|
|
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Humiliation as a Precursor to Religious Violence
The two greatest group
humiliations of the modern age produced the two greatest movements of genocide and terrorism in the modern world: the collapse
of the Ottoman Empire along with the imposition of European colonialism on the Arab world and the rise of the jihad; and the
Treaty of Versailles at the end of the First World War and the appeal of Nazism in Germany.
The defeat of the Ottoman Empire ended trans-national Muslim rule and represented
a tremendous loss of power and prestige by the followers of Mohammed. This was soon followed by the force of European colonialism
that subjected and further humiliated the Arabic world. The failure of secular nationalism to create a pan-Muslim civilization
and return it to power further humiliated the Muslim world. And the Muslim world’s inability to influence world events
was further exemplified by the imposition of the state of Israel without any negotiations with Arab leaders and their defeat
in the 1967 war. These collective humiliations still cast a shadow over the Muslim world and are an important background for
the rise of militant and violent Islamic groups who seek to restore the ancient caliphate and with it the pride and power
of the Muslim civilization. Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual forefather of the jihadi movement, insists on the moral and spiritual
superiority of the past Muslim civilization and that the Muslim world has nothing to learn from a decadent West. Rather this
glorious past must be restored by the use of violence. Bin Laden’s speeches make clear he too desires to undo the humiliation
of the Muslim world at the hands of the “crusaders” and restore it to greatness through violence. Virtually all
the interviews I have seen with jihadis and recruits to fanatical Muslim groups in Europe and the Middle East have mentioned
humiliation. The same is true of many interviews with members of Christian Identity and White Supremacist groups in the United
States. The
Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed on Germany as punishment for the First World War, removed all its colonies from German
control, laid on it onerous sanctions, and demanded its disarmament. All of these had been sources of pride and their loss
was a total humiliation. These humiliations along with the virtual collapse of the weak Weimar government and the German economy
laid the groundwork for Hitler’s rise to power. German veterans returning to a defeated and destabilized nation reported
such feelings as “as a Front-fighter the collapse of the Fatherland in November 1918 was to me completely incomprehensible,”
or “a great hopelessness was in me,” or “I had believed adamantly in Germany’s invincibility and now
I only saw the country in its deepest humiliation—the entire world fell to the ground.” People holding such sentiments
became the core of the Nazi movement. National humiliation caused by military defeat, internal political weakness, and economic
collapse had at least two disastrous results for Germany and for the rest of the world: it set off a furious search for scapegoats,
for some one or some group to blame and to punish for all this suffering; and it unleashed a ferocious drive to undo the humiliation
by defeating those who had humiliated Germany. Many citizens were vulnerable to someone who could explain which group was
to blame and could offer a way to overcome the humiliation. That person was obviously Adolph Hitler who pointed the finger
of responsibility at Jews and other “non-Aryans” and had a plan to restore German prominence through military
conquest. These two historical examples make clear that a nation, a trans-national group, or a sub-group within a
society who experiences profound humiliation is exceedingly vulnerable to radicalization and recruitment into movements and
cultures of violence. [My special thanks to Professor David Redles who supplied the examples from
WWI German veterans who became Nazis and Professor Charles Strozier and Dr. David Terman with whom I have had many productive
discussions on the role of humiliation in violent, apocalyptic movements.]
8:09 pm edt
|
|
May 30, 2008 - "Understanding"
Religious Terrorism
James W. Jones, Psy.D., Ph.D., Th.D.
How
much do we really know about terrorism? The short answer is "a lot" and "a very little." "Terrorism"
- as the cliché about one person’s terrorist being another’s freedom fighter suggests - is more often used
as an epithet or a bit of propaganda than a category useful for understanding. There is general agreement that terrorism is
not an end in itself or a motivation in itself (except perhaps for a few genuinely psychotic individual lone wolves). No movement
is only a terrorist movement; its primary character is more likely political, economic, or religious. Terrorism is a tactic,
not a basic type of group.
The first step in clarifying this topic of "understanding terrorism"
is to become clear about the purpose of our attempts to understand terrorism. Part of the confusion over the understanding
of terrorism results from the more basic confusion of not knowing what we want our explanations of terrorism to do for us.
Before we undertake to "explain" terrorism, we should be clear as to what we want this "explanation" to
accomplish? Many hope that understanding terrorism will help predict future terrorist actions. Others hope that it will help
devise effective counter-terrorism strategies. Will a psychological, or political, or military, or religious understanding
of religious terrorism aid in those goals?
I know from my work in forensic psychology that predicting violent behavior
in any specific case is very, very complicated and very rarely successful. And dramatic acts of violence that change the course
of history - the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand that lit the match on the conflagration of World War I, the taking
hostage of the American Embassy in the Iranian revolution, the 9/11 attack - are rarely predictable. We can list some of the
characteristics of religious groups that turn to violence and terror. I have studied some of the themes common to Muslim,
Christian, and Buddhist groups that have turned to terror. We can also outline the steps that individuals and groups often
go through in becoming committed to violent actions. The NYPD has done exactly that in a recent study. But I remain skeptical
that any model will enable us to predict with any certainty when specific individuals or groups may turn to terrorism. There
are warning signs we should be aware of. But these are signs, not determinants or predictors.
As for counter-terrorism,
it is an important strategic principal that one should know one's enemy. We succeeded in containing the expansiveness
of the former Soviet Union in part because we had a detailed and nuanced understanding of the Soviet system. Understanding
some of what is at stake religiously and spiritually for religious groups that engage in terrorism can help devise ways of
countering them. So a religious-psychological understanding of religious terrorists' motivations can be an important part
of the response to them.
In the months following 9/11 I often heard demagogues on the radio say that psychologists
(like me) who seek to understand the psychology behind religiously motivated violence simply want to "offer the terrorists
therapy." The idea that one must choose either understanding or action - that one cannot do both - is an idea that itself
borders on the pathological and represents the kind of dichotomizing that is itself a part of the terrorist mindset. Such
dichotomized thinking, wherever it occurs, is a part of the problem and not part of the solution. I worked for two years in
the psychology department at a hardcore, maximum security prison. But I never thought of that as a substitute for just and
vigorous law enforcement. Understanding an action in no way means excusing it; explaining an action in no way means condoning
it.
There is, however, a deeper issue here. Understanding others (even those who will your destruction)
can make them more human. It can break down the demonization of the other that some politicians and policy makers feel is
necessary in order to combat terrorists. The demonization of the other is a major weapon in the arsenal of the religiously
motivated terrorist. Must we resort to the same tactic - which is so costly psychologically and spiritually – in order
to oppose terrorism? Or can we counter religiously motivated terrorists without becoming like them?
|
