1 Social and Psychological Aspects of Terrorism

Fathali M. Moghaddam and Naomi Lee

Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

1.1 Introduction

Claims that “one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter” have made it notoriously difficult to define terrorism [1]. From a social psychological perspective, terrorism can be defined as politically motivated violence, perpetrated by individuals, groups, or state-sponsored agents, intended to bring about feelings of terror and helplessness in a population in order to influence decision making and to change behavior [Reference 2, p. 161]. Social and psychological processes are at the heart of terrorism, because it is through bringing about particular feelings and perceptions (terror and helplessness) that terrorists attempt to change actual behavior of victim individuals and societies.

1.2 Social Roots of Terrorism

In order to explain why people commit terrorist acts, a variety of socio-psychological explanations have been put forward [3, 4]. These include irrationalist explanations influenced by Freud, as well as rationalist, materialist explanations. An overlooked factor is functionality: terrorism is adopted as a tactic because it sometimes works effectively. For example, it is generally agreed that the March 11, 2004, terrorist attacks in Madrid, resulting in close to 200 deaths and over 1000 serious injuries, led to the ruling party in Spain being voted out of power because of their close alliance with the Iraq policies of the Bush administration. Of course, this kind of political impact tends to be short term and limited in scope.

In this discussion, our focus is on terrorism carried out by fanatical Muslims, particularly violent Salafists, because at the dawn of the twenty-first century this type of terrorism poses the greatest threat at the global level, as reflected by the focus of research [5–12]. On the other hand, other types of terrorism, such as by members of Euskadi ta Askatasuna, Basque Homeland and Freedom (ETA) in Spain or the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, have not ended, but tend to be confined to particular regions and separatist causes, and are a less serious threat globally.

We outline the social and psychological aspects of terrorism in two main parts. First, we examine the roots of terrorism; second, we explore the consequences of terrorism. In order to better understand the roots of terrorism, it is useful to adopt a staircase metaphor [3]: imagine a narrowing staircase winding up a multistory building. Everyone begins on the ground floor, and it may be that people are sufficiently satisfied with conditions to remain on the ground floor. However, under certain conditions, people will feel they are being treated unjustly and some individuals will start climbing up the staircase, searching for ways to change the social–economic–political situation.

The climb up the staircase to terrorism involves radicalization. The challenge is to transform the conditions, to facilitate deradicalization, so that people are not motivated to climb up, and those who have climbed up become motivated to climb back down.

The weight of evidence suggests that contextual rather than dispositional factors best explain movement up and down the staircase to terrorism (e.g. see 13–15). Terrorism is not explained by psychopathology, illiteracy, or poverty [3, 16, 17]. Under certain conditions, individuals with “normal” psychological profiles will do harm to others [18]. The staircase metaphor helps to highlight the role of context, as well as the psychological processes that characterize thought and action on each floor of the staircase to terrorism.

1.2.1 Radicalization: Moving Up the Staircase

Radicalization typically involves a step-by-step process, well documented in almost a century of research on conformity and obedience (see Reference 19, Chapters 15 and 16). As individuals move up the staircase, step-by-step, they gradually adopt those attitudes, beliefs and morality that condone terrorism, and some of them eventually become recruited to carry out terrorist attacks. This process begins with the radicalization of entire communities on the ground floor.

Ground floor. The ground floor is occupied by about 1.2 billion Muslims. Psychological processes central to thought and action on this floor are relative deprivation and identity.

In the Near and Middle East, as well as in North Africa—including other important Islamic countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan—Muslims are ruled by governments that cannot be voted out by popular will, yet they are supported by Western powers (e.g. United States). This support comes in the form of political and military interventions (as in the case of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) and economic aid (as in the case of Egypt and Pakistan). Oil producing countries have suffered from an “oil paradox” [Reference 3, pp. 74–76): instead of improving the lives of the masses, oil revenue has allowed despotic ruling groups, such as the Saudis, to pay for a stronger security apparatus and to win the support of Western powers through enormous arms purchases and promises of reliable, cheaper oil supplies.

Two factors have helped to raise expectations and to create fraternal (collective) relative deprivation among the populations on the ground floor. First, the global mass media has presented the impoverished Islamic masses with images of an opulent life that is available to people in some countries. Secondly, Western politicians have promised democratization and reform. Consequently, the expectation has been raised among the Islamic masses for great choice and greater participation.

In practice, most people in the Near and Middle East lack choices both in economic and political spheres. In the economic arena, wealth disparities are enormous and the standard of educational and social services have remained poor. In the political sphere, little actual progress has been made toward giving people a voice in government, although there has been considerable publicity about “democratic changes” in places such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Globalization has also helped to create an identity crisis in Islamic communities [3]. In the midst of social–economic–technological global changes, one set of extremists in Islamic societies are urging the abandonment of traditional life-styles and the copying of the West; other extremists push for a return to “pure Islam” as it was (supposedly) practiced in its original form 1400 years ago. The “become copies of the West” strategy has led to the “good copy problem” [3] because following this option means Muslims will lack an authentic identity, and at best can only become “good copies” of a Western ideal. The “return to pure Islam” option is also associated with enormous problems because it is being used by fundamentalists to implement regressive interpretations of Islam.

An alternative, secular “middle ground” needs to be constructed, but for this to happen the governments of Islamic societies must allow greater political freedom. At present, procedures to allow people to participate in decision making about the cultural, social, economic, and political future of their societies are still not in place. Social psychological research suggests that procedural justice is vitally important, and influences how fair people believe a system is, independent of the actual outcome of decision making.

First floor. Individuals climb to the first floor particularly motivated to achieve individual mobility, and central to their experiences is procedural justice. The importance of openness and circulation has been emphasized by thinkers from Plato to modern theorists: closed systems lead to corruption, a sense of injustice, and eventual collapse [2]. Individuals who feel that paths for progress are not available, now move further up the staircase.

Second floor. Those who arrive on the second floor are experiencing tremendous frustration because the paths to change and improvement seem blocked to them. They become vulnerable to the influence of radical preachers as well as government propaganda, displacing aggression onto Westerns, the United States and Israel in particular, as the “cause of all problems”. Research demonstrates that displacement of aggression is a powerful factor in redirecting frustrations onto external targets [20].

Third floor. Individuals who climb to the third floor already perceive their own societies to be unjust, and perceive external targets (particularly the United States) as the root cause of injustice. On the third floor, these individuals gradually “disengage” from moderate policies and morality, and engage with a morality supportive of terrorism, often seeing terrorist tactics as the only weapon at the disposal of Muslims fighting for justice.

Fourth floor. Recruitment takes place on the fourth floor, where individuals become integrated into the culture of small, secretive terrorist cells. The new recruits are trained to view the world in a rigidly categorical, us versus them, good versus evil manner, and to see the terrorist organization as legitimate. Unfortunately, the categorical thinking of extremist Islamic groups tends to mirror, and be reinforced by, the categorical “us versus them” thinking of extremists in the West.

Fifth floor. In the animal kingdom, intraspecies aggression is limited by inhibitory mechanisms brought on by one animal's display of...