The Psychology of Terrorism - Case Study Example

Introduction From the 20th to the 21st century there has been a significant rise in the occurrence of terrorism. It has emerged to be an endemic global problem and a primary concern of governments and international organizations. The September 11 attacks marked a new age in global terrorism. That unforgettable event redefined terrorism. It was a rude awakening for the United States as well as the international community as to the malevolence, pervasiveness and veracity of terrorism. From its birth right after the Second World War many disciplines have explored in depth the nature of terrorism. Its roots, dynamics and occurrence have been the subject of countless debates and contentions from scholars in various fields of human knowledge. All of them strive to uncover why an individual would strap onto himself an explosive and detonate it in places full of bystanders. Each field tries to understand how an ordinary student ends up planning and carrying out a kidnapping for political ends. Scholars explore the reason behind why groups of individuals have so much contempt for a state or group of states. Experts analyze the basis of the various doctrines of hate and malevolence against a particular class of people or a sector in society. Despite all these efforts and undertakings to that dissect and formally study terrorism it is not common that it be understood from the standpoint of social psychology. By rationalizing the phenomenon of terrorism within the framework of the workings of the human mind new insight may be derived about it. Psychology in general has delved into terrorism before not in the specific context of Social Psychology. The latter would present a new perspective as to the understanding and analysis of terrorism, its participants, their beliefs and psychological dimension of the same. Areas of Discussion This paper will have three (3) main discussions. These discussions would constitute the bulk of the paper, and they are: 1. An assessment of Terrorism, particularly an exploration of its general definition and nature and the understanding; 2. A review of Social Concepts Relevant to Terrorism; and 3. Apply Social Psychology Concepts to analyze terrorism. Scope and Limitations of the Discussion For the purposes of this paper the concept of terrorism which will be explored will involve terrorism carried out by terrorist groups such as Al –qaeda, Jemaah Islamiya and Hezbollah. This is distinct and separate from state sponsored terrorism as in the case of the Third Reich under Hitler and the former U.S.S.R. under Stalin. This paper will apply Social Psychology concepts to the latter and not to state sponsored terrorism. Furthermore although most if not all concepts in Social Psychology can be applied to terrorism the researcher indentified that most pertinent to terrorism. As such discussions will be limited to that. Nature and Definition of Terrorism The usual definition of terrorism is something like "the use or threat of violence, by small groups against non-combatants of large groups, for avowed political goals." The key to this definition is the combination of small groups killing non-combatants. Terrorism is the warfare of the weak, the recourse of those desperate for a cause that cannot win by conventional means McCauley (n.d.). This is a more or less comprehensive definition of terrorism. However, this lacks significant characterization to bring to light the nature of terrorism. The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance,” a product of internal logic, devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their power and to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government’s legitimacy, while increasing the legitimacy of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act (Cambridge International Model United Nations, 2007). The above description of a terrorist act is substantial in the sense that it provides a good idea as to the nature of terrorism. Terrorism as an act and for whatever purpose is done to perpetuate fear in a social context. Moreover, its dynamics are dependent on and are directly related to undermining communal peace and serenity to garner attention eventually the fulfillment of their goals. Hudson (1999) contends unable to achieve their unrealistic goals by conventional means, international terrorists attempt to send an ideological or religious message by terrorizing the general public. Through the choice of their targets, which are often symbolic or representative of the targeted nation, terrorists attempt to create a high-profile impact on the public of their targeted enemy or enemies with their act of violence, despite the limited material resources that are usually at their disposal. All these definitions as well as the characterizations of terrorism do not delved into the psychological aspect of both the phenomenon as well as the actors in it – the terrorists. From a general psychological standpoint terrorism is viewed differently. Borum (2004) said that Terrorism was pathologized as manifestation of psychological and behavioral deviance. Accordingly, within a psychoanalytic framework, the “psychopathology of terrorism” was believed to be driven by unconscious motives and impulses, which had their origins in childhood. This idea as to terrorism, although in the realm of psychology does not fall under the branch of social psychology. A novel and insightful