Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Faces of Terrorism: Social and Psychological Dimensions
    The Faces of Terrorism: Social and Psychological Dimensions
    The Faces of Terrorism: Social and Psychological Dimensions
    Ebook383 pages6 hours

    The Faces of Terrorism: Social and Psychological Dimensions

    By Neil J. Smelser

    5/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Terrorism is the most clear and present danger we confront today, yet no phenomenon is more poorly understood by policymakers, the media, and the general public. The Faces of Terrorism is the first serious interdisciplinary examination of terrorism in all its facets. What gives rise to it, who are its proponents and how do they think, and how--and why--does it work?


    Neil Smelser begins by tackling the fundamental problem of defining what exactly terrorism is. He shows why a precise definition has eluded us until now, and he proposes one that takes into account the full complexities of this unconventional and politically charged brand of violence. He explores the root causes and conditions of terrorism, and examines the ideologies that inspire and fuel it throughout the world. Smelser looks closely at the terrorists themselves--their recruitment, their motivations, the groups they form, their intended audiences, and their uses of the media in pursuing their agendas. He studies the target societies as well, unraveling the complicated social and psychological impacts of having to cope with the ever-present threat of a terrorist strike--and responding when one occurs. He explains what it means to live under constant threat of terrorism, and addresses the thorny domestic and foreign policy challenges this poses. Throughout, Smelser draws from the latest findings in sociology, political science, anthropology, economics, psychology, psychiatry, and history.



    The Faces of Terrorism provides the breadth of scope necessary to understand--and ultimately eliminate--this most pressing global threat.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherPrinceton University Press
    Release dateFeb 9, 2009
    ISBN9781400827886
    The Faces of Terrorism: Social and Psychological Dimensions
    Author

    Neil J. Smelser

    Neil J. Smelser is Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California, and University Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. His many books include Social Paralysis and Social Change: British Working-Class Education in the Nineteenth Century (California, 1991). Hans-Peter Müller is Professor of Sociology at Humboldt University, Berlin.

    Read more from Neil J. Smelser

    Related to The Faces of Terrorism

    Titles in the series (15)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Anthropology For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Everybody Spies in Cyberspace. The U.S. Must Plan Accordingly.

      Dec 30, 2020

      Because all countries engage in espionage, intrusions like Russia’s latest data hack are devilishly hard to deter.  

      5 min read

    • Article

      Outrage Nation: Can America Overcome Its Addiction To Anger?

      Dec 7, 2018

      Twenty years ago, observers worried that apathy was the biggest threat to the American psyche. Today, that seems quaint. How can Americans turn off the outrage machine that urges them to get angry about, well, everything?

      7 min read

    • Article

      Unintended Consequences

      May 29, 2022

      Unintended Consequences
      10 min read

    • Article

      Political Leanings Can't Be Reduced To Genetic Programming

      Jul 10, 2019

      Increasingly, the intellectual consensus seems to be that our political leanings are hardwired in our genes. There is some excellent research behind this thinking, and I've come around to believing that DNA plays a bigger role in our political worldv

      3 min read

    • Article

      Pankaj Mishra: We Committed Intellectual Suicide After 9/11

      Mar 20, 2017

      Historian and intellectual Pankaj Mishra’s latest book Age of Anger: A History of the Present, published earlier this month, presents what Mishra calls “an emotional history” at a time of “worldwide emergency” when rage fills the global political sph

      6 min read

    • Article

      When Foreign Policy Went Wrong.

      Jan 19, 2021

      When Foreign Policy Went Wrong.
      10 min read

    • Article

      Experts Studied Al-Qaeda And Isis For Years, Now They Are Turning Their Attention To Extremists Closer To Home

      Feb 17, 2021

      In the years after the 11 September terror attacks, national security strategy in the US came to be dominated by an almost singular focus on Islamist extremism. Efforts to counter the threat of jihadist violence created a cottage industry of experts

      5 min read

    • Article

      Gateway Anger

      May 14, 2023

      Gateway Anger
      2 min read

    • Article

      You’re Being Manipulated

      Jul 9, 2021

      You’re Being Manipulated
      19 min read

    • Article

      Unjust: Social Justice And The Unmaking Of America

      Nov 1, 2020

      By Noah Rothman Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 2019. Pp. xvi, 272. $28.99 hardcover. Social justice is all the rage nowadays. And all the rage is about social justice. Students are taking to university quads to demand action be taken on behalf of

      6 min read

    • Article

      The Problem With Reason

      Aug 26, 2020

      The Problem With Reason
      8 min read

    • Article

      A Grim American Anniversary

      May 23, 2023

      A Grim American Anniversary
      4 min read

    • Article

      You’re Better Off Not Knowing

      Mar 13, 2023

      For many Americans, these claims sound self-evidently true: Information is good; knowledge is power; awareness of social ills is the mark of the responsible citizen. But what if they aren’t correct? Recent studies on the link between political awaren

      6 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Faces of Terrorism

    5/5

    1 rating0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      The Faces of Terrorism - Neil J. Smelser

      Copyright © 2007 by Princeton University Press

      Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street,

      Princeton, New Jersey 08540

      In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press,

      3 Market Place, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1SY

      All Rights Reserved

      Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

      Smelser, Neil J.

