanski, Belanger, & Gunaratna, 2019; Kruglanski, Webber, & Koehler, 2019). When societies fail to provide inclusive opportunities for dignity and meaning, people may turn to narrower, more rigid ideologies to fulfill these unmet needs. In that sense, extremism is both a psychological and a cultural phenomenon.

There is a paradox embedded in the pursuit of significance: the more we seek to affirm our worth through extreme commitment, the more we risk disconnecting from the very relationships and communities that provide genuine affirmation (like family or friends). The desire to matter can become so overpowering that it blinds us to the fact that we already do.

What makes this search for significance so potent is its ability to align with archetypal narratives of heroism, sacrifice, and transcendence (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2018). Literature, religion, and national mythologies are replete with stories of the lone figure who gave everything to achieve something greater. Extremists, whether constructive or destructive, often see themselves in these terms. This sense of being chosen or called gives psychological legitimacy to their path—even when it leads to destruction.

In our current sociopolitical moment, where traditional paths to meaning—religion, community, stable work—are often eroding or in flux, the pressure to “self-construct” a meaningful life has intensified. Extremism, in this sense, offers a seductive solution. It provides a ready-made identity, a moral framework, and a sense of belonging—all crucial antidotes to existential anxiety.

 

The Dual Nature of Extremism

Extremism is neither inherently good nor evil. It is a psychological amplifier, capable of fueling both transcendent virtue and devastating harm. In The Psychology of the Extreme (2025), we explore this ambivalence through the mirrored biographies of Mahatma Gandhi and Osama bin Laden. Despite their vast moral divergence, their psychological profiles share remarkable similarities: both came from privileged backgrounds, both experienced early social isolation, both devoted themselves completely to a singular cause, and both sacrificed comfort, relationships, and eventually their lives for their beliefs.

Clockwise from top left: Gandhi’s studio portrait (1931), Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru at the drafting of the Quit India Resolution (1941), Gandhi walking the salt march, Gandhi as a young lawyer in South Africa (1909), Gandhi gathering salt to protest the British monopoly (1930), Gandhi spinning thread as a symbol of anti-colonialism (c. 1920).

Gandhi's extremism was constructive. His commitment to nonviolence and civil disobedience reshaped empires and inspired global movements for justice. He subjected himself to hunger, imprisonment, and loss, and he insisted that those around him do the same. His extremism was not without cost to his loved ones—his wife and son physically suffered due to his rejection of Western medicine—but it was ultimately aimed at liberation, dignity, and peace.

Bin Laden's extremism was destructive. His devotion to a radical ideology catalyzed mass violence, suffering, and division. Yet like Gandhi, he sacrificed wealth and comfort, rejected mainstream norms, and built a global movement based on a singular vision. The comparison is not one of moral equivalence, but of psychological structure: both men exemplify what we call one-track-mindedness, the prioritization of a singular goal to the exclusion of all else.

This idea has implications beyond historical figures. In daily life, extremism can be found in the artist who works through the night, neglecting food and family; the activist who sacrifices career and comfort for a cause; the athlete who trains through injury, believing pain is proof of purpose. These are not moral failings—they are often admired. Yet they share with more destructive forms of extremism a kind of tunnel vision, a psychological narrowing that can both elevate and endanger (Kruglanski et al., 2021).

In the realm of existential psychology, this dual nature invites a reframing. Instead of pathologizing extremism, we might see it as a resource—a powerful engine of human action—that must be directed wisely. What distinguishes the saint from the terrorist may be not passion but purpose. And what distinguishes fulfillment from obsession may be not effort but integration: the ability to pursue meaning without collapsing all other needs.

Left to right from top: Osama bin Laden, with Ayman al-Zawahiri, being interviewed by Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir (c. 1997-98); the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York, the 1998 US Embassy bombing in Nairobi Kenya, and the 2001 World Trade Center attacks in New York.

It’s important to highlight that the path from commitment to extremism often involves social validation and reinforcement. Radicalization, in its many forms, is rarely a solo journey. It involves mentors, communities, and ideologies that reward single-mindedness and punish doubt. In our research, we found that belonging to a group that valorizes extremist behavior often solidifies one’s trajectory (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2016; Kruglanski, Belanger, & Gunaratna, 2019). Thus, one’s community—whether it’s a terrorist cell, an online forum, or a corporate culture—can either tether one to moderation or accelerate the spiral into extremism.

