The Terrorist Identity

Explaining the Terrorist Threat

Michael P. Arena, Bruce A. Arrigo

• Editorial: NYU Press
• Año: 2006
• ISBN:
  9780814707593
• Categoría: Sciences sociales
• Categoría: Criminologie

Who would strap a bomb to his chest, walk into a crowded subway station and blow himself up? Only by examining how a terrorist understands his own identity and actions can this question be answered. The authors of The Terrorist Identity explore how the notion of self-concept combined with membership in terrorist and extremist groups, can shape and sustain the identity of a terrorist as well as their subsequent justification for violence and the legitimacy of their actions.

The book provides an understanding of identity that draws on concepts from psychology, criminology, and sociology. Notably, the book examines several case studies of various terrorist groups, including: the Provisional Irish Republican Army, Hamas, the Shining Path, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and racist Skinheads. By making the construct of identity central to this analysis The Terrorist Identity explains how violent and extremist collective behavior emerges culturally, how it informs the identity of group members socially, and how participants assume their place in these groups completely even at the expense of life-threatening harm to others or to themselves.

Part I

1
Introduction

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, once again thrust terrorism into the international spotlight. Moreover, subsequent attacks in Indonesia, Spain, and England have led to renewed discussions about the nature of violence and the spread of militant extremism around the world. Fundamentally, political and policy pundits, social and behavioral scientists, and security researchers and analysts question what motivates a person or group to commit such heinous acts. Admittedly, over the past several decades, numerous attempts have been undertaken to explain terrorism from a variety of perspectives. Regrettably, however, many of these efforts have been of marginal utility, especially for a profoundly frightened and deeply perplexed public. Thus, we are led to ponder the limits of the existing accounts regarding the phenomenon of terrorism.

While political, sociological, and criminological accounts exist, the majority of the extant literature examines the causes of terrorism from within a psychological framework.¹ Many of these studies regard extremist militant conduct as a function of the individual’s psyche and attempt to identify specific personality traits that would compel a person to act so violently. In addition, in his extensive review of the search for the terrorist personality, Horgan noted that, statistically, psychodynamic theory has been the most popular of psychologically animated approaches accounting for terrorism.² Based chiefly on Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, this perspective focuses on various unconscious forces and their deterministic influence on human behavior and social interaction. For example, utilizing such concepts as “repressed desire” and “unresolved childhood conflicts,” psychodynamic theorists explain extremist militant conduct as an internal struggle waged within an individual’s psyche on the basis of unsettled and traumatic life events. Interestingly, despite this discipline’s waning influence on modern psychology, the process of identification is one psychodynamic construct that has received considerable attention throughout contemporary explanations of terrorism.³

One theme that appears constant in this research,⁴ and subsequent investigations along these lines,⁵ is that the identity construct is routinely mentioned as a contributing factor in the emergence and maintenance of extremist militant conduct. For example, in a chapter addressing how individuals join and then sustain their involvement in a terrorist collective, Taylor and Quayle explained how identity was a theme that reoccurred throughout their discussion with an Irish terrorist about his troubled life experiences.⁶ This is consistent with the insights of M. Taylor, who observed that there is a particular process of identification that materializes when one assesses terrorism and the terrorist self-concept.⁷ As he noted, this identity process functions as an intense motivating factor in the manifestation of extreme militant behavior.

Given these observations, it would seem that the link between identity and terrorism has already been well established in the relevant literature. However, as Horgan notes,⁸ the initial research⁹ upon which these observations were based are seriously flawed for at least two reasons. First, psychological researchers have been guilty of committing the fundamental attribution error.¹⁰ In short, they overestimate the internal causes for terrorist behavior. Indeed, research supporting the notion that those who commit such acts are intrapsychically flawed, abnormal, and/or psychopathic is rare and typically of poor quality.¹¹ Second, research based on the psychoanalytic paradigm often suffers from methodological deficiencies.¹² Consequently, while previous research has distinguished identity as an integral factor in explaining terrorist behavior, relying purely upon psychological explanations appears wholly inadequate.¹³ Indeed, given much of this research to date, the identity construct remains a fundamental, but elusive, feature of society’s efforts to successfully understand this deeply disturbing phenomenon.

The Purpose and Design of the Present Study

The overall goal of this volume is to demonstrate how existing knowledge pertaining to identity and terrorism is limited and, in response, to develop an alternative and, perhaps, corresponding social psychological framework¹⁴ grounded in selected insights derived from structural Symbolic Interactionism.¹⁵ To facilitate this project, the five organizing concepts derived from structural symbolic interactionism (i.e., symbols, definition of the situation, roles, socialization and role-taking, and the emergence of the self) are systematically examined, especially as they are understood by Identity Theory.¹⁶ Moreover, as a way of contextualizing this conceptual undertaking, we evaluate five militant extremist organizations that engage (or have engaged) in terrorism. These extremist collectives include the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the Shining Path, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and racist Skinheads.

