Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Das Es, das Ich, das Über-Ich ... Das Schloß.
Das Es, das Ich, das Über-Ich ... Das Schloß.
An Exploration of the Psychology of Terrorism Part 1
by Craig Rowley
Franz Kafka, in Das Schloß (The Castle),describes our fundamental situation, where neither our world nor ourown 'self' is given and certain. K., the protagonist of Kafka's lastand greatest (and unfinished) novel, arrives in a town dominated by anincomprehensible bureaucracy, centralised in an edifice – das Schloß. Throughout Kafka's allegorical tale, K. attempts to win the respect and recognition of das Schloß. Like every one of us, in order for K. to be,he has to be recognised and related as an individual to the whole ofsociety. K. must struggle to shape and assert an identity; hisidentity.
In order to be recognised by das Schloß, K. must already be someone, in this case an accredited and required expert. However, K. knows he has no call to das Schloß and is, therefore, nothing. He is a stranger, utterly unconnected, and superfluous – locked out by das Schloßfunctioning at its basic meaning of "a lock." Since a human beingcannot live permanently outside humanity, K. desperately needs to enterit, that is, to become someone needed and recognised. In order tolive, K. must "unlock" the lock with which humanity excludes him. Itis K.'s superhuman task to force das Schloß to honour his subjective pretence – his fiction – as the truth. K. fights to become in truth what he pretends he is – the land surveyor called by das Schloß.
Althoughself-identity may seem to coincide with a particular human being,identities are actually much wider than that. We humans have a basictendency to group people into various social categories. And from thewide array of dimensions that could be used to categorise people, thereare some dimensions perceived as more meaningful in particular socialcontexts. Like K., we will tend to seek recognition as a member of thegroups we perceive as most meaningful in particular circumstances andthat involves behaving as if one where a member of the group prior tobeing recognised as a member of the group.
Proliferateexamples exist of identities that have at some times and some placesresulted in intractable conflicts. When identities extend to countriesand ethnic communities, people feel injured when other persons sharingtheir identity are injured or killed. Sometimes people are even willingto sacrifice their individual lives to preserve their identity group.
In Bingo!,a post I wrote for Webdiary in July 2005, I expressed a hope that wemight together come to a better understanding of "what makes a suicidebomber tick". I thought that through discussion we might even begin tosee what they think they see and “Bingo!” we might find a way to defusethe ideas that form in their minds. Subsequently, I've a developedsomething of a theory on how it could be that for some people the ideaof suicide attack forms (conceptualised as a "self-sacrifice mission").I think they may form from within issues of identity rather than fromwithin particular psychopathologies.
I'm not alone in thinking along these lines. Dr. Jerrold M. Post of George Washington University has described how group pressure and identity motivates terrorists to action, saying:
The group members psychologically manipulated the new recruits, persuading them, psychologically manipulating them, "brainwashing" them to believe that by carrying out a suicide bombing, they would find an honored place in the corridor of martyrs, and their lives would be meaningful; moreover, their families would be financially rewarded. From the time they were recruited, the group members never left their sides, leaving them no opportunity of backing down from their fatal choice.
InOctober 2001, in the aftermath of the September 11 attack, Dr Post wasinterviewed by Liz Jackson. Her opening question to him was:
One of the things I'm interested in how much of the work that you do in terms of getting a profile of the suicide terrorist, are you looking at the psychopathology of individuals and how much is it about the political context from which they come?
Dr Post replied:
One of the widespread feelings is that a person who is willing to kill himself and take thousands of casualties must be psychotic, deranged, totally abnormal. What is particularly chilling to understand is that these are normal individuals who are part of a group with a particular cause to which they have been socialised. So these are not only not psychotic, but in fact terrorist groups, including religious extremist terrorist groups, expel members who are emotionally unstable because they pose a security risk. We just finished a major research study interviewing psychologically in depth thirty five incarcerated Middle Eastern terrorists, twenty of whom were religious extremist terrorists, and the findings are really quite striking.
Part of what we were trying to get at was to understand what led them into the group, what their attitudes were about suicidal terrorism, for after all suicide is proscribed in the Koran, and was there any moral red line, any barrier to the amount of destruction or fatalities that they sought in their operations and the results are really quite fascinating. For other kinds of terrorist groups, in fact, because they're interested in influencing the west or influencing the establishment, they can't go too far in how much violence they carry out because that would be counterproductive for their cause. Other types of terrorist groups, the secular nationalist terrorist, the social revolutionary terrorist regularly call attention to their cause because they're trying to bring that attention to them. It's interesting in the last decade some forty per cent of terrorist acts have had no one claiming responsibility for them. Why? As we've come to understand this, these probably are the religious extremist terrorists because they don't need to have their New York Times headline or their CNN story, because after all God knows and this is a very important point. Moreover they're not trying to influence the west. They're trying to expel the west. They are trying to get rid of the secular modernising influences that threaten their fundamentalist interpretation of the regime.
Indeed,there is a widespread assumption that the ranks of terrorists arefilled with seriously psychologically disturbed individuals. It's anassumption arising from pop psychology, reinforced by Hollywoodtypecasting. Yet psychiatrists and psychologists find it is not goingtoo far to assert that terrorists are psychologically "normal" in thesense of not being clinically psychotic. Terrorists are neitherdepressed nor severely emotionally disturbed, nor are they crazedfanatics.
