The Sociology of Terrorism
The other day, on an OP/discussion of current events, I used the phrase “sociology of terrorism.” I was fully confident that dozens of friends here would respond, if only to address their interests in, or concerns about, that phrase. Or, at very least, that one or two of my beast fiends, who had graduated from a university pre-2000, would throw down, saying that the field of sociology had shown remarkable little interest in “terrorism.” That would have at least allowed me to respond, “Oh, true, up until President George W. Bush failed to protect this nation on 9/11. But since then, it has really opened up. Might I suggest that you learn what you’re talking about, before you attempt to engage me in a debate?”
But it didn’t happen. Oh, well. Life is at times harsh.
Historians and psychologists have long studied individual cases of violence; these conflicts include such things as fights, duels, and domestic violence. Likewise, historians and sociologists have long studied group violence; these conflicts include riots, battles, feuds, and warfare. More, psychologists have studied the personality structures of individuals who engage in “terrorism,” as have police, intelligence, and military strategists. But, to a surprisingly large degree, sociologists had ignored the dynamics of terrorism upon a society, until after 9/11.
Part of this may have resulted from the lack of an agreed-upon definition of the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism.” We see this general confusion fairly often in recent times, especially when the news media reports upon a white, christian male in the United States, who engages in an act or acts of gross violence against a specific group of people. Even without a university degree in sociology, most rational people understand that the fellow who recently went on a rampage at a Planned Parenthood office was indeed a terrorist -- despite the media’s attempts to deflect from that reality, by focusing upon possible mental illness.
In order to combat a threat -- such as terrorism -- a population must know what it is, and what it is not. Again, rational people can grasp that the Ku Klux Klan, dressed in white, hooded uniforms, was a terrorist organization. Yet they tend to have great difficulty in understanding that another organization, dressed in blue uniforms, often acts as a terrorist outfit, when entering a non-white residential area. But terrorism is a tactic, and quite often the tactic that is deemed “illegal” for one group to employ, is declared lawful when another group engages in it.
If one subscribes to the delusional definitions of Fox News, “terrorists” are currently limited to: (1) those people of the Middle East who oppose US policy; and (2) immigrants from Mexico. This type of error in perception helps to highlight another common cause of confusion that even intelligent people -- who never watch Fox News -- have frequently experienced. One man’s terrorist is often another man’s freedom fighter. A good example of an individual case would be that of Nelson Mandela -- and the young Mandela, who would be incarcerated, rather than the gentle, grandfatherly figure he would become. A couple of examples of groups would be the militia of the Thirteen Colonies back in 1776, and the Irish Republican Army in the early 1900s.
We also see attempts by the media to divide “terrorists” into two distinct sub-groups: domestic and international. While these descriptions do have some value -- when used properly -- too often the public is at risk of failure to see the connections, both direct and indirect, between our nation and the rest of the world. To put them into a correct context, it is important to consider the findings of various, post-9/11 studies. To consider: what the terrorist(s) hope to achieve; how the community of victims views the terrorist(s); and community responses
“Terrorism” is the systematic use of power, intimidation, and violence to achieve a goal. In our current cultural setting, terrorism has traditionally been associated with “politics”; in the past two decades, it has become increasingly “religious”; and in reality, there has almost always been political, religious, and economic dynamics associated with terrorism.
In a political context, the “terrorists” may be a group attempting to gain, or maintain, political power. The group could be a marginalized minority, or even the party in power. Religious terrorism is often closely related to political and economic terrorism, and is definitely as brutal and inhumane. It, too, seeks the power to murderer human beings, and intimidate the surviving community. And this includes attempting to have access to, and control of, local resources.
Their opposition seeks to neutralize and then defeat the terrorists. In doing so, they must also attempt to grab more power. This frequently involves resorting to violent reactions to the terrorists.
This still leaves the majority of the population, what we might refer to as the general public. In times of violent confrontations between the two other groups, the behavior of the general public is to seek safety. While such attempts can take numerous routes, what appears to be a very common feature is to accept symbols of security, over taking serious steps to confront the violence, and increase public safety. There are, of course, various theories regarding why symbols of security become so highly valued. Yet, in terms of “outcome,” the reality is that in the United States today, citizens frequently behave as a herd of animals.
Symbols represent a short-cut to fully thinking, and understanding, a concept. Constitutional rights are reduced to good in theory, but far too risky to exercise. A candidate’s flag pin can be confused for patriotism. Symbolic speech -- including “dog whistles” -- appeals to the group fears and anxieties.
Thus, we see that within a given society, “terrorism” has very different functions for various sub-groups. The sum total of these comprise what is known as its structural functionalism. Older forum members likely recognize this as being closely related to the theories of Emile Durkheim, regarding the impact of breaking of cultural rules. It takes on a more significant implication in today’s society, in the context of Durkheim’s famous “disorganized dust of individuals.”
A second theory that assists in understanding the “war on terrorism” -- and the radical Islamic war on the West -- is known as “Conflict Theory.” No matter if we are thinking of the most recent terrorist attack, or last week’s events at Planned Parenthood, certain core dynamics apply. There are numerous individuals and groups who feel justified in using gross violence, including the targeting of people who are not involved in the specific “cause” in any way. Again, we see the confusing of symbols (including symbolic actions) as more significant than actual human life. Indeed, even the tactic takes on more importance than anything and everything else.
By no coincidence, the third general theory on “terrorism” is known as “Symbolic Interactionism.” This involves the assumption that the general public will understand the message as the person or persons intend it. For a glaring example of the dangers of such shallow, concrete thinking, one might consider the Bush administration’s belief that “we will be viewed as liberators” when the US invaded Iraq. That assumption, that everyone everywhere defined their lives and goals in the exclusive world-view of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, proved inaccurate, to say the least.
This raises a closely-related conflict: the republic right demands that President Obama use the term “radical Islamic terrorist.” Words, of course, are symbols, and frequently useful in human communications. The last US president, George W. Bush, had a habit of using provocative language. When he was confronted by republicans who told Bush his comments were appreciated in much of the world, W responded that the people from his hometown understood what he was saying. Thank goodness, at very least, that this president isn’t the mere shell of a man that Bush is.
Being able to watch and/or read “the news” is to be able to interpret it in a systematic way. In my opinion, far too many citizens are prone to interpreting the news in the structures created by that media. That is more than a failure to exercise rights and responsibilities associated with being an informed citizen -- it is dangerous.
I think that during our discussions of current events, it’s good for the DU community to take time to view these events in ways. Fields like psychology and sociology tend to present better ways to interpret the news, than does the media. While most of my writings are long, boring, and dry, I hope this OP provides some food for thought.
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
