Sociological Critique of the Psychology of Terrorism - Term Paper Example

Sociological Critique of the Psychology of Terrorism Introduction The concept of terrorism is more pertinent in the world that it has ever been before. Terrorism is now recognized as one of the top issues in the current world. Terrorism and its derived words and phrases are quite common across the world because of the increase in activities that are associated with terrorism. In fact, some fear had developed around the concept of terrorism, such that various reactions have been witnessed ranging from psychological trauma, military intervention, policy making, and scholarly works on terrorism. Terrorism is largely associated with certain groups that are considered hostile, ruthless, inhumane, and sometimes with weird religious ideologies. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in the United States marked a major era in the efforts to deal with terrorism. The Al Qaeda terrorist group claimed responsibility for the attack that claimed many lives, caused injuries, and massive destruction of property. Over the recent past, terrorist activities have intensified in different parts of the world, including Nigeria, East Africa, Iraq, Syria, and Libya among others. The current terrorism wave is linked to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIL, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Taliban among others. While the concept of terrorism appears to be universally understood, the reality is that terrorism is a vague and subjective concept. In the field of sociology, terrorism has had multiple definitions and conceptions. Different schools of though have emerged with regard to the concept of terrorism (Silke, 2008: 100). This has complicated the concept of terrorism further. As Jorgan notes, “Any serious student of terrorism will quickly realize not only that the issue of definition is a major obstacle to conceptual development within the area, but that, nevertheless, the extent to which researchers embrace the perceived need to fully resolve the issue of definition reflects an inefficient use of time and energy” (2014: 31). The statement above captures the reality of the ambiguity and subjectivity in understanding and defining terrorism. Different scholars will provide different definitions of terrorism based on their personal or social biases. Ultimately, we now have a plethora of definitions and conceptualizations of terrorism. Luckily, the plethora of research studies and scholarly work on terrorism provides broader insights that can help resolve the same problem that they cause, ambiguity. However, for the purpose of this sociological critique of the psychology of terrorism, it is important to develop an abstract definition of terrorism to guide the critique. One of the most widely used definitions of terrorism was provided by Crenshaw. According to Crenshaw (1992: 71), terrorism is style of political violence that involves a small group of perpetrators attacking a section of the society with the aim of influencing the larger society. From this definition, several points are worth noting. First, terrorism is goal-oriented. A terrorist’s or terrorist group’s intention is to influence a section of the society by creating a sense of fear. Second, terrorists are not likely to attack an entire society because this would be against their own goals. If they eliminate an entire community that they intend to influence, they will have no one left to influence. Therefore, they only target a small part of the community to send their message to the larger community. The Psychology of Terrorism One of the major attempts to conceptualize terrorism has been the efforts by researchers and scholars to determine the underlying causes of terrorism. There have been multiple research studies and scholarly work trying to unmask the psychology of the terrorist. These attempts have often yielded different and conflicting results. For some, terrorists have mental and psychological problems, which cause them to engage in terrorist activities. Some psychologists associated terrorists with psychological problems such as paranoia, depression, low-self esteem, and identity crises (Crenshaw, 2000: 407). This has led to an assumption that terrorists are different from the normal people (Horgan, 2004: 48).John Horgan, a respected psychologist and terrorism scholar, has conducted multiple researches and established the link between psychology and terrorism. From these research studies, Horgan has come up with various observations about the psychological factors for terrorism and terrorist activities. One of the major findings from the Horgan studies has been that people who are vulnerable to joining or engaging in terrorist activities tended to experience feelings of disenfranchisement, anger, and alienation (DeAngelis, 2009: 60). In understanding the psychology of terrorism, scholars have largely relied on psychological theories of violence. These include instinct theory, drive theory, social learning theory, biological approaches, cognitive theory, and other raw empirical approaches (see Borum, 2007: 11-16). Depending on the psychological theory applied, different findings regarding