And so Dr Post posits that rather thanindividual psychology, what emerges as the most powerful lens throughwhich to understand terrorist behaviour is that of group,organisational, and social psychology, with a particular emphasis on"collective identity."
Whilst I agree with Dr Post on thispoint, my agreement is not absolute. I would keep a keen eye to theprocesses of individual psychology whilst examining, through the lensof social psychology as Post would, the situational factors and howthese influence formation of collective identity. A 1997 study by Vamik D. Volkan, emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, reveals something of these processes. Here's what he had to say about that study some years later:
I began to think of the psychology of these suicide bombers in 1991, when I met five infant survivors of the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon (Volkan, 1997).
On September 15, 1982, Israeli Defense forces circled two adjacent Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Shatila, in West Beirut. In the late afternoon of the following day, the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia, allies of the Israelis, attacked the camps, indiscriminately killing civilians trapped in the cramped streets. In 1991, I met the five survivors in Tunisia, at a Palestinian orphanage called Biet Atfal al-Sommoud (“the Home of Children of Steadfastness”).
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the headquarters of which were then located in Tunis, administered the orphanage. All five children were infants when the attack on the Sabra and Shatila camps occurred. Apparently, their mothers or other caretakers had hid four of the infants in trashcans and one under a bed; this had saved their lives. Since their real identities were unknown, they were all given the last name “Arafat,” after the PLO Chairman and frequent visitor to the orphanage.
I examined the five Sabra and Shatila children (and other orphans at this orphanage) for a week. When I first saw them playing together, they appeared as “normal” children do in play. However, I also observed that they would remain together as a “team.” I noted that if one of them were separated from others, he or she would become agitated. On the fifth day of our visit to the orphanage, I attempted to interview these children one by one, with the aid of an interpreter. All of them then became “abnormal”—one hallucinated, and another one literally destroyed the interview room. As soon as they were placed together again, as a “team,” they appeared to be “normal” once more. I concluded that they must have difficulties in their sense of personal identity; on the other hand, they appeared “normal” when they were a team of “Arafats.” This observation taught me a lot about replacing, to one extent or another, a person’s individual identity with a “team” or large-group identity associated with ethnicity, nationality, religion, or ideology. Although the phenomenon was most pronounced in these five children, I noticed a milder version in the rest of the 52 children housed at Biet Atfal al-Sommoud in 1991.
The intent at Biet Atfal al-Sommoud was to nurture and help the orphans. Nevertheless, the Palestinian adult caretakers at Biet Atfal al-Sommoud—most of whom were directly traumatized themselves due to the Middle East conflict—were, if I may use a metaphor, “partners” in filling the “cracks” in these children’s personal identities with a “cement” of Palestinianism, an element that was shared among adults and children alike.
This situation reminded me of another historical period when intentional interference with the personal identities of children occurred—when the “cracks” of German children’s personal identities were filled with Nazi ideology. Official guidance, as presented in Nazi physician Joanna Haarer’s books (Haarer, 1937, 1943; see also Volkan, Ast, and Greer, 2002), counselled parents to feed their children only with a rigorous schedule and not to rush to their children when they cried or encountered trouble with their surroundings. Mothers of the Nazi period were directed to ignore their children’s natural dependency needs and thus ruined their sense of basic trust. Children were forced to experience the sense that there was no benevolent power in their surroundings and were robbed the opportunity to identify with a nurturing parent. Further, frustrated by their parents’ behavior, children projected their own angry feelings onto their parents, imagining their elders to be more aggressive than they might have actually been in reality. In turn, they felt that the only way to protect themselves was to become aggressors, “tough” kids. This interference with personal identity formation was connected to Nazi propaganda. Children’s “cracks” in personal identity formation were directly or indirectly filled with Nazi propaganda so that as adults these children would be “tough” and experience no feelings of remorse for destroying “undesirables” like Jews.
Of course, sometimes we observe in our clinical practice a similar phenomenon—the replacement of one’s individual identity with a group identity, occurring without deliberate outside interference. Imagine a young adult developing schizophrenia: this person loses his or her existing identity and replaces it with a new, albeit, psychotic one. Joe is no longer Joe; he experiences himself as and calls himself Jesus Christ. Sometimes such individuals’ identities are openly replaced by religious, nationalistic, or ideological group identities. Caroline is no longer Caroline, but the existence of her identity depends on her being a delusional missionary protecting her large-group identity.
A few years after visiting Tunis, I began collecting information on how the Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers in the Middle East are trained. My observations at Biet Atfal al-Sommoud, what is known about Nazi child and youth rearing practices, and my work with schizophrenics (Volkan, 1995) help me to understand bombers’ psychology. Suicide bombers are not psychotic. In their case, the created identity fits soundly with the external reality and, significantly, is approved by outsiders. Thus, the future suicide bombers, like the Sabra and Shatila children at play in a team, by all indications are “normal” and often have an enhanced sense of self-esteem.