The theoretical work undertaken in this volume endeavors to deepen and extend society’s understanding of the way terrorist identities are created, embraced, and maintained, as well as the way they influence the behavior of members in a militant extremist subculture. This is accomplished by exploring the delicate relationship that exists among culture, self, and society in the formation and preservation of the terrorist self-concept. Ultimately, this undertaking will contribute to a growing body of research known as the “sociology of terrorism” by building upon the initial work proposed within this area.¹⁷ For example, Alexander¹⁸ utilizes the dramaturgical framework developed by Goffman¹⁹ to describe how acts of terrorism are social dramas performed in a manner similar to a major theatrical production. Within this context, terrorists, like actors in a performance, are expected to fulfill certain role expectations according to a script. Moreover, Kappeler and Kappeler examine how terrorism is constructed as a social threat by exploring terrorist groups’ use of techniques such as identifying villains and heroes.²⁰

Additional illustrations within this emerging field known as the sociology of terrorism are discernible in the literature. For example, relying upon socialization theory, Oberschall points out how Islamist terrorists are bred through preexisting groups and subcultures maintained in schools and mosques that are viewed as legitimate rather than deviant.²¹ By employing the methodology of tethered or positivist constructivism, Silverman provides a detailed examination of the similarity between the Western concepts of “just war” and the Islamic concepts of jihad.²² In doing so, he recognizes the important role identity plays in the motivation of terrorism as individuals learn the social expectations of their behavior and the justifications for their violent actions within a group context. These are identities that come with a set of grievances that serve to fuel terrorist behavior. Appropriating a postcolonial perspective, Brents and Mshigeni explore the construction of racial, religious, and political identity in Zanzibar and the way three distinct self-concepts (i.e., being “Shirazi,”²³ Arab, and African) have been framed and reformulated in the context of conflict.²⁴ Finally, Akers and Silverman view the motivation of terrorism through the prism of social learning theory and determine that the identity and ideology adopted by terrorists include attitudes, beliefs, and values that justify violent acts in pursuit of a noble end.²⁵ While social learning theory is grounded in psychology, this cross-disciplinary approach utilizes sociological-type concepts—such as the definition of the situation—to explain how individuals, through identity, come to justify their violent actions. Taken together, these works provide a foundation for the sociology of terrorism. This is an important foundation out of which our own explanatory model of identity emerges.

To be clear, however, we must explain that the suggested framework is not meant to be a comprehensive explanation for militant extremist conduct. No single discipline or theory can accomplish this; no single solution or model can eliminate the commission of violence. Instead, the proposed interpretive framework so central to this book’s thesis explores one facet of the complex phenomenon known as terrorism. Moreover, this project endeavors to go beyond the demonization and vilification to which terrorist individuals and collectives have been subjected, given their calculated and vile acts. To this end, the ensuing study does not represent an apology for such nefarious conduct; rather, it signifies a novel contextual basis from within which to understand individual and group participation in such extremist behavior.

The specific terrorist organizations under investigation were selected for two reasons. First, the five groups are quite distinct and heterogeneous. Indeed, they represent diverse regions of the globe and include Europe, the Middle East, South America, Asia, and North America. In addition, they reflect four types of terrorism and consist of nationalist/separatist, religious, revolutionary, and racial/ethnic militant extremism. Presumably, this miscellany helps advance the explanatory and predictive properties of the overall model while heuristically contributing to the generalizability and credibility of the interpretive framework.

Second, each of the terrorist organizations under consideration has received a substantial amount of attention in both the academic and popular literature. This attention includes the release of various types of primary source documents and correspondences that detail the affairs of the respective militant collectives under review. These data form the basis for the ensuing interpretive analysis of identity and terrorism.

Preliminarily we note that other investigators have endeavored to explain the formation of self-concept in relation to extremist militant violence from within an interactionist framework. For example, although not specified as an interactionist analysis, Aho’s examination of Idaho Christian Patriotism identified several interactionist-based themes.²⁶ One of these is socialization. Aho described it as central to one’s involvement in the White supremacist movement.²⁷ Indeed, as he observed, “right-wing radicals are ‘socialized’ to this orientation by the words and examples of those with whom they are most deeply bonded: parents, teachers, friends, coworkers, or pastors.”²⁸ In his commentary along these lines, Aho specified a concept integral to the symbolic interactionist’s understanding of the socialization process, namely, the significant other.²⁹ Significant others convey the various meanings that attach to symbols. This process contributes to the development of one’s sense of self and identity. In addition, Aho discussed the importance of social networks and social structure for purposes of membership recruitment, maintenance, and the adoption of extremist attitudes. As we previously explained, social networks and social structure are important concepts within the interactionist framework.

Although more journalistic in scope and orientation, the influence of interactionist theory resonates in Dillon’s examination of the role that religion plays in the Northern Irish conflict.³⁰ This is especially noticeable in Dillon’s comments regarding the experiences of those involved in religious life and terrorism. For example, in a series of interviews with Kenny McClinton, an infamous former loyalist paramilitary leader, Dillon indicated that

McClinton spoke of the traditional symbols that divided the two communities, the wall painting of King William of Orange on the white charger, and slogans such as “Kick the Pope,” which seemed “a part of life, just like breathing.” Only retrospectively was he able to detect a philosophy underpinning the sectarianism but in his youth he accepted that the slogans defined him and the rest of the Shankill community.³¹

Not only were these symbols described as having meaning in the lives of the Protestant community; they were depicted as informing McClinton’s sense of self and identity during his youth. Elsewhere, Dillon described this former loyalist paramilitary leader as having engaged in anti-Catholic violence as an unconscious desire to further his own status within the working-class community of Shankill. Interactionists, especially those who subscribe to structural Symbolic Interactionism, would see the symbolic nature of social structure, stratification, and the enhancement of one’s status as profound influences on the emergence of one’s sense of self and, hence, one’s (group) identity.³²

In his exploration of religiously motivated terror, Juergensmeyer argued that terrorism or extreme militant acts emerge from cultures of violence. To those within the collective who share similar perceptions of the world, bloodshed, harm, and destruction signify valid and justifiable means by which to instigate change.³³ Although Juergensmeyer grounded his cultural analysis of terrorism in the work of Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Clifford Geertz, he made frequent reference to the impact of symbols and meanings on acts of political violence. For example, he described “symbolic ...