Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the theories, psychological and sociological, which motivate an individual to join a terrorist group and support the terrorist organizations radical or extremist ideals. In addition, this paper will highlight the influence the terrorist group identity roles can have on radicalization. Building a better understanding of the radicalization process may help protect against international and domestic terrorism, a vital measure for national security.
Introduction
The definition of terrorism has never been clearly defined and to date, there is no universally agreed on meaning for the term. The construct of terrorism has been openly interpreted since 1794, when Maximilien de Robespierre labeled France’s Revolutionary government as the “Reign of Terror” and their use of the guillotine as terrorism (Kelkar, 2017). The international debate on the definition of terrorism began during the nineteenth century, as acts of terror spread throughout the world. Since the start of the debate, more than two hundred and sixty definitions of terrorism have been composed (Kelkar, 2017). The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (Bruce, 2013, p. 28). Yet, academic researchers, like Walter Lacqueur, use a broader definition for terrorism, calling it “the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective by targeting innocent people” (Bruce, 2013, p. 27). A standard definition of terrorism has been so difficult to determine that the United Nations has not reached an agreement on the definition, even after multiple attempts (Bruce, 2013). Despite this challenge, the varying definitions of terrorism often have common elements including the demonstration of aggression against noncombatants, or civilians, and actions taken with the intent to influence and change a populations behavior to benefit the interests of the terrorist and/or terrorist organization (Victoroff, 2005). Each definition of terrorism employs various combinations of these elements in order to achieve an organizations specific goal and match their motivations.
Today, terrorism is occurring at an extremely high rate when compared to historical trends. Compared to the decade following the September 11th attacks, the previous decade had one-third the frequency and lethality of terrorist attacks worldwide (Rivinius, 2018). In the United States, the number of terrorist attacks that took place in 2017 increased from 2016 only by one incident, however, the number of lethal terrorist attacks went from six in 2016 to seventeen in 2017 and there was a forty-nine percent increase in the number of deaths from terrorist attacks between 2016 and 2017 (Rivinius, 2018). While the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) was responsible for a majority of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2017, the deadliest terrorist attack within the United State in 2017 was conducted by an anti-government extremist who shot and killed fifty-eight individuals at a music festival in Las Vegas and wounded many more (Rivinius, 2018). As terrorism continues to rise and the patterns of terrorism change, the search to understand it does too.
In general, the connotation of the word terrorist brings to mind negative thoughts, and when combined with the lack of a standard definition for terrorism, there is a lot of interpretation as to who can be defined and what actions, make someone a terrorist. For many Americans, Islamic extremism remains the benchmark for defining a malicious act as terrorism, likely a result of the September 11th attacks (Blake, 2017). In regard to the Las Vegas shooting, many debate whether this individual should be considered a terrorist since he does not share known ties to Islamic extremism. Similar debates occurred after the Charleston shooting by white supremacist, Dylann Roof, as well as in other domestic terrorism incidents carried out by extremists that fall outside of the international terrorism or Islamic extremism categories (Blake, 2017). When it comes to defining someone as a terrorist, it is important to understand the motive and intentions of the attacker. Under federal law, it is considered terrorism when it is motivated by “furtherance for political or social objectives” (Blake, 2017, p.2). Yet, motive can be difficult to conclude, unless told directly, making it difficult to use this as a benchmark for qualification. Ultimately choosing to define someone as a terrorist provokes an emotional and political response that is regarded with a negative connotation by most globally.
The inherent negative emotional connotation that is associated with terrorism or labeling someone as a terrorist begs the question, what leads someone to become a terrorist? Unlike the consensus of the general population, terrorist groups themselves do not share a negative viewpoint of terrorism, instead referring to themselves as freedom fighters, insurgents, and/or revolutionaries. Bruce Hoffman—a terrorism expert from Georgetown University—notes that terrorist organizations commonly describe their attempts as self-defense movements and/or liberation efforts for the oppressed (Bruce 2013). Osama bin Laden—founder of the terrorist group al Qaeda whose purpose was to wage global jihad—called the terrorist acts conducted by al Qaeda “a commendable kind” because it took the “necessary measures to straighten things and make them right” (Bruce, 2013, p. 28). What factors provoked Osama bin Laden’s conversion to an extreme form of radical Islam is still yet to be entirely understood. However, using the various psychological and sociological theories has allowed for better understanding as to what may have motivated such extreme violence and hate. These same theories, help clarify the formative process that “makes a terrorist” in general.
