Psychological Motivation for Terrorism
Introduction
Recent researches into the wide and seemingly inexplicable topic of psychology of terrorism have drawn wide contentions and discussions particularly on what actually motivates a terrorist. Over time, it has been agreed that determining what drives a person to commit terrorist acts is difficult, and forms a basis of extensive psychological, sociological, political, and religious research(Lygreet al, 2011). Terrorists have to be understood from all these facets in order to give a holistic conclusion of their mindset. Behavioral scientists have continually shown an increasing interest in unraveling the mystery behind individuals who finally become terrorists, and it is on this basis that the author of this paper develops a comprehensive research paper to delve deeper into the psychological causes, motivation, and determinants of any sort of terrorist behavior.
Psychological Motivationof Terrorist Behavior
Many psychological researchers, just like the rest of the general public, have always remained in perplexity about what really constitutes the notion of motivation of a terrorist. In the society, acts of terrorism are always uncommon, but shocking once they are committed, and sometimes entail self-destruction of the perpetrator. The latter is referred to as suicide terrorism, which further presents more alarming intrigues to a researcher and the general public (Victoroff&Kruglanski, 2009). Generally, such acts simply defy any logical explanation and a more lucid and charged analysis is required to get even a pinch of the drive to terrorism. More often than not, it is deliberate, though there are instances where an individual is under a strong impulsion to commit an act of terrorism; instrumental; and strategic coupled with several days of active discrete planning. It is always linked to an ideology, which could be religious, or political, and members of a particular terrorist group must all share common belief about that ideology. All these issues even serve to complicate further the understanding of the psychology of a terrorist, and deter the formation of a unifying theory or ideology that offers an explanatory statement on the same.
As aforementioned, unifying beliefs shared by members of a terrorist group are usually guided by an ideology such as that of religion, or politics. But even with these in mind, it is still vexing to come to a complete discernment of the ghost behind a terrorist, and explain the motivations that justify his/her involvement in heinous and subversive activities, especially towards innocent civilians(Saucier et al, 2009). Antique researchers predominantly worked with the assumption that the occurrence on an aberrant behavior on an individual level, which is prominently associated with dramatic acts of terrorism may, to a larger extent, be a reflection of a personality or mental abnormality (Victoroff&Kruglanski, 2009). However, recent researches based on clinical facts and methodologies have debunked that notion, and have instead, embarked on intensive factual studies to present a solid case of clinical-based psychological motivation of a terrorist.
Moreover, researches that have attempted to strike a relationship between terrorism and psychopathology have unanimously agreed that abnormality and mental illness cannot be considered as plausible drivers for a terrorist behavior. Actually, incarcerated terrorists have been found to have higher mental acuity, accompanied by lower prevalence of abnormality than in the general population(Saucier et al, 2009). This one point of unification between terrorists and psychopaths, however, does not give an indication that the two are similar in other aspects. Even terrorists that commit heinous crimes cannot, by any means, be equated as classic psychopaths (Victoroff&Kruglanski, 2009). The former has solid backing and ideological motivation, guided by set objectives to commit a crime.
Even up to this stage, a distinct, well-structured argument about psychological motivation for terrorism is still lacking. Some researchers have cited the extent of vulnerabilities as a probable cause of terrorist acts. In this context, vulnerabilities are viewed as factors that dictate a person’s likelihood to be more engaged in a terrorist act than others (Victoroff&Kruglanski, 2009). Rather being taken as simply causes of terrorism, these factors can be viewed in a deeper sense as motivations or as contributors to the hardening of an individual’s militant ideology (Lygreet al, 2011). In the society, the mostly encountered vulnerabilities include: perceived humiliation or injustice; need for a sense of belonging; and need for identity (Victoroff, 2009). The first element identified as a vulnerability, humiliation or injustice, has been perceived as a leading and central factor in the event of seeking an understanding about terrorism. Going back to the antique times, Saucier et al,(2009), stated with conviction that remediable humiliation and injustice is the principal motivation for a terrorist act. Secondly, the search and longing for identity may lure one into crime, and ultimately, terrorist attacks. Such a person may be easily drawn to a terrorist organization or an extremist group, such as that of an absolutist ideology of ‘black and white’ identity, where one simply becomes a member of an outlawed movement so as define oneself. Lastly, many radical extremists often engage in terrorism as a way of finding a sense of belonging, affiliation, and connectedness. Indeed, it is much agreeable that the initial attraction for an individual to join an organization is its identity, and community, rather than the ideologies which it professes.