Modern life offers fewer havens for ambiguity and moderation. The culture of “hot takes,” loyalty tests, and branding of the self as a product discourages ambivalence. Social media algorithms favor extreme content; political discourse rewards polarization. In such a climate, the subtle, complex middle path often goes unnoticed. The psychological terrain is skewed toward extremity.

We also argue that extremism tends to feed off crisis. It thrives where uncertainty reigns, offering simplistic answers to complex problems. The call to act, to commit, to fight or to resist is amplified in moments of social upheaval or personal loss. Constructive extremism might flourish in the wake of oppression—witness Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.— but so may destructive extremism – as an angry response to perceived humiliation or injustice. Understanding these patterns, and the conditions under which they emerge allows us to predict and potentially intervene in the development of extremist trajectories.

 

The Existential Costs of Extremism

Whether its effects are prosocial or antisocial, extremism almost always takes a toll on the individual. Extreme focus on one goal often comes at the expense of other fundamental needs: physical health, social relationships, and emotional balance. Consider Steve Jobs, whose obsessive pursuit of aesthetic perfection and innovation reshaped technology—but also alienated colleagues, strained personal ties, and arguably contributed to his early death through delayed medical treatment (Isaacson, 2011). Or consider historical figures like Newton and Balzac, whose relentless dedication to science or art led to physical neglect and mental strain (Rood, 2012; Wiener, 2016).

Clockwise from left: The Three Pillars of Radicalization (Kruglanski, Belanger, & Gunaratna, 2019); The Radical’s Journey (Kruglanski, Webber, & Koehler, 2019); Radicalization to Terrorism (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2020); The Marvel of Martyrdom (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2018); Friction (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2016).

In our book, we discuss the role of early isolation in the development of extremist tendencies. Gandhi’s time alone in London and later in South Africa sharpened his ideas about colonialism and justice (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2018). Bin Laden’s rejection of Western entertainment and his withdrawal from peers marked the beginnings of his ideological fervor (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2016). Steve Jobs, too, was often described as a loner, obsessed with design and detail to the exclusion of social norms or basic hygiene (Isaacson, 2011). Social isolation can both precede and follow extremism. When one’s devotion to a cause makes one unrelatable to others, the only community that feels welcoming is one of fellow believers.

This feedback loop is intensified by modern technology. Social media and online platforms make it easier than ever to find like-minded extremists, to receive validation for one's ideas, and to cut off dissenting voices. In this digital echo chamber, extremism can flourish unchecked. Yet even in more benign forms—devotion to work, wellness, or even parenting—the extremity of focus can erode other aspects of self and life.

The existential costs are not only interpersonal or physical. They are also spiritual. To live extremely is to live with constant urgency. There is little space for ambivalence, for rest, for playful exploration. Life becomes a project, and the self a tool. The reward is clarity, but the price is complexity.

Some individuals experience deep inner conflict when they begin to recognize the toll their extreme path has taken. Others double down, rationalizing sacrifices as necessary. This phenomenon—what psychologists call “effort justification” (Rosenfeld et al., 1984) or “cognitive dissonance” (Festinger, 1962)—can entrench extremism even further. The more one has given up, the more invested they become in believing the sacrifice was worth it. This cycle is as true for the passionate revolutionary as for the overworked executive. Without careful reflection, extremism can become self-reinforcing.

These personal costs often ripple outward. Family members, friends, and colleagues of extremists can suffer collateral damage. The workaholic who never comes home, the ideologue who refuses to tolerate dissent, the perfectionist whose standards make collaboration impossible—each disrupts not only their own well-being but that of others. In this way, extremism strains the social fabric. It isolates the individual and erodes community.

There is also the matter of recovery. Once someone has lived extremely—especially for a cause they later come to question—the path back to balance can be disorienting. The loss of identity, community, and mission can feel like a form of death. Therapeutic and social support systems must be equipped to help individuals navigate not only deradicalization but reintegration. That process, often overlooked, is essential to turning the lessons of extremism into opportunities for growth.