Developing a sense of self is anessential part of every individual becoming a mature person. A person'sself-concept is obviously affected by identification with groups. Butimportantly, each person's self-conception is a unique combination ofmany identifications. This point is well made by Amin Maalouf in On Identity:
Each individual's identity is made up of a number of elements, and these are clearly not restricted to the particulars set down in official records. Of course, for the great majority these factors include allegiance to a religious tradition; to a nationality – sometimes two; to a profession, an institution, or a particular social milieu. But the list is much longer than that; it is virtually unlimited. A person may feel a more or less strong attachment to a province, a village, a neighbourhood, a clan, a professional team or one connected with sport, a group of friends, a union, a company, a parish, a community of people with the same passions, the same sexual preferences, the same physical handicaps, or have to deal with the same kind of pollution or other nuisance.Of course, not all these allegiances are equally strong, at least at any given moment. But none is entirely insignificant, either. All are components of personality – we might almost call them "genes of the soul" so long as we remember that most of them are not innate.
While each of these elements may be found separately in many individuals, the same combination of them is never encountered in different people, and it's this that gives every individual richness and value and makes each human being unique and irreplaceable.
That which makes each human unique and irreplaceable is that which needs to emphasised.
That emphasis is absolutely necessary to deal with what we really need to – Alienation.
And that will be the subject of Part 2.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Our response to terror must be civil not military.
Bruce Grant in this morning's Age is right the correct response to terrorism is civil or legal not military. The war on terror that has now been raging for over 5 years has achieved nothing. But where civil law and police have been used the terrorist leaders have in the main been arrested and put on trial.
Just in case you missed it.
Mink also pointed out: "But draconian anti-immigration crackdowns in this country [the USA], driven by hysterical fear of foreigners, threaten to neutralize these great natural advantages in the battle against terrorism."
The logic applies more broadly and it applies here at home in Australia. Hysterical fear of foreigners generates experiences of discrimination that can feed a sense of outrage. In short, it can fuel the radicalisation process.
Needing someone to hate
"In Europe and Asia, for example, social, economic and political forces have kept Muslim immigrants from feeling connected with the broader societies of the countries to which they immigrate. For some people, experiences of discrimination can feed a sense of outrage and become part of the radicalization process."
Yet,
Craig Rowley, as you point out;
"One of the more interesting findings is that since 9/11, terrorist arrests in the US have targeted 60 people, whereas during the same period in Europe, there was a total of 2,400 terrorist arrests."
Yet, it's the USA which is the Great Satan.
And not, say, France. Or Holland. Or Germany. Or Denmark. Or other European country.
Know thine enemy
Eric Mink, writing for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, has put together a review of Marc Sageman's Leaderless Jihad, and it covers a little more of what Sageman's extensive research reveals:
Outside-In
It's good to see research that's starting to cut through the 'conventional wisdom'. For example, a recent paper by Oxford's Christina Hellmich titled, Creating the Ideology of Al Qaeda: From Hypocrites to Salafi-Jihadists, (published in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 31, Issue 2 February 2008) investigates the rationales of different explanatory models used in explaining the ideology of Al Qaeda:
Mediated view of Muslims
The proportion of Muslims of any kind in the USA is, as I mentioned below, only 0.6 percent.
Also, folks, I need to clarify something which may be misconstrued in my earlier, garbled post where I say this;
"It's indicative entirely that Americans have such a favourable view of Muslims given they mostly never meet any - as only 0.6 percent of the American population is in fact Muslim."
I meant to suggest there that "It is indicative entirely of US media portrayals of Muslims" that Americans have such a favourable opinion of Muslims since Americans "mostly never meet any" - given so few Americans are Muslims.
I am certain that by and large, Americans form a good impression of those few Muslims they do meet. After all, one of America's most loved sporting heroes is a Muslim convert, namely Muhammed Ali.
Some commonality along different trajectories
As mentioned earlier Marc Sageman points out that:
So let's look at those "common events, experience and feelings" for a moment. Here are some of the key findings made in recent studies by psychologists, political scientists, and anthropologists of the factors motivating and sustaining global terrorism:
1. Terrorists generally are psychologically "normal" in the sense of not being clinically psychotic. Study after study shows there is no more psychopathology amongst people involved in terrorist networks than in the population at large.
2. Suicide bombers are not suicidal. Suicide bombers do not exhibit the typical "risk factors" psychologists associate with suicide. In a study of suicide bombers around the world, it was found that most were educated members of the middle class who showed no signs of being clinically depressed.
3. People become terrorists through social networks and emotional bonds, not because of religious devotion or indoctrination. Emotion and social ties precede the acquisition of an ideology.
4. A high proportion of terrorists are second generation immigrants. In Sageman's study of 165 mujaheddin, 84% were second generation immigrants born in Western countries. These people turned to extremism as a response of the alienation and discrimination they've felt.
5. Terrorism is seen as a form of empowerment. For people who feel dispossessed or politically oppressed, participating in terrorist activities is a way of finding empowerment in a situation where they perceive no other choice exists. As one suicide bomber put it (quoted by Robert A. Pape in Dying to Win), "If we don't fight, we will suffer. If we do fight, we will suffer, but so will they."
Commonalities
Thanks Craig, it seems like a very useful and insightful list. And I think it could lead to some fairly simple ideas for reducing the risk from terrorism.
Black man with a Muslim name runs for President of France
Well, that's because research show the Great Satan is generally not as hostile to Muslims as more enlightened, tolerant Europe. Specifically:
I mean, when was the last time a black man with a Muslim name ran for President of France?
Also, the American Muslim community itself is exceptionally multi-racial:
It's indicative entirely that Americans have such a favourable view of Mulsims given they mostly never meet any - as only 0.6 percent of the American population is in fact Muslim.