How Individuals Connect with Violent Ideologies
The motives for, and pathways to terrorism are very diverse, as people have varied ways through which they connect with dangerous and violent groups and ideologies for different purposes. Thus, an individual undergoes phases of radicalization, terrorist engagement, and ultimate disengagement (Lygreet al, 2011). It is not particularly easy to understand this process by means of a simple sequential, linear analysis, instead, terrorism is comprises of a continuum of intertwined dialectical processes that originate from a single decision, and gradually compels one into engaging in a violent act over time (Victoroff&Kruglanski, 2009). Researchers have agreed that no single concept can explain the intricate patterns of a terrorist’s mind; therefore many suggestions and approaches have been developed in the past years.
The Conceptual Approaches to understanding the psychology of a terrorist have been developed to articulate a proven series of events and stages that apply to divergent group types. One of the frequently used conceptual approaches explains four continuous stages of acquiring a terrorist mindset (Victoroff, 2009). It identifies that the mindset is usually the result, and not the cause, of an individual’s decision to join a violent or extremist group. With a close connection to the above discussed vulnerabilities, this concept explains how such vulnerabilities and pre-existing grievances can be transformed into radical hatred of a particular target group; and further extends into an impetus for violent acts. Initially, the process starts with an individual framing an event or a grievance that is unsatisfying, such as ‘it is not fair at all’. After that, someone, or an organization, or simply a target policy, is held culpable for the injustice, such as ‘it is your direct fault’. Once this happens, the target party or policy is demonized, or vilified; a stage which incites moral misunderstanding between the two parties, and creates an impetus for a violent form of aggression (Saucier et al, 2009).
On the other hand, Lygreet al(2011) developed a metaphoric ‘Staircase’ model to attempt to explain the aspect of one becoming a terrorist. He also agrees that discontentment and feelings of deprivation are principal root causes of the terrorist mindset development. This model assumes that once an individual falters in his attempts to subvert adversity and/or deprivation, feelings of aggression and frustration set in, and the victim finds a target or an agent onto which to displace the frustrations (Victoroff, 2009). As the aggression and feeling of animosity against that agent builds up, an individual feels increasingly sympathetic towards violent or terrorist groups and justifications to commit crime (Victoroff&Kruglanski, 2009). As one progresses to join a terrorist group, the barrier to commit violence is overcome, and the real act is finally carried out.
There are numerous other conceptual theories that have been suggested, though most of them agree that for one to become a terrorist, he/she must have either some or all of the following attributes: feels angry, disenfranchised, or alienated; identify with victims of the perceived injustice, or discrimination; have a belief that their current social, political, or religious affiliation does not grant them enough powers to effect any changes in their situation; have a mutual feeling that the only way to solve their current problem is beyond diplomacy and therefore action needs to be taken; have some family members or friends who are sympathetic to their cause; and believe that involving with a terrorist organization offers not only social rewards, but also psychological satisfaction such as a sense of belonging, camaraderie, or adventure.
Kruglanski(2013), notes that individuals who join terrorist organizations usually are social misfits in the society, uneducated, and unemployed. Boredom is a major drive for the youths towards joining a terrorist group, especially as a cheap way of engaging in an action-packed ordeal that fights for a cause they believe is just. Other individuals, however, are motivated by their nagging curiosity to make use of their skills, for instance, bomb-making. The personal pathway model, on the other hand, reiterates that terrorists came from a given at risk population, who have in the past, suffered a blow on their self-esteem. All these suggestions point to one thing, or at least two: terrorists were initially a frustrated lotof individuals, who have found solace and satisfaction in a movement which they believe would them a just opportunity to pay back, and remedy the situation for future descendants. Ina addition, a terrorist does not rapidly commit a violent act, but develops the feeling until the justification for the destruction of innocent property and lives, including one’s own, is found.