The Terrorist Profile
Throughout history there have been a range of individuals, each from diverse backgrounds, who have belonged to terrorist groups. A limited number of these individuals shared exact personality or physical traits when compared to an individual from another terrorist group, or in many cases, even within the specific terrorist group they belonged to. Demographic studies done in the 1960s and 1970s constructed the profile of a traditional terrorist to be a well-educated, single male from a middle-class background. Typically, these men were mid-twenties in age (Victoroff, 2005). However, by the 1980s, this profile shifted with the rise of radical Islamic terrorist groups. The new profile characteristics, reflecting of these Palestinian terrorists, were consistent with an individual between the ages of seventeen to twenty-three who came from a large family and impoverished background. By the early 2000s, the terrorist profile changed once again to include men and women of all ages, coming from various professions, economic statuses, and regions of the world (Victoroff, 2005).
Despite efforts by psychologists, political scientists, and sociologists, the only consensus reached regarding the traditional terrorist profile is that a single terrorist profile cannot be determined. In most cases, the personality traits of terrorists are entirely invariable from a non-terrorist, making it incredibly challenging to profile and distinguish a terrorist from any other individual in most settings (Hudson, 1999). Despite the lack of a defined profile, Jerrold M. Post—a professor at George Washington University—believes the generational transmission of extremist beliefs may offer some increased insight (Kershaw, 2010). This generational transmission, Post says, begins at an early age and includes feelings of victimization and alienation, belief that the end will justify the means in a moral sense, fear of religious or nationalist group extinction, and the concept that violence is the only solution (Kershaw, 2010). One of many, this theory offers potential insight into what drives an individual to become a terrorist. The lack of a standard terrorist profile has drawn even further interest by psychologists, political scientists, government officials/agencies, and sociologists in understanding why someone becomes a terrorist. The various psychological and sociological theories may offer some understanding, which will be explored throughout this paper.
The Choice for Terrorism
Psychologists and sociologists within their respective disciplines have focused on understanding the consistent, underlying social perpetrators of terrorism for years (Davis and Cragin, 2009). Despite comparing all these motivators, most believe the primary cause of terrorism is a result of the choice by an individual to engage in terrorist acts (Daddio, Lecture 2, 2018). According to Martha Crenshaw—a professor of political science at Stanford University—terrorism is a logical choice and terrorist groups make calculated decisions prior to, and even while, engaging in terrorist acts (Roser et al., 2018). James Forest—a professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell—also supports the notion that individual choice is a key part of a terrorist’s development. An arguable contributor to this choice is the social interaction with individuals who have radical ideas as this often provides the first introduction to terrorism (Daddio, Lecture 2, 2018). Osama bin Laden is a prime example of this, as his original introduction to the Muslim Brotherhood was the result of his interaction with his school teachers. Soon, Osama bin Laden began to emulate the behavior of his teachers, justifying the decision and rationale to engage in terrorism (Daddio, Lecture 2, 2018). Beyond the effects of the individual’s choice, psychological and sociological theories may offer comprehension for the reasons one becomes motivated to engage in terrorism.
Psychological Theories
Psychological approaches to understanding what causes an individual to assume a terrorist mindset tends to focus on the individual factors that draw an individual into a terrorist organization. Often these factors include mental illness, traumatic experiences, and overall personality characteristics of the individual, including their psychology of self. Usually when an individual joins a terrorist organization it is the result of multiple factors and when specifically, the result of a psychological cause, progression to the organization is gradual (Davis and Cragin, 2009). There are four general theories of terrorism which are considered to be psychological in nature. They are the negative identity theory, the narcissistic rage theory, the paranoia theory, and the absolutist thinking theory (Victoroff, 2005). Each theory engages some aspect of the psychology of self as the basis for understanding terrorist behavior and argues this understanding has massive implications for dealing with terrorists and identifying those individuals at risk of radicalization (Hudson, 1999).