French Politics
Eliot: "I mean, when was the last time a black man with a Muslim name ran for President of France?
I don't think it has happened though, to be fair, the proportion of black Muslims in France is pretty low. Most of the Islamic population trace a family history from North Africa.
We do, however, have a black Muslim woman, Rama Yade, who is our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights.
Christiane Taubira, a black woman, ran for President in 2002, we currently have an Arab woman, Rachida Dati, as our Minister of Justice and Fatiha Amara - her Arabic name is from her two Algerian parents - is the Secretary of State for Urban Policies.
Sageman on the Next Generation
Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist, examined the cases of nearly 500 known terrorists and in this month's issue of Foreign Policy (available to subscribers only) he explains what his research turned up.
One of the more interesting findings is that since 9/11, terrorist arrests in the US have targeted 60 people, whereas during the same period in Europe, there was a total of 2,400 terrorist arrests.
Sageman reasons that this may be due to European countries being more likely to "shut out" other cultures (i.e. they are less multicultural societies) combined with a tougher job market and higher unemployment (i.e. factors that foster disenfranchisement, alienation and radicalisation).
Europe and the US
Oh, good.
Craig Rowley: "The heart of Sageman's message is that we have been scaring ourselves into exaggerating the terrorism threat," writes Ignatius. He adds, the people we are fighting now are "a leaderless hodgepodge of thousands of what he [Sageman] calls 'terrorist wannabes'."
I've always thought that. Mind you, it's little consolation when they hijack your airline or blow up your school.
Terrorist wannabes
Marc Sageman (whose research was mentioned - in jest - on Good News Week last night) has a new book out.
I've not yet read Leaderless Jihad, but David Ignatius in the Washington Post lays out what Sageman's core message is.
"The heart of Sageman's message is that we have been scaring ourselves into exaggerating the terrorism threat," writes Ignatius. He adds, the people we are fighting now are "a leaderless hodgepodge of thousands of what he [Sageman] calls 'terrorist wannabes'."
Don't just cry "Pomo"; critique the arguments
If, Jenny, as you've claimed, "extracts from this report tell us nothing we did not know", why would you need to continue your effort to attack the credibility of the authors of the report?
Why not instead share your thoughts on some of what the report does tell us, for example:
Or:
Good Luck
Craig Rowley, it's only my opinion and we're all entitled one. The authorities always have to at least look like something is being done. I wish them the best of luck studying it.
More from the Monash Report to mull over
Here's something from the Monash report to consider:
For heaven's sake
Yet even though there is no single path to becoming a terrorist—each terrorist tends to have travelled along his/her own unique trajectory—there are common events, experiences and feelings that tend to reappear along these different trajectories. In summary, these are perceptions that the individual has been wronged by structurally embedded inequities of opportunity, intense feelings of political impotence and associated levels of social and cultural alienation.
I don't know who wrote this stuff but for the use of pseudoprofundity to state the obvious it takes some beating.
Every person has emotional, physical and spiritual needs. If they are not met, for whatever reason, they will, in their own way, seek to either live with the deficit, rectify it, or escape from it.
That is just natural. The problem we face today is the way certain people now choose, not caring about the grief they may cause others.
Pseudoprofundity
Jenny, the particular passage from the report you've taken issue with leads on (you may not realise if you've not read the report) to an important point:
By the way, the authors of the report are:
And the report would have been reviewed prior to its publication by the Project Steering Committee, which comprised the academics listed above plus four representatives from Victoria Police and one member of the Advisory Board (assembled from community representatives).
Pseudo
I love the report talking of 'pseudo-ethical'. I wouldn't be looking for a fair hearing for the terrorists' views here. That is, the report further marginalises the marginalised. If this is part of the problem they are adding to it. And this is done through various structures - people with qualifications are listened to for instance. Getting structural can get interesting.
It still seems to me that the appropriate strategy to fight terrorism is friendship - respect for other people's beliefs and culture. (We tend to be blind to our own: the US kills civilians to fight terrorism, others kill civilians to fight 'the western satan'. Why is state sponsored terrorism more acceptable? Because our culture validates the killing of civilians when it is called 'war'.)
Don't say path, say trajectory
That is, the report further marginalises the marginalised. If this is part of the problem they are adding to it. And this is done through various structures - people with qualifications are listened to for instance.
Evan Hadkins: True. And putting one's professional qualification to a report can gain one's opinion in that report a level of respect and acceptance, that may or may not be warranted.
The extracts from this report tell us nothing we did not know, nothing that is not obvious to even the most disinterested. But wrap this rsort of stuff up in profundity, add your name and academic qualifications, and it will find some mug to believe that it is some great new insight into human behaviour.
So make sure you say people are on a trajectory. Don't say path. That is far too passe and low brow. Of course, the greatest practitioners of the art of pseudoprofundity, who have raised it to unbelievable (literally) heights, are the Postmodernists, (perhaps easier to identify as 'pomos'.)
Spare me.
PoMo
Hi Jenny, glad to hear that you hate post-modernist gobblydegook too.
I do think terrorism is more likely to arise in particular situations and involving particular kinds of individuals.
I do think the way to reduce the likelihood is by fostering respectful relationships. This too isn't exactly a stunning insight. But it is do-able and the research, such as it is, does seem to suggest that this is the direction to move in.