the psychology of terrorists have emerged. In sociologically critiquing these findings and discourses, it is important to keep in mind the different theoretical approaches used and their major underpinnings. Some theories such as the psychoanalytic theory have been widely used in terrorism discourses. From a sociological perspective, the linkage of terrorism to psychological problems raises several pertinent issues. First, the issue of whether the terrorist is conceived as an individual or part of larger group needs to be addressed. If the findings that terrorists are likely to be different and have psychological problems is based on studies of terrorists as individuals, then the field of sociology cannot accept such findings as they are. Sociological analysis seeks to establish the social element of literature. However, an individual study negates this important element of sociology. From a sociological perspective, terrorist is a social concept and any attempt to separate it from the social setting should be challenged. In this regard, any studies on the psychology of terrorism that negate the social element do not represent the reality of terrorism as it should be. However, not all studies on the psychology of terrorism that focuses on individuals fail to meet the sociological threshold. The social link can be found in the manner in which the individual’s psychological problems are rooted or influenced by belonging to a particular group or society. For example, some scholars have associated individual terrorism tendencies with group activity in that individuals with developmental problems that increase their chances of becoming terrorists may join terrorist groups to meet certain needs. Some of these needs include a sense of belonging, association, socialization, and learning among others (Crenshaw, 2000: 409). From a sociological perspective, this association of terrorist with group activity and dynamics provides a strong basis for understanding the terrorism concept. A sociologist such as criminologist would find this linkage interesting. In sociological criticism, it is important to always view sociology a broad field that borrows from different field such as psychology, psychiatry, and biology (Hartung, 1958: 703). Therefore, the fact that most of the studies relating terrorism to psychological factors are conducted by psychologists and rely on psychological principles should not be a cause to challenge their findings without a sociological critique. It is not doubt that psychology has largely informed the conceptualization of terrorism. This has ranged from the underlying causes of terrorism, the influence of society, radicalization, and social dynamics in addressing terrorism threat. From a sociological point of view, specifically criminology, addressing crime is a complex issue and requires multiple approaches including social, psychological, and legal approaches. Recent trends in dealing with the terrorism threat have taken both preventive and reactive strategies. For example, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US government made changes to its foreign policy as well as immigration policy to make it difficult for terrorists and terrorist ideologies to penetrate into the US soil. As part of this effort, the US has adopted more stringent measures for screening visitors into the country. The US has also taken proactive and military actions to curb terrorism beyond its borders. Limitations of Research on Psychology of Terrorism Credibility of Theories and Concepts Although a plethora of research studies on terrorism exist, most of these research studies have relied on secondary research. Apparently over 80 per cent of all research is derived from analyzing data from secondary sources including media records, books, scholarly journals, reports, and other relevant documents (Silke, 2008: 101). Although secondary research is an important part of research, it has several limitations compared to primary research. The greatest drawback of relying on secondary data is that the risk of repeating previous errors or biases is high. Analysing the ideas and opinions of other people can prevent objectiveness in the research. This may explain why multiple research studies on the psychology of terrorism end up with similar or almost similar findings. The problem of over-reliance on secondary research is caused by the fact that terrorism is still a vague concept as well as the fact that terrorism is quite unique compared to other crimes. For example, without a universally accepted definition of terrorism, researchers may find it difficult to identify terrorists to include in their research studies (see Crenshaw, 2000: 406). Therefore, to minimize the risk of including individuals that may not meet the terrorist threshold in research, researchers often prefer analysing available data. Moreover, terrorism is a unique type of crime. Terrorists do not prefer to come out in the public because their activities are often highly secretive. This phenomenon is more prevalent among jihadi terrorists who may be unwilling to take part in psychological studies. Even in the few cases where psychological studies of terrorism have relied on primary research, the