Negative Identity Theory
Negative identity theory is a derivation of Erik Erikson’s—a German-American developmental psychologist—theory of identity formation which details that the development of self is formed through social interactions. According to Erikson’s theory, when an adolescent develops a sense of identity, they in turn develop fidelity, which is the ability to form genuine relationships with others (Cherry, 2018). Failure to develop this fidelity can lead to developmental conflicts and inhibit an adolescent’s ability to commit to an identity and subsequently leads to failures in identifying a chosen career path, social group, or the ability to maintain relationships with others. As a whole, for individuals who never develop a sense of self or fidelity, they will, in all likelihood, develop role confusion, lack positive self-esteem, and lack feelings of personal identity (Cherry, 2018). In instances where this occurs, it frequently becomes easier for these individuals to consciously adopt a negative role in society in order to fill this gap. Especially for the younger generations, seeking to fill a lack of purpose and a void sense of identity, can be a strong motivator for joining terrorist organizations (Subramanyam, 2018).
In terrorist organizations, personal identity is often sacrificed for the sake of the larger group identity. Individuals whose overall sense of personal identity is inadequate are then able to adopt the negative identity of “freedom fighter” or “terrorist” (Subramanyam, 2018). In a study conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory in India, which was motivated by the 2006 Mumbai train attacks, a group of suspected terrorists were interviewed regarding the factors that caused them to join a terrorist organization. When questioned, all of the suspected terrorists in this study noted negative identity and feelings of identity crisis as major contributors to their eventual decision to join their terrorist organization (Subramanyam, 2018). In many instances, for these lost individuals, there is a perceived belief that following the path of terrorism will offer a solution for their identity crisis. Once in the terrorist organization, the sense of belonging and the group’s identity becomes the most important component, filling the void created from their own (Subramanyam, 2018).
Further, for these individuals, who may have been rejected by family or typical social groups, terrorist organizations offer a sense of self-belonging in addition to identity (Subramanyam, 2018). A terrorist organization in many ways becomes a safe-haven for someone seeking a negative-identity role. Jeanne N. Knutson’s—once the Executive Director of the International Society of Political Psychology—account of a Croatian terrorist is an example of this. Originally a member of an oppressed ethnic group, after failing to receive the opportunity to pursue a university education, the Croatian individual instead pursued a role in a terrorist organization (Hudson, 1999). Despite rejection from traditional societal roles, a new identity was available through terrorism.
Narcissistic Rage Theory
The next of the psychological theories is known as the narcissistic rage theory. This theory focuses on the impact a damaged self-image, or self-concept, can make on the decision to engage in terrorism (Victoroff, 2005). Narcissists are individuals who maintain a self-absorbed mindset as a result of the burial of their true-self (Ni, 2018). This damaged self-image often stems from the lack of maternal empathy or parental rejection, known as narcissistic injury, during childhood (Hudson, 1999). Further, narcissistic rage is the intense anger, aggression, or passive-aggression displayed when a narcissist experiences something which damages their false sense of self (Ni, 2018). Individuals who exhibit behavior on this extreme end of the narcissistic spectrum often transition to malignant narcissism, where individuals are known to view terrorism as a noble, moral act (Manne, 2015).