Respect
Yes Evan, I cannot abide the PoMo gobbledegook. George Orwell would be turning in his grave.
Respectful relationships. This can be difficult where the parties do not have shared values. Not all societies, or individuals, share the same values. There are more things that divide people/s than those that unite. Unfortunately for the world.
Take a look at what happens on blog sites. They are a good microcosm of our own society. Yet respect is often the first casualty once people start to disagree. Webdiary is able to keep things reasonably civil through moderation. Take moderation away and see what you get. So what hope the world where differences are more than just ones of opinion, far far more.
I guess at this late stage of my life I have become pretty pessimitic about mankind's capacity to live harmoniously with itself. And as we manage to destroy the planet, that is going to get even harder.
Respect
I too am pessimistic.
However, most people for much of history have lived peaceably with others of different faiths and cultures. We lose sight of this because the wars, pogroms and so on are so spectacularly awful, and their consequences last for so long. (My paternal grandfather was a war neurosis case from World War One - this certainly affected my father (now 82) and I think me through him.)
Nature or Nurture? Who Knows or Cares?
Justin Obodie, there is no such thing as a "bad human emotion". All emotions are natural and exist for a reason. The only time an emotion is "bad" is when it is channeled in an unhealthy direction. The mo of the cult is to have it channeled into a totally subservience to the cult - an art some are born with and others take the time to learn. Shit, it is even taught at all the best management schools; only there it is called manager/employee relations.
The weak and ill-disciplined of mind (intelligence has nothing to do with it) will always be exploited; that is the human way, that has always been the human way, that will always be the human way. The study of the suicide bomber could be undertaken 24/7 and no real answers will ever be found; there are no real answers to be found.
See you later then ...
... on another thread at some time no doubt, because if you're not interested in and don't care about exploring the possible answers, Paul, you've no more reason to continue to comment on what the rest of us are interested in talking through.
Unless you'd like to explain why you've got a better handle on the topic than the authors of the report I shared earlier?
And if you are up for it, it'd better be a good explanation because Victoria Police are listening to the authors of that report and I can tell you they are certainly interested in exploring the psychology of terrorism.
Trial Balance
"Unfortunately humans will always have deep seated negative feelings (part of being human); unfortunately there will always be those amongst us that will have an ability to exploit those feelings."
Yes indeed Paul, as we have well seen on both sides of the ledger.
PS. quite often the only difference between a cult and an accepted organisation is the number of members; or so I once heard Phillip Adams say on the tele.
Expression
I'm sure there will always be those willing to exploit our negative feelings.
But these come out in different ways in different situations. Sometimes it is terrorism, sometimes not. I think this is what we need to concentrate on for public policy. Finding peace with ourselves is part of the story too - but I don't think governments can do much about this.
Cult Leaders Of Death
Michael de Angelos: "The endless rubbish we hear about suicide bombers and the supposed evil is another nonsense. Here we have people who genuinely believe they are fighting for their homelands."
The dumb poor slob that sets of the bomb may even believe this. Certainly the guy setting up the event doesn't; and I don't think you really believe it either (I believe you have to believe for your own peace of mind). Most of the suicide bombing occurring in Iraq is only aimed at killing other Iraqis - the most cursory glances proves this.
If we could talk to the 9/11 dead we might be able to get their opinions on such matters. Until this is possible you either believe in justice for murder or you do not. When it comes to the murder of Americans (not all were American) you seem to have made up your mind. Perhaps people with such views along with the 10% of psychotic soldiers are the real people in need of intensive help - if only for the sake of the rest of us in the world.
Richard Tonkin: "Okay, if you're prepared to accept without comment the possibility of trauma related to low-level psychic linkages in post-9/11 U.S. citizens, what about something similar in societies that produce terrorists? A disruption of cultural gestalts, perhaps?"
Why do people join up with the Jim Jones's of the world? Certainly "trauma" of violent events is not a necessity. Witness such events as the Japanese train bombings - most people involved were young (attractive), highly educated, and their future prospects were very bright. The art of the cult leader is in finding the hidden fear and anger (we all have it) and being able to exploit and channel it for their own purposes.
Unfortunately humans will always have deep seated negative feelings (part of being human); unfortunately there will always be those amongst us that will have an ability to exploit those feelings. Cult leaders just like terrorist leaders never actually carry out the attacks themselves (until the bitter end); anybody but the weakest of mind should be able to deduce just how much they truly believe.
Beware your kids don't run off to join the circus. I would say beware they don't run off to join a cult!
Cult Membership
Paul Morrella: "I would say beware they don't run off to join a cult!"
How sure are you ... that you ... aren't part of a "cult"?
Dangerous Ground: Time To Make It Safer
I know Richard will have watched the 4Corner's program Dangerous Ground last week. I did too.
And I've been looking into the good work undertaken at Monash University. This report is recommended reading for those who'd like to better understand where I'm coming from in writing both Das Es, das Ich, das Über-Ich ... Das Schloß and What are you optimistic about?
I'd like to highlight something from the review of relevant literature published in the report:
The Key
Thanks for the quote Craig.
This seems the key sentence to me.
The key to successful counter-terrorism policing programs is to secure public safety while simultaneously contributing to the wider social and attitudinal dynamics that are likely to cause terrorist organisations and ideologies to lose their appeal.