quality of the data obtained and the credibility of the findings are questionable from a sociological perspective. Some studies have relied on primary data collected from interviewing incarcerated terrorists. From these psychological studies, the researchers have been able to get closer to the terrorists’ minds. However, the tendency of terrorists to be radicalized casts aspersions regarding the credibility of the data provided by these terrorists. This is based on the assumption that such studies are based on the willingness and consent of the incarcerated individuals to provide the information. Previous interrogations and attempts to extract intelligence from captured terrorists have shown the difficulty of gaining such information. A jihadist who is prepared to die may not be a good source of information especially if the information will benefit his perceived enemies. Based on the above issues, sociologists are left with more questions than answers. As Victoroff (2005: 4) notes, the question that must be asked is “to what degree and leading psychological theories of terrorism supported by valid concepts and objective research?” This question has a sociological inclination. Sociology and criminology must avoid the trap of being biased or adopting subjective and unfounded theories and conceptualizations of researchers on the psychology of terrorism. Narrowness of Focus Another major issue with the psychology of terrorism is its narrow focus. It is important to note that there are various approaches to analysing terrorism including multicausal approach, political approach, physiological approach, organizational approach, and psychological approach (Hudson & Majeska, 1999). Each of these approaches has its merits and demerits. The psychological approach, which is the focus of this sociological critique, has a narrow focus on the micro-level. This implies that the approach mainly focuses on individual terrorists or particular terrorist groups. Some of the factors of concern in the psychological approach include attitudes, beliefs, personalities, and motivations for being terrorists or joining terrorist groups (Hudson & Majeska, 1999: 18-19). From the above understanding of the psychological approach to analysing terrorism, a sociologist may raise several fundamental questions. The first question would be with regard to the suitability of psychological approach in understanding terrorism. According to Hartung (1958: 703), sociology approaches crime from multiple perspectives and disciplines. The use of psychological approach in analysing terrorist is partly founded on this principle. Psychology is part of the sociological approach. However, psychology is just one among the multiple disciplines in sociological approach. This means that the psychological approach to analysing terrorism is limited in that it only concentrates on one aspect of psychology and leaves out other important aspects such as social, political, religious, and environmental factors. In this regard, the theories and concepts emanating from the psychology of terrorism may be limited and biased. Additionally, the psychological approach to analysing terrorism concentrates on the individual terrorist or terrorist group’s attitudes, beliefs, motivations, and personalities. This is a typical psychological approach. However, from a sociological perspective, this is a very limited approach to a complex concept such as terrorism. In sociology, the link between a phenomenon and the society is crucial. In the case of terrorism, establishing how societal factors cause or motivate terrorism and how terrorism affects the society are important considerations. However, this is not the case with most of the studies on the psychology of terrorism relying on the psychological approach. Focusing on individual terrorists may not yield so much information that may have significant sociological relevance. Understanding how a terrorist thinks or what motivates him to engage in terrorist activities based on his beliefs and personality is largely out of the sphere of sociology.Victoroff (2005: 7) notes this problem and argues that any effort to examine the mind of an individual terrorist will ultimately reveal a variety of terrorist minds. This statement implies that the psychological analysis of individual terrorist or specific groups of terrorists can only reveal the inadequacies of such an approach. Victoroff (2005: 6) further notes that such psychological analyses could be misleading if they do not unearth the different roles and levels of terrorists. This assertion implies that a single terrorist is only a part of a larger group. By focusing on a single or small group of terrorists, it may be impossible to get the real connection between terrorism and the society. In fact, to add into the subjectivity of psychological analysis of terrorism, individual terrorists may have different stories based on their individual perspectives and values. Over-Simplification of Concepts Another important issue to consider in sociologically critiquing the psychology of terrorism is the apparent simplification of concepts. Many researches and discourses on the psychology of terrorism tend to assume that terrorism is a typical crime