view of terrorism can be had if it is viewed through the lens social psychology. Pertinent Social Psychology Concepts Before any social psychology analysis can be applied to terrorism, there must first be a brief discussion of Social Cognition in Social Psychology that are relevant to terrorism. Social Cognition Baumeister and Finkel (2010) states that social cognition encompasses new approaches to classic research on attribution theory (how people explain behavior and events), impression formation (how people form impressions of others), stereotyping (how people think about members of groups), attitudes (how people feel about various things), and the self (how people think about themselves). Social Cognition presents models as well as approaches by which social phenomenon can be rationalized. In introduces a new level of analysis for social phenomena such as terrorism. Behavior of terrorists and its relationship to the acts they commit, their attitudes, impressions, notions as well as their idea of themselves is a relatively unexplored element in terrorism. It can be conceded that these have been explored by other discipline like sociology or political science but not in the context of social psychology. This is reinforced by Taylor, Peplau and Sears (2006) who states that social cognition is the study of how people form inferences from social information and environment. Moreover they say that research on social cognition explores how people make social judgments about other individuals or social groups, about social roles and about their own experiences in social settings. For the discussion of in this paper the following framework of social cognition shall be adopted as the basis of analysis. The core principles of this approach were that (1) researchers ought to employ general concepts and theories rather than idiosyncratic microtheories; (2) cognitive processes are a major determinant of human judgments and behavior; (3) the information processing model provides a universally useful structure for examining cognition; (4) mediating processes should be measured (generally using methods borrowed from cognitive psychology) rather than just assumed; all of which together imply that (5) there should be one universal set of concepts, principles, and practices underlying most, if not all, psychological theorizing and research (Baumeister and Finkel, 2010). Aggression It has to be noted that terrorism is always characterized by acts of violence. To explore violence of this typology in the context of Social Psychology the key principle of aggression must be considered. Aggression is an external behavior that you can see (Baumeister and Finkel, 2010). This is elaborated subsequently. Aggression is not an emotion that occurs inside a person, such as an angry feeling. Aggression is not a thought that occurs inside someone’s brain, such as mentally rehearsing a murder you would like to commit. Aggression is a social behavior because it involves at least two people. Also, aggression is intentional, although not all intentional behaviors that hurt others are aggressive behaviors Baumeister and Finkel, 2010). In contrast Taylor, Peplau and Sears (2006) simply states that aggression is defined as any action that is intended to hurt others. They further explain that a distinction must be drawn between anti – social aggression and prosocial aggression. Normally we think aggressions as bad but some aggressive acts are good. Many aggressive acts are actually dictated by social norms and are therefore described as good (Taylor, Peplau and Sears, 2006). Prejudice Prejudice can be one of the most destructive aspects of human social behavior, often producing chilling acts of violence (Taylor, Peplau and Sears, 2006). Prejudice is affective, referring to negative feelings toward a target group. And discrimination is behavioral, referring to feelings that disadvantages individuals simply because of group membership (Taylor, Peplau and Sears, 2006). In contrast Baumeister and Finkel (2010) contend that discrimination can be defined as the differential treatment of individuals, based on their membership in a particular group. Such treatment can oft en be motivated by prejudice, but it may also result from ethnocentric feelings that are devoid of animus. Social Cognition and Terrorism Social Cognitions analytical model provides several elements by which terrorism may be explored. As to the general concept involved such is established in the definition and nature of terrorism. The question is does this definition of terrorism validly characterize the view of its proponents as well as their behavior. By looking at the psychological makeup of terrorists the definitions and characterizations of terrorism become inapplicable. Terrorists, in psychological sense are not the crazed fanatics who have an uncontrollable compulsion to bomb, kidnap or cause harm to others. Often these individuals view themselves as freedom fighters or champions for a legitimate cause such as the expulsion of a foreign military presence. By considering this perspective the whole idea of terrorism becomes a matter of perspective. As to views of terrorists they do not necessarily view the citizens of the governments they are opposed to as evil or wicked. The view usually is that killing them is an unavoidable necessity for their governments to become amiable to their political demands. This undermines the view that terrorists who are against