For individuals who suffer from malignant narcissism, an experience such as subordination or rejection causes feelings of humiliation that may inflict a reaction of narcissistic rage. In regard to terrorists, this rage is often projected onto the targets of the terrorist and/or terrorist organization (Victoroff, 2005). In addition, in many cases, individual terrorists may engage in terrorism as a result of their narcissistic attitude and the idea that they could gain greater significance by attaching their personal rage to that of a larger ideology (Manne, 2015). This was the case for Man Haron Monis, a known narcissist who claimed to be a jihadist on behalf of ISIS after he conducted an attack and took eighteen individuals hostage in the Lindt café in Sydney, Australia. Despite his fervent claims, no connection to ISIS was found to exist. What was found, however, was an initial incident that had resulted in the humiliation of Monis and may have sparked the café siege (Manne, 2015). Previously, Monis sent letters to the families of Australian soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan in which he made vicious and derogatory remarks. Later, following these letters, when the Australian high court later dismissed his appeal for the conviction, Monis felt extreme humiliation. This humiliation turned to narcissistic rage and the café siege soon followed (Manne, 2015). Monis sought retribution through his crimes, which he claimed tied to a larger group ideology in order to hope for even greater significance, a testament to his narcissistic personality. This is just one example of the impact a damaged self-image may have on an individual’s decision to engage in terrorism.
Paranoia Theory
The third of the psychological theories is known as the paranoia theory. This theory was proposed by Jerrold M. Post and argues individuals with a paranoid personality may be more inclined to engage in terrorist acts. An individual with a paranoid personality often believes that the world is populated by their enemies of which they are the focus of, reflecting an extremely high level of suspicion (Victoroff, 2005). This extreme suspicious is one of the seven elements of someone with a paranoid personality and is arguably one of the most evident traits. The other traits of an individual with a paranoid personality are centrality, grandiosity, hostility, fear of loss of autonomy, projection, and delusional thinking (Robins & Post, 1997). Beyond suspicion, it is ultimately the centrality trait which leads an individual to believe they are the main target of malicious intent and negative action. For a paranoid individual, this centrality manifests into self-defensive behavior (Robins & Post, 1997).
In many ways, the paranoia theory can be considered a precursor of the narcissistic rage theory as a result of the effects of the hostility and grandiosity traits. Individuals with a paranoid personality may use the grandiosity trait to cover their deep-rooted insecurities and uncertainties through the manifestation of chronic anger and hostility (Robins & Post, 1997). For matters related to terrorism, an individual who has a paranoid personality and demonstrates a high level of suspicion may justify the murder of others as a necessary measure of self-defense (Victoroff, 2005). Further, as the victims of terrorist acts are usually being noncombatants, entirely unrelated to the attacker in most scenarios, the paranoia theory offers an explanation for why terrorists kill and injure those who would not be considered an imminent threat by most (Victoroff, 2005).
Of all the psychological theories, the paranoia theory is the most likely to consider the influence of delusional tendencies as motivation for becoming a terrorist, especially in the case of political failures. Often, when political failures occur, individuals with paranoid personalities argue their suspicions have been confirmed and may use this as a demonstrated need for violent action and self-defense (Robins & Post, 1997). As a whole, the paranoia theory has received criticism for failure to be scientifically proven, especially as a study done in 2004 showed that nine out of the ten Muslim terrorist personalities demonstrated no evidence of a paranoid personality (Victoroff, 2005). Despite this lack of support, the paranoia theory still considers the influence a damaged personality can make on the radicalization of an individual.
Absolutist Thinking Theory
The last of the psychological theories is known as the absolutist, or in some cases apocalyptic, thinking theory. This theory is almost solely in relation to individual motivations that may cause someone to become a terrorist and/or engage in extremist acts. This theory was derived from the works of Robert J. Lifton, a Harvard psychiatrist, who after his examination of the Aum Shinrikyo cult and other terrorist groups, found evidence of absolutist thinking (Victoroff, 2005). The absolutist thinking theory argues that the use of absolutist moral thinking is a driving factor in the decision of young adults to engage in terrorism as a result of its appeal for individuals who share weak individual identities. Further, the theory argues that terrorists use mass destruction as a method to shift a corrupt world into a new, pure social order (Victoroff, 2005).
