Although terrorism is one of the greatest challenges to human security of the latest century, its root causes are still far from being identified. Is it time to take a different approach?
The phenomenon of terrorism has been widely observed and investigated. As now, it can be assumed that terrorism is a global threat that can affect any country or region. A few countries have been so far immune to terrorism, but it cannot be ruled out that they could experience it sooner or later. Despite the increasing success of national security services in preventing and tackling the phenomenon, militant groups and/or individuals often manage to evade counter-terrorism activities and carry out significant attacks against the targeted society.
Studies on the matter have shown that people resort to terrorism for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, researchers did not manage to draw a profile of a potential terrorist as the characteristics differ from one individual/group to another. Poverty does not necessarily lead to terrorism (e.g. Bin Laden was the son of a wealthy Saudi businessman and yet waged war against the West), as well as specific religions (e.g. The Irish Republican Army, the Islamic State and the Arakan Army all belong to different religious beliefs and yet have all resorted to terrorism) or forms of government (e.g. France and Uzbekistan have experienced terrorism with the former being a liberal democracy and the latter being a de facto dictatorship).
Many questions remain unanswered by the analysts. First, what should be further investigated to determine why people choose this extreme form of violence? Second, what are the main causes that lead some people to resort to violent methods while others with the same beliefs/ideology choose peaceful means? Thirdly, how much importance should be given to the individual-community psychological dimension of terrorism? Are strong ideologies and manipulative leaders crucial in convincing other people to resort to violent methods to the point of not feeling empathy for their innocent victims?
The community dimension of the phenomenon
The decision to resort to terrorism could be seen as both an individual and a community choice. Some scholars, investigating the community dimension of the phenomenon, hypothesized that there is a direct link between the decision to resort to terrorism, the Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) and Group-based Relative Deprivation (GRD). In their discussion, they talked about the natural human devotion to our own social groups, which has always been fundamentally tribal in nature.
Since people’s own tribes are important to them, other tribes are regarded as a threat either to one’s existence if the other tribe possesses the power to harm (realistic threat), or a threat to the group’s unified meaning system (symbolic threat). In addition, feelings of discontent may arise when people perceive that members of their group are deprived of the rights and resources they are entitled to by members of the dominant social group. This could be the case, for example, with marginalized Muslim communities living in Europe or in regions where Islam is not the dominant culture. Allegedly, the nation-state, an institution with a dominant culture and language, has exacerbated this division and perception of threat between social groups.
The psychological perspective
From a psychological perspective, the personal experience of the single individual also plays a major role in the decision to resort to terrorism. People with the same social-cultural background, who share the same beliefs and/or ideologies, often choose different paths, with some opting for peaceful means, while other embrace violence. A clear example of this would be the Italian Red Brigades where, in addition to the militants, the organization could count on the support of several flankers who shared the group’s ideology (e.g. Lawyers, students, medics), but refused to use violence. To this purpose, strong and charismatic leaders are essential to convince dissatisfied people that violence is the only possible way to achieve the group’s goal or, simply, to avenge perceived injustices.
Since terrorism is an act that goes beyond the immediate target, it could also be stated that when militants perpetrate their attacks, they somehow “de-humanise” the victims, considering them merely as a mean to achieve their goals (or simply to strike the social group), totally lacking empathy. This “de-humanisation” process could be given by cultural (cultures less incline to demonize violence e.g. Religious extremism), psychological (some individuals may be, by nature, more incline to use violence than others) or social reasons (societies that justify violence against a certain group e.g. Myanmar government targeting Rohingya ethnic group).
Terrorists sometimes look for unrealistic goals, such as global jihad for the Islamic State or a Marxist-communist state for the Italian Red Brigades. Nevertheless, militants cannot refrain from waging their own personal war against the targeted institution/social group, even dying for it. It may be stated that these individuals consider the single terrorist act itself as a milieu goal which satisfies their violent pulse toward the social group they want to strike, thus satisfying the resentment.
Further developments
Recent research often emphasizes the political nature of terrorism and strictly categorizes groups based on their motives and internal structures. If previous research on the matter did not meet an answer to the initial questions, the phenomenon of terrorism could be further investigated outside the usual criteria of its political nature. Based on this, what if we consider terrorism first as a mere form of violence, and then as a political act?
According to Robert Simon, forensic psychiatrist and author of the book “bad men do what good men dream”, the only difference between violent and non-violent men lies in the latter psychological breaks that prevent them from using violence. In Simon’s view, violence has always been a part of the human being, as well as other common behaviors. However, thanks to social evolution (education to non-violence) and forms of control (rules and laws that sanction violent acts), people are generally less inclined to resort to violence and less inclined to tolerate violent acts. But if violence is inherently inside every one of us, under certain social and psychological conditions anyone could become a potential terrorist.
Analysts could, for example, analyze human violent behaviors and pulses in different historical and cultural environments also with the help of other social studies departments (psychology; sociology; anthropology), assessing and determining how the threshold of violence has evolved during times in different context and places, and the incidence of terrorism related to it. The in-depth analysis of militants and their motivations within the political-sociological landscape at the time they were operating would cover a crucial part of the research to find out common elements between the groups and their individuals.
