It's common for conservatives to depict Islam as a violent ideology which promotes terrorism. That Muslim terrorists rely upon Islam for ideological justification and support can't be denied, but since not all Muslims actually engage in terrorism that can't be the whole story. So what else is there?
Well, the difference lies in the personalities of those involved: those who manage terrorist acts and those who engage in suicide attacks really are different psychologically from the rest of Muslim society. Recognizing those differences might play an important role in combatting terrorism.
Michael Bond interviewed Ariel Merari in the July 17, 2010 issue of New Scientist:
It has been thought that suicide terrorists are not psychologically different from other terrorists, but your latest research on Palestinian would-be bombers who failed to blow themselves up suggests otherwise. What did you find?
They seem to have certain personality characteristics that make them more likely to be recruited to or to volunteer for suicide-bombing missions. None of the 15 would-be suicide bombers we interviewed suffered from a psychosis, but they had one of two personality types. Two-thirds were dependent-avoidant: such people find it hard to say no to authority figures and are more likely to cooperate to carry out tasks against their own judgement. They are also greatly Influenced by public opinion. The rest were impulsive and emotionally unstable. These types are likely to volunteer, but In many cases their enthusiasm will not last long enough for them to see It through.
Were they militantly ideological? None were any more militant than the average Palestinian. For many, the suicide mission was their first involvement... Ideological motivation was not what made them suicide bombers. Two-thirds hesitated somewhere along the line, though this was caused by fear of death and worry about their families.
You also interviewed 14 organisers of suicide attacks, all of them senior commanders of Palestinian militant groups. How does their psychology compare?
Their psychology is very different. They are not dependent - they are manipulative. They are much more intelligent than the bombers and are also older- 27 on average in our study, compared with 19 for the bombers. Some had university education. They were not psychopathic. They were very pragmatic, they believed they were doing it for thelr nation and that It was the right thing to do. They did not express any moral doubts about it.
Going after Islam won't have much impact on those who are "dependent-avoidant" and thus obey the authority figures around them. In fact, I wonder if it would even be possible to do anything to prevent "dependent-avoidant" people from obeying the nearest authority figures. Is there some way to prevent people from becoming dependent-avoidant? Is there some way to reverse such a tendency?
So it seems that it's the manipulators who must be targeted -- if you want to stop dependent-avoidant people from obeying authority figures who tell them to commit crimes, you weed out the criminal authority figures. But how do you do this?
Some of these authority figures are cynical and just out for personal power, but many are "True Believers," utterly committed to their cause and completely convinced that their goals are right. This gives them the psychological strength to manipulate others into doing something they would never normally do on their own. So, can their minds be changed? Can they be made less convinced that they are right?
That just brings us back to the ideology, which in this case is Islam. The difference between suicide bombers and regular Muslims might be the psychology rather than the ideology, but it still seems that the only way to undermine support for suicide attacks is to go after the ideology which gives it justification -- the ideology which makes manipulation seem justified to the manipulators and obedience seem reasonable to the dependent-avoidant.
No comments:
Post a Comment