|
|
Monday, February 16, 2009
Religious Justifications for Terror
I have suggested that there are a minimum of three conditions for religiously motivated terrorism to take place: a
population that has experienced humiliation, either personally or by “proxy” (as Khosrokhavar refers to it); a
tactical group able to train and deploy a potential terrorist; and, finally, a religious justification for committing a heinous
act. To the third of these we now turn. Despite Homo
sapiens’ long history of violence and bloodshed, there is some evidence that killing other human beings is not
natural. Rather (except for the criminally insane) we all have a certain natural inhibition against the premeditated killing
of others of our own species. And certainly civilization aims at reinforcing and strengthening this inhibition. The result
is that most people have to be carefully taught to kill and have to be trained to engage in mass murder.
Part of
such training is what the psychologist Albert Bandura calls “moral disengagement.” Here individuals
become desensitized to the heinousness of their actions. Given that the majority of terrorists are not psychopathological
and that normal people have inhibitions against killing other human beings, such inhibitions must be disengaged in order for
psychologically normal people to become terrorists. Human tendencies toward empathy and compassion are
“disengaged” by, among other means, (1) framing killing as morally justified and (2) dehumanizing the victims
and blaming them for the harm done to them. Most people need a moral justification before they will voluntarily engage in mass
murder. Redefining the morality of killing is almost always necessary here. Religious ethics and doctrines can be powerful means of overcoming the moral and psychological mechanisms
that inhibit people from killing and maiming others and so enable them to engage in horrific violence. Religion is probably
the most power method of reframing immoral conduct into a moral imperative by providing a theological rationale for it. Theology
endues extraordinary violence with meaning, purpose, and morality and transforms terrorist deed into divine mission,
Redefining
the morality of killing is only one of the links in the chain of radicalization by which ordinary people turn into terrorists.
Dehumanization of the victim is another crucial mechanism by which terrorism becomes normalized. Religion is perhaps the most powerful force in desensitizing devotees to the humanity of the other
and thus creating the moral disengagement necessary for terrorism. Envisioning
the world as a cosmic battleground between completely good forces and the forces of pure evil appears as one major theme in
the worldview of religious fanatics and terrorists. This belief serves what psychologist James Waller calls “the social
death of the victim,” dehumanizing the victims by seeing them as Satanic. This demonizing and dehumanizing
of the other is one of the most potent ways in which religion promotes terrorism. Traditionally these processes take place through extensive training in an authoritarian milieu. But current examples
such as the formation of radical jihadist cliques in Europe suggest that this may also happen more spontaneously, without
the heavy hand of a group leader or trainer, but rather through reading religious literature on one’s own, listening
to sermons on tape or over the Internet, discussions with friends. No direct contact with a leader or trainer is necessary.
While secular groups and criminal gangs can also engage these psychological processes, religion appears as the most powerful
site of this conversion of normal, civilized persons into trained killers because of its power to justify killing and dehumanize
victims.
2:18 pm est
|
|
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?
|
