In the last decade or so, social science has focused attention on the
question of how terrorism arises and sustains itself. Although research
ongoing, an answer is beginning to come into focus. Current
understanding points to a way out. However, the road to peace is going
to take time, persistence and real moral courage to face reality. That’s
probably no surprise to most people.
The good news is that with
persistent focus and the courage to do so, any nation including all
Western countries, can remove one of the two fuels that is necessary to
sustain terrorism. The two fuels that ignite and sustain terrorism are
(1) primed and ready new terrorist recruits and (2) how the terrorist
group’s enemies respond to the terrorist group’s threats and/or actual
violence. Both fuels are necessary to light the fire and to keep it
burning with fresh manpower.
Most Islamic terrorists, more than
99%, are psychologically normal and not psychopaths or sadists.
Conversion to terrorism is based not on the person’s initial ideology or
religion. It is based on the person’s social identity and the dynamics
of the person’s social group or country. A progression from normalcy to
extremism appears to result from four things. Once they have converted,
the converts aren’t mindless killers. They are marked by an unstoppable
willingness to enthusiastically and creatively murder innocents.
Does this sound familiar?: If reference to social identity sounds vaguely familiar to some readers, it should. The research into the fundamental basis of democracy
I described also found that the dominant factor driving
voter’s beliefs and behavior was their social or group identity, not
their ideology or objectively rational thinking. Social identity and
what happens to it is critical to understand the process.
How to make a homegrown terrorist:
For the US and Western countries, the pre-terrorist identifies with and
supports his home country and its authorities. The next step occurs
when, on a number of occasions, society and/or the country’s authorities
treat this person differently, e.g., constantly imposing extra scrutiny
at airports, monitoring Islamic religious activities or being removed
from an airplane for simply speaking in Arabic on a cell phone before
the flight. The latter incident occurred a couple of days ago in California.
Although third step in the process doesn’t happen with everyone, some
people who have experienced treatment they believe is inexplicable,
humiliating and/or unwarranted respond by beginning to disengage from
their identification with their home country. Their social identity
begins to loosen.
At this point, the typical pre-terrorist becomes
susceptible to the minority of voices who promise a new and better
thing to identify with such as the utopian Caliphate that ISIS promises
its recruits. In this “alienated” state of mind, the pre-terrorist can
easily identify with the new message and rationalize the horrors and
slaughter it will take to get to a better society. The final step in the
transition from pre-terrorist to terrorist willing to murder is full
loss of identification with the home country. At that point, the
person’s transition to a terrorist is essentially complete. Terrorist
recruiters now essentially own the new recruit if they can get to him or
her.
In America with its powerful freedom of speech
constitutional law, there is no significant barrier to block the
recruiter. The path is clear.
The first fuel:
The first fuel needed to start the fire in a new recruit is clear. In
the process from normal to murderer, how the pre-terrorist’s home
country treats him and his religion determines if the second step is
present or absent. Everything from vilifying Islam or Islamic
immigration in public to surveillance of Mosques to kicking someone off
an airplane for simply speaking in Arabic can be enough to move the
progression to steps 3 and 4. Two group dynamics are needed for this
Tango - the first group is the home country acting badly. The second
dynamic is the terrorist recruiter offering a new social identity and
dynamic. If the home country doesn’t act badly, the fire never starts.
Of
course, that exact scenario my not apply in all situations. Research is
ongoing. Despite some uncertainty, this is what modern science, not
closed-minded political ideologues and arrogant blowhards, believes
constitutes the path to terrorism for nearly all new recruits. This
scenario plays out in Islamic countries too. In those countries, the
first fuel is the corrupt local dictator acting badly toward its own
people and as we all know, there’s way more than plenty of that to go
around.
And, of course, there’s The Donald: On
the campaign trail, The Donald publicly suggested that all Muslim
immigrants are potential enemies who need to be kept out of the US. That
was a victory for ISIS. They immediately turned it into a recruiting
tool and used it to smear all Americans. Talk like that fosters
completing the second step in the progression -- it's the first fuel.
What we need to do as a country is obvious. The question is whether we
have the intelligence and courage to do it. Do we? Or, is it best to
simply ignore the science and trust the politicians?
This discussion is based on an article in my favorite unbiased source for understanding the science of politics, Scientific American.
This article, “Fueling Extremes” is in the May-June 2016 issue at pages
34-39. An online version, “Fueling Terror: How Extremists Are Made”, is
available for $5.99 at: http://www.scientificamerican....
Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive science, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
No comments:
Post a Comment