one government or group of governments also have considerable disdain towards its citizens. Moreover this rebuts the claim that terrorism thrives on the commission of acts of hate and malice against human life in general. On the level of group perspective terrorists see their comrades not just as fellow terrorist as what popular notions suggest. Terrorist organizations have been undervalued for its ability to propagate significant group cohesion and even encourage fraternal relations among its members. Terrorists see their co – members as brothers at the least. Lastly on the aspect of attitude, terrorists are not necessarily suicidal, pathological killers or demented armed individuals. It would surprise most that terrorists’ overall attitude and behavior is no different from the common citizen. Meaning their thoughts, motivations and behavior is nothing short of ordinary. If there is any difference it is that they have the concern that their culture, religion, cause or ideology has no better outlet aside from terrorism. This forces them in a way to commit acts of terrorism. But what makes them different from an ordinary person who steals from a bank to feed his family or someone who sells drugs to buy medicine for their sick family members? Terrorism and Aggression In analyzing terrorism in the context of social psychology, particularly aggression new insight is yielded. From the previous discussion on aggression it is clear that if terrorism is an act of violence it is not necessarily bad or good. Proof of this is the notion that any form of violence is either prosocial or anti – social. This unfortunately depends on the view of the one carrying out the act. For the victims it is often seen as bad and terrorists are viewed as bad. But from the point of view of others such as the terrorists or the people who share their views terrorism fall under prosocial violence which is legitimized by culture, religion or any other belief system. Furthermore by integrating the concept of aggression the whole idea that terrorists are driven by hate and contempt is easily disproven. The whole phenomenon of aggression is not all about hate and disdain. And even if it is there is no significant basis to say that aggression which induces violence can explain terrorism. All that is made clear is that terrorists and their acts cannot be validly assessed by adopting the common view that they are naturally violent, barbaric and hateful because of what they do. Terrorism and Prejudice From the standpoint of prejudice in social psychology it is clear that again the idea that terrorists are main proponents of prejudice and discrimination is exposed to be farcical. In the concept of prejudice there is the vital element of negative feelings and that actions are done to manifest these feelings. At the onset this may be true but in looking deeper into terrorism this is not the case. Terrorists do not simply and unequivocally hold a particular group as an object of prejudice. Most if not all doctrines that form part of the main ideology of terrorism is based on contempt for a particular policy (like the policy of military intervention), social conditions (oppression or neglect of problems & rights) and/or leadership in government (the negative view of political leaders). Never does terrorism preach or act on the idea that they hurt, kill, maim, intimidate or brutalize because they are prejudiced against a particular nationality or group. Conclusion In applying the concepts of Social Cognition, Aggression and Prejudice in the context of Social Psychology the common notion as to terrorism and terrorists is exposed to be inaccurate. Governments and organizations have kept of availing of concepts on terrorism which are not singularly accurate or reliable. In social cognition the whole psychological dimension to terrorism is explored. In doing so terrorism can viewed and assessed in a different light and more balanced perspective. The same can be said for both the concepts of Aggression and Prejudice. It has been determined that terrorists and terrorism is not built on aggression and prejudice as what governments have been led to believe. In fact at the most aggression and prejudice from the social psychology standpoint is at a minimum in terrorism. References Baumeister , Roy F. and Finkel, Eli J. (2010). Advance Social Psychology: The State of the Science. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., Taylor, Shelley E., Peplau, Letitia Anne and Sears, David O. (2006). Social Psychology 12th. Ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Clark R. McCauley (n.d.). The Psychology of Terrorism. Social Science Research Council. Retrieved from http://essays.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/mccauley.htm Cambridge International Model United Nations (2007). The Definition of Terrorism: A Guide for Delegates. Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://www.cumun.co.uk/committees/xiiipdfs/disec-terrorism.pdf Hudson, Rex A. (1999). THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM: WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY?. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Available from http://www.scribd.com/doc/8460468/THE-SOCIOLOGY-AND-PSYCHOLOGY-OF-TERRORISM Borum, Randy (2004). Social psychological motivations of suicide terrorism: A community level perspective. Bruce B. Downs Boulevard Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida Read More