 

Inviting Extremism to Tea

The demons of Mara (shown on an 11th century palm leaf manuscript, Nilanda, Bihar) used thirst, discontent, and attachment/desire to tempt Siddhartha Gautama away from Enlightenment. Ultimately, Buddha achieved peace with Mara by mindfully acknowledging and accepting the Mara’s distracting forces (he “invited them to tea”).

A Buddhist parable describes a demon, Mara, repeatedly tempting the Buddha––with anger, gluttony, lust or fear––and though the Buddha fought the demon again and again, he could not prevail. In the end, rather than resisting Mara, the Buddha acknowledged the demon and invited him to tea. From then on, whenever Mara appeared in one of his many disguises, the Buddha said, “I see you, Mara,” and invited him to tea, and they would sit together and then part peacefully. We offer this story as a metaphor for a new approach to extremism: not denial, not suppression, but awareness and redirection. Extremism, like Mara, is a part of us. It reflects our desire to matter, our hunger for meaning, our yearning for impact.

By recognizing the extreme within ourselves and others, we create the possibility of transforming its energy into creative, life-affirming pursuits. The Australian man, Don Ritchie, who saved over 180 lives by simply offering a cup of tea to strangers on the brink of jumping off a cliff across from Ritchie’s house (Benson, 2009), reminds us that even the smallest acts of acknowledgment can interrupt the spiral of extremism.

This approach is not naïve optimism. It is strategic compassion. The same energy that fuels fanaticism can fuel innovation, empathy, and resilience. The key is not to extinguish extremism but to guide it. This requires existential courage: the willingness to sit with discomfort, to question one's own motives, and to embrace paradox.

In practical terms, this means cultivating environments where multiple meanings can coexist, where identity is not reduced to a single role or belief, and where failure is not a threat to dignity but a step in growth. It means teaching ourselves and others to hold passion alongside humility, and purpose alongside perspective.

Therapeutic approaches rooted in existential and narrative traditions may be particularly well-suited for this work. By helping individuals construct more nuanced, multi-faceted identities, they can be guided in integrating their intense drives into a more balanced life story. Similarly, community-level interventions that promote pluralism, civic engagement, and social cohesion can help redirect destructive extremism into constructive channels.

Conclusion

Extremism is not an aberration. It is a feature of human psychology, amplified by a world that often demands total devotion, instant results, and unyielding identity. Within that feature lies both danger and potential. Existential psychology offers a vital framework for navigating this terrain, helping us understand why we go to extremes and how we might return.

We argue for a deeper cultural shift—a revaluation of moderation, ambiguity, and complexity. We need narratives that celebrate slow progress, shared meaning, and integrative purpose. We need to normalize lives that are rich in contradictions, that allow for rest as well as urgency, for being as well as doing. In our age of overdrive, perhaps the greatest act of rebellion is not to reject extremism outright, but to face it, engage it, and gently steer it toward meaning, compassion, and balance.

If we can learn to recognize and work with the psychological forces behind extremism—rather than simply reject or ignore them—we may find ways to steer that energy in more helpful directions. This work calls for both personal reflection and support from our social and cultural systems. In the end, understanding extremism in this way may help people bring strong motivations into better balance with the rest of their lives

Sophia Moskalenko received her Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 2004. Her research on terrorism and radicalization has been presented at scientific conferences, government briefings, radio broadcasts, and international television newscasts. As a research fellow at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (NC-START) she has worked on research projects commissioned by the Department of Defence, Department of Homeland Security and Department of State. With Clark McCauley, she has co-authored the award-winning Friction: How Conflict Radicalizes Them and Us, The Marvel of Martyrdom: The Power of Self-Sacrifice in the Selfish World, and Radicalization to Terrorism: What everyone needs to know.

Arie W. Kruglanski is a Distinguished University Professor, a recipient of numerous awards, and is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science. He has served as editor of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition, editor of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and associate editor of the American Psychologist. His work in the domains of human judgment and belief formation, the motivation-cognition interface, group and intergroup processes, and the psychology of human goals has been disseminated in over 300 articles, chapters, and books, and has been continuously supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, NIMH, Deutsche Forschungs Gemeineschaft, the Ford Foundation, and the Israeli Academy of Science. As a founding Co-PI and Co-Director of START (National Center for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism), Kruglanski also conducts research with the support of grants from the Department for Homeland Security and from the Department of Defense on the psychological processes behind radicalization, deradicalization, and terrorism.

Kenneth Vail