This doesn't seem particularly difficult. Treating people fairly, respecting their culture and their religious beliefs. Fostering openness (ie friendship). Seems like a great agenda to me - one that I have no trouble whole-heartedly supporting.
"Live" Reality - The Winter Soldier Hearings
For those interested .... (in the psychology of American State "Terrorism"?):
Oh dear
The Cult of the Suicide Bomber
Does culture shock relate to the ‘war on terror’?
In their book, Handbook of Intercultural Training, Drs. Janet and Milton Bennett and Dr. Daniel Landis define culture shock as:
Culture shock takes place as one of a series of stages in the cross-cultural adaptation process.The traditional stages of the culture shock model predict that the traveler will go through anywhere from three to five stages of emotional adaptation throughout his or her time abroad:
Under such circumstances, isolated and unequipped for the shock of culturally unfamiliar environments, individuals can be drawn into religious, ideological movements that they might otherwise not be drawn to, simply for a sense of identity inclusion and understanding.
Witness, for example, the picture of the terrorists involved in the al Qaeda movement as outline by Marc Sageman in Understanding Terrorist Networks. Sageman characterizes them as highly educated, middle-to-upper middle class men in their mid-twenties or older, who are not necessarily of strong religious backgrounds, and who for a large part have been disconnected from their homelands.
In The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright notes that Sayd Qutb, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Atta and Osama bin Laden, among others, all lived outside their home cultures, all well-educated, scientifically motivated, relatively non-religious men who experienced crises of faith in a similar manner to the crisis of identity experienced in culture shock.
Is anyone starting to see that identity issues are key?
Trauma = Invasion?
Thank you, Geoff, for that response. Maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there. I need to do some more reading and thinking. The angle that I was coming from was a belief that terrorists come from societies that feel that they have been invaded by others, taking the battle to liberate their homelands to the hearths of their perceived oppressors. I had included Osama, Saudi and the US in this profile, rightly or wrongly. While Craig is focussing more on the identity issues of individuals, I've been wondering about such issues for whole cultures. What does a perceived invasion do to a people's sense of collective identity? Can this be classified as a major trauma? Can this bounce from person to person, via both conventional and unconventional means, to magnify intensities to a level where terrorism is perceived as fighting the battle for the country's ID, maybe it's soul? I've probably grown up around too many Irish folk songs, and Four Green Fields comes most easily to mind at this instant:
I can't count the number of people I've heard singing this song. Since Bush and Blair sat down in Ireland during the WOT's beginnings, you hear such lyrics much more rarely.
Oh well, back to the drawing board... I accept what was said, but still don't believe myself to be totally wrong, which may just be pig-headedness Will try and articulate it better at another time.
More from Sageman to mull over
In other words, they don't believe and then join. They join, and then believe.
Trauma And Terrorism
Richard: "Okay, if you're prepared to accept without comment the possibility of trauma related to low-level psychic linkages in post-9/11 U.S. citizens, what about something similar in societies that produce terrorists?"
There is one overwhelming problem with this theory.
The societies that produce terrorists have on the whole suffered substantially less trauma than those that do not.
Of course that is a generalisation and you can nitpick if you like, as I expect many here will. Nevertheless it is the truth.
The Twentieth Century produced perhaps the greatest upheaval to humankind since the species evolved. Revolution. Imperialism and its collapse. Totalitarian politics and police states. The disappearance of states and the emergence of new ones by the score. Wars on a scale never imagined before, fought with weapons so horrible as to be beyond the imagination of the Nineteenth Century mind, with civilian populations in the frontline. Whole populations uprooted, many permanently, across Europe, Asia, Africa. Starvation and war driven emigration on a massive scale. Hideous pandemics, famine, hopeless poverty. Genocide.
We all bear some of the trauma of this but many were luckier than others. Now have a look at "the societies that produce terrorists". Do I need to name them? Sure they have their lists of horrors. Don't we all? But compare these to the societies that don't produce terrorists. No nitpicking now with wordgames and definitions. No digging around the white sand to find a black grain to prove the beach is black as the "left" is wont to do. Face the truth.
The truth is this. When it comes down to it, on the whole, the "societies that produce terrorists" have been barely scratched by the traumas of the last century in comparison to those societies, nations and peoples that bore the brunt of it.
There is something else driving terrorism and the life-hating subcultures and death cults that feed it. Sure, grievance nursing is a part of it just as it was in pre-war Germany. But it is not trauma. If it was, most of us would be planting bombs or exploding. And with considerably greater cause than those who actually are.
Nitpicking
Of course that is a generalisation and you can nitpick if you like, as I expect many here will.
Of course it is. And you ran it anyway and I will nitpick.
The societies that produce terrorists have on the whole suffered substantially less trauma than those that do not.
Without entering the slippery slope of the definition of "terrorist" I'd love to see the hard rationale. The entire subtext of your post is that the Middle East; Iraq, Iran and others of their like have suffered nothing like "civilised" states such as Germany, England, the US, France and others of the "west". You'd be suprised to learn that I'd take issue with that, Pahoff.
The peoples of the 'fertile crescent' and neighbouring areas are more than generationally familiar with invasion, rapine, pillage and exploitation. They are, in fact, millennially familiar with the scenario.
The "traumas of the last century" have largely been visited upon western societies by other western powers seeking aggrandisement and gain. They seek their "revenge" in the "western way"; that is war on an industrial scale or, nowadays, war by economics.