The Motivation of a Suicide Terrorist
In an extremist view, terrorists often engage in a self-destructive violence, commonly known as suicide terrorism. An individual-level analysis conforms that this worst form of violence is driven by an experience of personal trauma(Victoroff&Kruglanski, 2009). Such incidences like disruption or destabilization of an environment; the demise of a close relative or friend; physical wounding; and psychological mistreatment such as disgrace or humiliation serve as strong factors that lead to a violent behavior. This tendency is heightened when an individual or a group feels that the government or a larger group has the ability and the legal jurisdiction to handle and adequately address a situation, and obvious clumsiness can be seen on their part. Based on grueling experiences of frustration, loss, disenfranchising, disillusionment; bitterness, and feelings of helplessness are likely to develop (Saucier et al, 2009). Researchers acknowledge that irrespective of whether the experience is indirect or direct, an individual is still exposed to the same kind of vulnerability: one loses control over one’s anger and logical reasoning due to perceived reduction in self-esteem. As a feeling of despair sets in, an individual finds a resolution by joining an organization that believes in one’s cause.
Supportive violent groups usually have the greater leverage on a person’s transition from a new recruit to a suicide bomber. Extremist groups often work by offering a strong ideology with a reasonable morel component, such as the sacredness of human life under threat by misguided policies legalizing abortion. In addition, a clear vision for the future is usually given by the group, which may at times be very instrumental in attracting undecided recruits. The study of group dynamics reveals an intriguing mode of transition of a new recruit into a potential suicide bomber. The confine of a social group alienates one from developing sound behavioral norms, and instead, creates a new world of abject ideologies which are then legitimized, reinforced, and rationalized (Victoroff, 2009). An individual, thus, severes his relationship with the moral world and his ability to engage in constructive personal reflection reduces as his dependence on the members of the extremist group heightens. This is a pint of no return, and usually marks the point of readiness, willingness, and open confession of a person to carry out any act, guided by a cause that he believes is far much greater than himself.
Conclusion
Although the understanding of the psychology of a terrorist is challenging and openly difficult, a collective analysis of the models and conceptual approaches developed by past researchers provide some common points which can be drawn to explain what actually comprises of a terrorist. The root of all sorts of motivations is a feeling of injustice and/or prejudice. Several members of a society that believe, or are affected by the same predicament can form a strong movement that organizes itself as a crime syndicate. This explains why Muslims, who are more united than Christians, usually find it easy to form a movement that addresses their rights. Lastly, feelings of the need for identity and belonging have been found to be as pressing as the aforementioned in driving an individual to commit acts of terrorism. Further study needs to be conducted to come up with a holistic and comprehensive framework of understanding the psychology of terrorists, since this could be crucial in forestalling the occurrence of terrorist attacks, as enshrined within the strategic plans of predictive policing.
References
Kruglanski, A. W. (2013). Psychological insights into Indonesian Islamic terrorism: The what, the how and the why of violent extremism. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 16(2), 112-116.
Lygre, R. B., Eid, J., Larsson, G., &Ranstorp, M. (2011). Terrorism as a process: A critical review of Moghaddam’s ‘Staircase to Terrorism’. Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology, 52(6), 609-616.
Saucier, G., Akers, L., Shen-Miller, S., Knežević, G., &Stankov, L. (2009). Patterns of Thinking in Militant Extremism.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4 (3), 256-271.
Victoroff, J. &Kruglanski, A. (Eds.). (2009). Psychology of terrorism: Classic and contemporary insights. New York: Psychology Press.
Victoroff&Kruglanski, 2009).Suicide Terrorism and the Biology of Significance.Political Psychology, 30(3), 397-400.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]