In an interview conducted following the September 11th attacks, Lifton explained how this theory could be used to explain the motivation behind Osama bin Laden’s choice to conduct such a violent and devastating attack on the United States. In the interview, Lifton argues that beyond merely striving to achieve political goals, Osama bin Laden hoped to purify the world and in order to do so, believed it was necessary that a large portion of the world be destroyed, reflecting absolutist thinking (Moyers, 2001). The absolutist theory essentially argues that for terrorists, rather than possessing no morals or conscience, their actions are a result of the moral structure within the terrorist group. In the case of the September 11th attacks, Osama bin Laden used his moral goals to justify the use of violence in order to achieve his higher purpose of purifying the world from evil, which he believed to be the United States (Moyers, 2001). This theory also supports the idea that terrorists adopt a black-and-white perspective which gives terrorists an ability to avoid the normal emotional response to mass destruction and justification for their actions.
Sociological Theories
In comparison to the psychological theories, which tend to emphasize the effects of individual factors, sociological theories examine the effects an entire group or the larger population may have on an individual’s decision to join a terrorist organization and/or engage in extremist acts. For example, in some cases, the perceived social acceptance of terrorist violence can instigate the decision to engage in terrorism. This has often been the case in Lebanon and Palestinian cities and refugee camps where “martyr posters” glorify and romanticize the actions of these Hezbollah terrorists (“Clenched Fists and AK-47s”, 2009). Overall, there are four theories which explore the various social factors that can motivate an individual to become a terrorist including the frustration-aggression theory, the relative-deprivation theory, the oppression theory, and the national cultural theory (Victoroff, 2005). While sociological theories consider the influence of a group, even so large as society, on a particular individual, it is almost guaranteed that never will only one of these theories be the sole driving factor for an individual’s radicalization. Rather, each of these theories explores the various pieces of social construct which may further influence an individual’s decision to engage in terrorism.
Frustration-Aggression Theory
The first of the sociological theories is the frustration-aggression theory which was formed in 1939 and essentially states that the existence of aggressive behavior will lead to the existence of frustration—meant in this context as the interference with achieving a goal—and that the existence of frustration can, in vice versa fashion, lead to some form of aggressive behavior (Breuer & Elson, 2017). It is important to note that this theory does not argue that frustration will only produce aggressive action, but rather that it may be one of the instigated actions (Breuer & Elson, 2017). Those who disagree with this theory often do so out of dismissal of the assumption that aggression will always be a consequence of frustration (Hudson, 1999). However, this theory still offers insight into what may be one of many factors driving an individual to engage in terrorist behavior.
In terms of the application of this theory to terrorist behavior, often terrorist’s violent actions are a result of political, economic, and personal frustrations as well as feelings of relative deprivation which lead to outright actions of aggression (Hudson, 1999). For individuals who find extreme frustration from the political decisions made by government leaders or who feel incapable of suppressing internal frustrations, they may find terrorist groups offer the opportunity to foster these frustrations into acts of aggression (Maile et al., 2010). Further, through social reinforcement by a terrorist group, these frustrated feelings and ideas towards their enemy are likely to become more intense for the individual overtime. This may lead to an even more heightened act of aggressive retaliation (Maile et al., 2010). Another important aspect of the frustration-aggression theory is understanding that the aggressive response is often reflected in the targeting an individual who was not directly responsible for the goal interference or root of frustration, showing displaced aggression (Breuer & Elson, 2017). This displaced aggression may be evident in terrorist attacks when unattributed civilians are targeted.
Relative-Deprivation Theory
The relative deprivation theory focuses on the frustration and rage an individual may feel when they compare themselves to others and recognize their inability to achieve the same economic or social status (Verme, 2013). This resentment may then manifest into various actions including the increased willingness to join protests and demonstrate defiance (Smith & Pettigrew, 2015). This theory can be applied to economic status disparities which have been observed throughout history as instigators for various revolutions. This includes the more recent 2011 Egyptian revolution (Victoroff, 2005). The Egyptian revolution was primarily driven by the economic distress faced by its population. As nearly forty percent of the population lived under the poverty line many of the revolutionist’s grievances regarded the high unemployment rate and low minimum wages (Teti & Gervasio, 2011). In general, a majority of studies conducted have found that as income increase so does one’s relative degree of satisfaction (Verme, 2013).