Western imperialism provoked the terrorist attacks of the Tet offensive in Vietnam. When a young bloke called Nguyen Ai Quoc asked Woodrow Wilson to consider the idea of Vietnamese self-determunation in the Versailles negotiations of 1919 he was ignored. The European powers, bent on revenge and punitive measures, also for the great part ignored Wilson's "fourteen points". Nguyen Ai Quoc would also ignore another American president when, as Ho Chi Minh, he ordered the Tet offensive. He had already seen off France's colonial bluster.
In the end it no longer matters. The "west" has the industrial capacity to wage war on a huge scale. The states of the "others", in large part, do not. That is the reality.
The difference for those "others" is that it is no longer Greece, Rome or the "Crusaders". It's just another go round on the merry-go-round of their history.
None of which is to condone the actions or choices of the "others" and - a fortiori - the "west".
Father Park
Move On Please. Nothing To See Here
The entire subtext of your post is that the Middle East; Iraq, Iran and others of their like have suffered nothing like "civilised" states such as Germany, England, the US, France and others of the "west". You'd be suprised to learn that I'd take issue with that, Pahoff.
In fact I never said anything like that. Indeed I took some care to ensure an "entire subtext" anything like this could not be honestly attributed to my words. I know from experience how necessary it is to take these precautions, with so many individuals around just itching to make trumped up allegations of bigotry and racism against those they define by gut and instinct as on the other side.
As nobody said this, there is nothing here to "take issue" with. Nor is there anything worth engaging.
In fact I never said
In fact I never said anything like that. Indeed I took some care to ensure an "entire subtext" anything like this could not be honestly attributed to my words.
Do I see word games Geoff? Or are you baldly asserting that I am lying? Perhaps it is only your "gut" or "instinct" that is accusing me of dishonestly attributing meanings to your words? How precious.
The societies that produce terrorists have on the whole suffered substantially less trauma than those that do not...
The Twentieth Century produced perhaps the greatest upheaval to humankind since the species evolved. Revolution. Imperialism and its collapse. Totalitarian politics and police states. The disappearance of states and the emergence of new ones by the score. Wars on a scale never imagined before, fought with weapons so horrible as to be beyond the imagination of the Nineteenth Century mind, with civilian populations in the frontline. Whole populations uprooted, many permanently, across Europe, Asia, Africa...
I would suggest that if this is being careful, you must then exercise a little more care. Perhaps you would care to clearly describe those societies which have suffered more than those which "produce terrorists". Those who posess the capability to wage war on a scale never imagined before. For the record you know. So as to be totally clear in what you state. No nitpicking now with word games and definitions Geoff; no digging around the white sand to find a black grain to prove the beach is black as the "left" is wont to do. Enumerate those societies which have suffered more but have singularly failed to produce terrorists eh?
I know from experience how necessary it is to take these precautions, with so many individuals around just itching to make trumped up allegations of bigotry and racism against those they define by gut and instinct as on the other side...
I don't believe I defined you as anything - either by "gut" or "instinct" - in my post. Perhaps, in future, you should be left to make statements utterly unchallenged. Would that suit your stated rules of engagement?
Father Park
Exactly my point
I'm with you on this, Geoff. Understanding the psychology of the suicidal terrorist is paramount in my mind and by nature very hard to study. There are so few that failed. Pity the Americans captured the Pommie would be shoe bomber, (although I'm not sure he's typical). I only hope they're learning as much as they can from him in the most appropriate way.
Trauma and Initiative
Terrorists may or may not have personally experienced trauma (as often pointed out they tend to be from more privileged backgrounds) and may identify with trauma to a group they belong to (national or religious).
Often it will be that they believe what they do will make a difference. This element of personal agency is one of the differences between those who do and don't commit terrrorism. This doesn't mean that all those who have a sense of agency will choose this means (my hope is that none would). But it is one of the differences.
Blogs, Boards, Hits And Memories
Richard Tonkin I started on sports and local entertainment boards (where to find the best clubs, restauraunts blah blah) around late 99 (the ancient days!). Funny thing is that many of these things got as heated, even more so than the more so called serious ones (including 9/11) that came later. I remember this one guy.......no I won't get into it (laughing).
Cultural gestalt disruption?
I hope, for both our sakes Paul Morrella, that you and I never discussed glass-bottomed airplanes. Roflmao, as we used to say back then!
Okay, if you're prepared to accept without comment the possibility of trauma related to low-level psychic linkages in post-9/11 U.S. citizens, what about something similar in societies that produce terrorists? A disruption of cultural gestalts, perhaps? It could go a long way towards explaining many of the behavioural characteristics portrayed in Craig's piece.
Strange Misconceptions
I've worked in a number of Arab countries and they are all different but I've found none of the mass anti-American attitude that seems to be a common belief of the west.
As to "terrorists" as Alga Kavanagh puts it: "The psychology of a terrorist is easy to understand, it's not individual but a group malaise and when you equate their supposed sanity with their ideological beliefs, you can clearly see they suffer the same mental illness as all ideologists"
I find this could easily be said of any group that joins an army to attack a group of said terrorists.
I had a long talk with a ex-Vietnam vet on the weekend( fortunately I missed that draft but wouldn't have gone anyway) and his tales of the massive drug taking by the Americans and Viet Cong and the insanity during the battles where soldiers on either side were so high it would take a tank sometimes to stop one in their tracks was just a common day occurrence.