involving a systematic and predictable process of radicalization and violence. For instance, the NYPD released a controversial report titled Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat in 2007 in which it simplified the radicalization process into four systematic stages. This simplification was challenged by two reputable terrorism scholars including David Schanzer and John Horgan. The terrorism scholars criticised the report for failing to represent the multiple trajectories of radicalization (Garbin, 2014). This example illustrates the simplification of terrorism and its related concepts in psychology of terrorism discourses. This simplification is evident in multiple studies and articles on the psychology of terrorism. For example, some scholars have focused on gender differences in understanding the psychology of terrorists. Some scholars have suggested a possible linkage between female terrorism and childhood maladjustment (see Crenshaw, 2000: 409). Several studies have also focused on women terrorists suggesting the gender is a major factor in terrorism. This psychological approach focusing on a particular gender in understanding the psychology of terrorism seems to fall in the same simplification trap. Terrorism is a complex and multifaceted sociological phenomenon that such simplification cannot adequately provide the basis for making anti-terrorism policies. The field of sociology cannot rely on such simplified findings and concepts in understanding and addressing the problem of terrorism. Over-emphasizing of Concepts Apart from over-simplification of terrorism, the discourses on psychology of terrorism tend to over-emphasize certain concepts. This creates a sociological problem in understanding the causes and solutions to terrorism. One example of this over-emphasizing is we are having a wave of New Terrorism, which is quite different from the Old Terrorism. Apparently, most commentators on the psychology of terrorism tend to hold this position. Apparently, they consider the increased adverse impacts and violence in recent terrorist attacks that surpass those in the Old Terrorism period. Moreover, the increased association of terrorism with religious fundamentalism is a central tenet that differentiates New Terrorism from Old Terrorism (Silke, 2008: 102-103). This distinction between Old and New Terrorism has major implications on the understanding of psychology of terrorism. Specifically, this distinction and over-emphasis on New Terrorism has led to negation of some of the fundamental principles in psychology of terrorism established in the Old Terrorism era. Psychology of Terrorism and Role of Institutions Despite the growing scholarly work on the psychology of terrorism, the reliance on secondary research has had profound implications on the relationship between certain institutions and the discourse of psychology of terrorism. In this regard, one of the institutions that have largely been involved in such discourses is the media. Most people access information about terrorism from media reports. In sociology, the media is one of the most influential institutions. Therefore, any information coming from the media is likely to reach out to many people and influence them in different ways. With regard to the psychology of terrorism, the media has largely focused on face-value. This means that the media, despite its massive influence, has often focused more on reporting terrorist attacks, the perpetrators, and outcomes. According to Shah (2007), the media has an important role in providing wider perspectives and understandings after terrorist attacks. Media is so interested in reporting that al-Qaeda has bombed a city and the number of deaths but less concerned about taking the conversation beyond that. Therefore, we have a situation where the media does not take the discourse on psychology of terrorism a step further. This task is left to the few scholars, especially psychologists, who also rely on media reports for their findings. This is unfortunate. Additionally, the discourse on psychology of terrorism has tended to create a sense of panic and fear. The typologies of terrorism that have emanated from the scholars and the media, as the main institutions leading in the discourse, have often created so much confusion and fear. In fact, the stereotyping of certain religions and or races as terrorists can be largely attributed to the information from media as well as some from scholars. In sociology, this is missing the point. Rather than worsen the problem, the discourse on psychology of terrorism ought to provide solutions and address the misconceptions, stereotypes, and confusion that are now prevalent. The Progress in Psychology of Research Despite the various shortcomings and limitations of the psychology of terrorism, there have been major positive steps in trying to address some of these limitations. Early discourses on the psychology of terrorism primarily adopted the psychoanalytic theory, which led to findings such as the narcissist behaviors of terrorists, the role of parenting, and personality issues among others (Borum, 2004: 18-20). However, contemporary research and discourses on the psychology of terrorism have diversified