When relative deprivation is applied to terrorism, many sociologists believe that the economic deprivation and lack of material welfare felt by some individuals, especially members of an oppressed group, subsequently ignites terrorist sentiments (Victoroff, 2005). In these cases, it is almost as if a “switch” flips and these individuals decide they will no longer tolerate their status as victims of globalization. This thought process has been observed in the case of Palestinian terrorists. With a seventy percent unemployment rate, it is nearly impossible for Palestinian males to maintain their role as the family breadwinner, a role which holds great significance in Palestinian culture. As a result, some of these individuals are found to feel extreme frustration and rage which in turn provokes the motivation to conduct terrorist acts (Victoroff, 2005). Refugee camps are used for terrorist organization recruitment in many situations, partially as a result of this (“Clenched Fists and AK-47s”, 2009).
While economic status and the ideals of this theory may contribute to the decision to become a terrorist, it is important to recognize that in most situations, this is merely one of a myriad of contributory factors. This theory has been highly criticized as a result of the inability to link right-wing extremism as well as the actions of left-wing extremists in the 1960s and 1970s to economic motivations (Victoroff, 2005). Yet, the theory has also been supported through observations of Palestinian terrorists as mentioned above. The lack of support for economic disparity or poverty as the cause of certain instances of terrorism does not eliminate its potential as a contributory factor for the adoption of the terrorist mindset in others.
Oppression Theory
The oppression theory has been cited by many sociologists as a potential explanation for political violence and/or engagement in terrorism and outlines the impact displayed or perceived social oppression can have on an individual’s actions and decisions (Victoroff, 2005). In general, social oppression refers to oppression achieved through social means and often exists as a result of systematic mistreatment of one group, or groups, of people by another. Many sociologists believe oppression exists as a systematic process and is integrated into society through social structure, existing at both the macro and the micro level. In either of these levels, oppressed individuals are not presented with the opportunity to share their viewpoints, experiences, and values at a level in which they will be incorporated into society (Crossman, 2018). Typically, the dominating group will experience greater privileges than that of the oppressed group(s) (Crossman, 2018). This may result in fewer rights, decreased access to resources and economic potential, less political power, and even greater mortality rates for the oppressed group(s). In many cases the internalization of oppression influences and shapes the behavior of the individual (Crossman, 2018).
Some sociologists believe that this continued oppression may instigate political violence and an increased appeal for an individual to join a terrorist group or find solace in the ideology of a specific terrorist organization. This is especially the case for individuals who support nationalist-separatist or ethnic-secretariat terrorist ideals as these groups often justify their actions to be a result of the government oppression, citing lost dignity, security, freedom, and identity as motivating factors (Victoroff, 2005). An example of such a group is the Euskadi Ta Azkatasuna (ETA), a Basque nationalist-separatist group which was originally established in frustration as a result of the repressive Francisco Franco regime in 1959 (Masters & Rebaza, 2018). Under General Franco’s rule, the Basque language was banned, their culture was suppressed, and Basque intellectuals were tortured for their political beliefs. In retaliation, the ETA sought independence from oppression and used violence as a method to achieve this goal, killing over 820 people and wounding thousands (BBC, 2017). Ultimately, the continued oppression by the Spanish government drove what was originally a group of students to conduct several of the most violent terrorist attacks in Spain’s history. This action demonstrates the power oppression can have on an individual(s).
The greatest challenge when using the oppression theory to observe and predict terrorist behavior lies with the power of perception (Victoroff, 2005). Oppression itself is a perceived experience and as such, exists on a subjective scale. As a result, especially when oppression is felt on a micro level, it can be incredibly challenging to denote (Victoroff, 2005). Further, it is in rare instances that an individual who experiences oppression goes on to become actively engaged in terrorism, making it even more of a challenge to use social oppression as a benchmark for radicalization. Overall however, this sociological theory still offers insight into why a particular individual may engage in terrorism.