The Iraq adventure sounds pretty similar on both sides - so-called "insurgents" placing bombs in crowded markets which must be for some political outcome - or US jets strafing groups of innocent civilians or marines blasting a car full of family members who misunderstand their directions. Condolences and a small cash payment are offered and off they go to do the same. I find that even more frightening - it's positively robotic if not psychotic.
The endless rubbish we hear about suicide bombers and the supposed evil is another nonsense. Here we have people who genuinely believe they are fighting for their homelands. During WW2 pilots on both sides believed the same and knew, on every mission that flew out, the possibilities were that only half would return with the real chance of a fiery and terrible death awaiting just hours away. No wonder they were issued with amphetamines to get into the cockpits - just as many suicide bombers do likewise.
The researchers into suicide bombers should have read up on the extensive research done by US psychologists after WW2 - in preparation for future wars. After all, anyone volunteering to join an army must entertain the thought of dying unless they are utterly stupid which is possible in the US forces.
What they discovered was that only around 30% of US forces actually fired in the direction of the enemy and at no particular target, about 50% fired directly at enemy targets, 10% actively tried to kill the enemy, and the other 10% had such a psychotic blood-lust they couldn't kill enough people and quite possibly killed some of their own men if their lust wasn't satisfied. That is when they began to indoctrinate the various US forces who will ramble off every bit of rubbish about protecting the homeland and freedom and other nonsense to justify the killing of innocent Afghans and such.
Sure, Americans probably wanted some sort of revenge for 9/11 - it was the first time a real attack had happened on their shores but in much of the world it was commonplace and the USA was indirectly responsible for as many deaths elsewhere - but they were either Asians or Arabs, Africans and such which don't count.
Bombing Iraq and Afghanistan of course was simply an ideal opportunity for the great robber barons to rise their ugly heads and, as Pat Robinson claims, transfer public monies into private hands in the greatest theft the world has ever seen.
Abnormalities occur
Jacob A. Stam, fair point about reading somebody constantly complaining about perceptions - it is not something I particularly enjoy reading myself - and not something I will be keeping on with. I do think it is a fair point to make at this time (it does not apply to all people).
The 9/11 attack was a criminal situation that could've never been dealt with through the normal processes - abnormalities occur in all things- even the justice process.
Richard: Paul, I was having trouble matching in some of this post to the rest, so have edited what didn't make sense.
Simple Really
Andrew OConnell, also directly after 9/11, America was supported through the UN and nearly the entire world (states) for the actions it was about to undertake. It was also not only the United States that signed on for the adventure - something also oddly rarely mentioned.
The action itself (I believe a law enforcement issue) mostly took place in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan - where at the time the criminals were believed to be holed up. Kabul (which had been under constant attack for decades) come into the equation in the chase of the Taliban leadership (which like so many liberating heroes had fled). The continual effort (now UN sponsored) was a response to fears that the United States forces would enter the nation, do their business, and leave the place in the shambles they had found it.
The historical revisionism regarding this matter is the thing I object too. Many of the staunchest critics were never in favor of the Afghanistan adventure to begin with. Many of the staunchest critics believed America deserved 9/11 - they made that view known directly after the event (before they had time to get the story "right"). Many of the staunchest critics believe that Americans should not seek justice because they don't deserve it. This feeling naturally does not apply to anyone else. Many of the staunchest critics are simply anti-American, and have always been thus.
O ye of little faith
The USA is a great and resilient nation that will easily prevail over the most vigorous criticism. It's absurd, but to read some comments here it's as if that great country trembles at its foundations because some slob in Australia taps out a few critical words. Lord knows, there's enough empty-headed cant generated both pro- and con- to cancel each other out.
Anyway, if perceived 'anti-Americanism' hereabouts gets a bit much for anyone, there's always the option of spending some respite time over at the blairblog. Whilst there, one may marvel as Mr Blair assiduously tracks the plastic-turkey meme, which for the blairbots constitutes the Really Big Lie of the Iraq War. Be warned, however, that they ban commenters for 'stupidity'.
Hey, just a thought, but maybe there should be an 'anti-Australianism' sin-bin for those who habitually criticise our shiny new Rudd Government.
Fiction Continues
Andrew O'Connell: "Paul Morrella, you continually talk about Americans needing justice for September 11. Justice would be served by finding the surviving perpetrators and throwing the full force of the law at them. Bombing the crap out of a couple of countries is vengeance, an entirely different thing."
I've attempted to make the point on numerous occasions that 9/11, Bush, and all the rest of it are a separate issue. Bush similar to conspiracy theories meets the need to fill in the "spaces". Nobody on any blog in the world blamed Bush after 9/11 (he hadn't been there long enough). Nobody blamed any conspiracy theory directly after 9/11 - these are things that have progressed over the lapsing years (tuning the story). Why don't you look at some blogs and articles around the time of 9/11/2001?
The pretence that anyone else being attacked would not be expected to find justice is just that. The pretence that "Afghanistan" was somehow a united country being bombed the crap out of is just that. The pretence that the "Taliban" was somehow even a half functioning government in any reasonable sense is just that - the region they controlled I would call similar to a 16th century pirate hideaway - and that was exactly what it was - the 21st century version.