into other important approaches. This progress is in line with sociology in that it recognizes the multiple elements, roles, reasons, and processes involved in people becoming terrorists or joining terrorist groups (Borum, 2004: 22). Therefore, contemporary discourses on the psychology of terrorism separate the factors leading to terrorism, the motivation for remaining in terrorism groups, and the factors for leaving the terrorist groups. Some of the findings from earlier studies and discourses on the psychology of terrorism have now been challenged or disqualified. A good example is the issue of terrorists being perceived as psychopaths or as having mental illnesses (Borum, 2004). From a sociological perspective, this assertion was weak and defied the major role of social factors in terrorism. Early discourses had also added to the complexity of the terrorism concept by using subjectivity to classify terrorists as unique in that a terrorist has a different personality from the normal people in the society. New discourses have challenged these findings and noted that the idea of a terrorist profile is baseless and over-emphasized. These new insights have, to some extent, addressed the effect of earlier findings that had informed anti-terrorism policies in different jurisdictions across the world. From a purely sociological stand, terrorism and terrorism should not be given a blanket identity that separates them from the general society. Terrorists should be perceived as part of the society first but not as some unique personalities that do not fit into the society. Many contemporary discourses have actually revealed that a plethora of social processes and dysfunctions such as poor childhood upbringing, trauma, and more importantly, perceived or real injustices. In fact, the general definitions of terrorism in most contemporary discourses have tended to emphasize the role of social injustices in causing and motivating terrorism and terrorist behaviors. The finding that terrorism has ideological goals negates the earlier findings that terrorists are psychopaths. A psychopath or mentally instable individual may not be able to plan and executive the complex and very technical plans that terrorists often employ. In fact, a psychopath is not in a position to think about spreading a particular ideology because of his state of mind, which involves irrational decisions. Conclusion Terrorism is still a controversial and complex concept. There are still major disparities in the understanding of terrorism and terrorists. However, studied and discourses on terrorism have increased over time. Today, there is a wide array of information on terrorism and terrorists. Part of the information is about the psychology of terrorism, which addresses issues personality, developmental factors, and psychological factors in causing, sustaining, or ending terrorism. Discourses on the psychology of terrorism have provided some important insights for sociology. However, there are various areas of concern including the narrowness, limitations, subjectivity, over-emphasis, and reliance on secondary data. These have negated some fundamental elements of sociology in dealing with the concept of terrorism. In a nut shell, discourses on psychology of terrorism have tended to negate the crucial link between terrorism and the society. References Borum, R. 2004. Psychology of terrorism. Tampa: University of South Florida. Crenshaw, M. 1992. ‘How terrorists think: What psychology can contribute to understanding terrorism. In L. Howard (ed.). Terrorism: Roots, impact, responses, 71-80. London: Praeger. Crenshaw, M. 2000. ‘The psychology of terrorism: An agenda for the 21st century.’ Political Psychology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 405-420. DeAngelis, T. 2009. Understanding terrorism. American Psychology Association, vol. 40, no. 10, p. 60. Harbin, J., P. 2014. ‘Psychology of a Terrorist: Experts go to the source.’ Islamic Commentary [Online] Available at: http://islamicommentary.org/2014/11/psychology-of-a-terrorist-experts-go-to-the-source/ [Accessed 4 February 2015]. Hartung, F. E. 1958. ‘A Critique of the Sociological Approach to Crime and Correction.’ Law and Contemporary Problems, pp. 703-734. Horgan, J. 2004. Chapter 4: The social ad psychological characteristics of terrorism and terrorists. In T. Bjørgo (ed.), Root Causes of Terrorism: Myths, reality and ways forward (pp. 44-53). Milton Park, Oxon: Routledge. Horgan, J. 2014. The psychology of terrorism. Routledge. Hudson, R. A., & Majeska, M. 1999. The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why? Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Shah, A, 2007. ‘War on terror mainstream media and propaganda.’ Global Issues [Online] Available at: http://www.globalissues.org/article/352/mainstream-media-and-propaganda [Accessed 5 February 2015]. Silke, A. 2008. ‘Holy warriors exploring the psychological processes of Jihadi radicalization.’ European Journal of Criminology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 99-123. Victoroff, J. 2005. ‘The mind of the terrorist: A review and critique of psychological approaches.’ The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 3-42. Read More