National Cultural Theories
The last of the sociological theories is known as the national cultural theory and is perhaps one of the most contested theories used to explain the radicalization process. Developed by Weinberg and Eubank—prominent terrorism researchers—the national culture theory argues that in collectivist cultures a person’s identity is developed as a result of the social system surrounding them and in individualist cultures identity is determined through personal goals (Victoroff, 2005). In regard to terrorism, this theory argues that if an individual is raised within a collectivist culture then they will be more likely to carry out attacks against foreigners and those outside of their group, while persons raised in an individualist culture would be less hesitant to conduct an attack on someone of their own group or culture (Victoroff, 2005). This has implications for the terrorist organizations an individual may join, based on the enemy the organization declares.
To develop this theory, the creators Weinberg and Eubank, used IBM corporate employees’ psychological evaluations from forty countries in order to rank the countries on a scale of individualism versus collectivism. They then compared these rankings to reports on terrorist activity within each of these countries to draw conclusions on the moral restraints one group may exhibit compared to another before engaging in a terrorist attack (Victoroff, 2005). Through these observations, Weinberg and Eubank not only reached conclusions about who a person may choose to attack but also claimed that individualists would be more likely to restrain from attacking noncombatants than collectivists (Victoroff, 2005).
Despite making these claims, the authors of this theory have very little true data to support their conclusion and because they used nation states in a broad sense did not consider the impact subcultures may have on an individual (Victoroff, 2005). This is especially important when considering the relationship many separatists maintain with their culture of origin. Despite, the lack of proof that accompanies this theory, it still highlights the importance of considering the effects culture may have on an individual. Understanding the influence group culture and subculture has on an individual’s demonstration of terrorism may offer a potential avenue for controlling radicalization in the future.
Group Identity Roles
In addition to understanding the psychological and sociological theories, it is important to understand the group dynamics of terrorist organizations and the increased appeal this lends for individuals to join a terrorist group—especially if they suffer from diminished sense of self, lack of purpose, and feelings of oppression or isolation. Within terrorist organizations, individuals feel they are given a defined role, a virtuous purpose, freedom from oppression, and the opportunity to seek revenge on those who may have caused the individual to feel humiliation. Terrorist group identities manifest in three ways and individuals may be motivated to join as a result of their identification as idealists, responders, or lost souls (Daddio, Lecture 2, 2018). Idealists are those who identify with the plight of the group. Responders identify with the experience of their own group. Lastly, lost souls are non-aligned individuals who are looking for purpose in a group and desire to be a part of something (Daddio, Lecture 2, 2018). By aligning their identities with that of a terrorist group, these individuals may find the justification necessary to conduct violent actions without a sense of negative moral responsibility (Victoroff, 2005). Overall, group factors, similar to individual factors outlined in the sociological and psychological theories, are likely only one piece of the circumstances that motivate an individual to engage in extremism and it is postulated that neither one nor the other is sufficient enough to “make a terrorist” (Victoroff, 2005). However, by considering the interaction of individuals with a terrorist group, there may be a stronger understanding of the interaction between social processes and individual factors that lead an individual to become a terrorist.
Conclusion
As a whole, there is likely no one psychological or sociological theory that causes an individual to become a terrorist. Rather, a combination of factors, including psychological and sociological, may motivate an individual to consider terrorism as a solution or choice. Just as there is no generic terrorist profile, there is also no generic set of factors which encompass the motivation behind terrorist radicalization for every individual. Sociological and psychological theories as well as the group identity roles do not directly answer the question, “why did this certain individual become a terrorist in comparison to another individual who experienced very similar circumstances?” but rather offers potential explanations. Further, understanding the group identity process of a terrorist organization provides some discernment on the reasons an individual who experiences or shares certain individual circumstances would join a terrorist organization while another may not, but it is not an exact science. Overall, there are still many limitations that exist when it comes to understanding the decision to engage in terrorism. However, considering the individual and group factors that contribute through the work of psychology and sociology offers a semblance of comprehension for why an individual becomes a terrorist.
2018-12-16-1544926172