      The faces of terrorism : social and psychological dimensions / Neil J. Smelser

      p.cm. (Science essentials)

      Includes bibliographical references and index.

      eISBN: 978-1-40082-788-6

      1. Terrorism. 2. Terrorism—Social aspects. 3. Terrorism—Psychological aspects. I. Title HV6431.S63 2007

      303.6'25—dc222007004837

      British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

      This book has been composed in Minion

      Printed on acid-free paper. ∞

      press.princeton.edu

      Printed in the United States of America

      10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

      Contents

      PART I

      INTRODUCTION

      CHAPTER 1

      The Paradoxes of Terrorism

      PART II

      CAUSES AND DYNAMICS

      CHAPTER 2

      Conditions and Causes of Terrorism

      CHAPTER 3

      Ideological Bases of Terrorist Behavior

      CHAPTER 4

      Motivation, Social Origins, Recruitment, Groups, Audiences, and the Media in the Terrorism Process

      PART III

      CONSEQUENCES AND CONTROL

      CHAPTER 5

      Anticipating, Experiencing, and Responding to Terrorist Attacks

      CHAPTER 6

      Discouraging Terrorism

      CHAPTER 7

      The Long-Term International Context of Terrorism

      APPENDIX

      The Infernal Problems of Definition and Designation

      ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

      REFERENCES

      PART I

      INTRODUCTION

      CHAPTER 1

      The Paradoxes of Terrorism

      TERRORISM as a contemporary phenomenon teems with paradoxes. For at least three decades, many who have studied it have regarded it as the conflict for our time (Clutterbuck, 1977, p. 13). Yet the same author who advertised it in those words also regarded it as rooted in history (ibid., p. 22), to be found in military, political, and religious annals since classical times. Despite this duality of vision, it is true that terrorism has irregularly emerged as the world’s most salient and worrisome form of combat during the past several decades, and to many it promises to remain so indefinitely into the twenty-first century.

      It is also paradoxical that, despite being so conspicuous on the current scene, terrorism has never been defined properly by either scholars or political officials. Nor, with the exception of some political scientists and policy analysts, have behavioral and social scientists studied this critical phenomenon very much or very well. This situation is all the more curious because only a little observation or reflection is needed to conclude that the human sides—the psychological, social, political, economic, and cultural—are universally present dimensions in terrorism and the responses to it.

      A third paradox is that observers frequently describe post–cold war or post-9/11 terrorism as something new—the end of war as we knew it, a facet of globalization, an aspect of postmodernity—yet close inspection of the actual goals, ideologies, strategies, and tactics reveals how few of these ingredients are novel. In light of this circumstance, in this book I treat terrorism not as a special thing or creature but as a kind of human behavior that has some distinctive characteristics but that also lends itself to explanation by mobilizing existing theoretical and empirical knowledge in the behavioral and social sciences.

      In a single volume added to the increasing cascade of books, articles, and media discussion, I cannot hope to resolve these paradoxes fully, though one of my aims is to cast light on understanding them. I will do so in part by self-consciously shunning cosmic and dramatic depictions—some of which, I argue, are reactions to our ignorance and anxiety about terrorism. Instead, I treat contemporary terrorism as a peculiar combination of ingredients culminating in a specific form of violent behavior.

      Although behavioral and social scientists have fallen short in studying and understanding terrorism, some knowledge has accumulated. In addition, we know much about phenomena that are parts of the terrorism package. This knowledge can be brought to bear on understanding it. Among the relevant areas of knowledge are the structural bases—economic, political, social, and cultural—of deprivation, dispossession, and protest; the nature and role of ideologies that accompany extremist behavior; the dynamics of recruitment to social movements, behavior in them, and political reactions to them; the dynamics of small groups and networks; public reactions to uncertain threats and actual disasters; deterrence; and the politics of fear. I will mobilize selected knowledge on these and other topics in the book.

      A few words on my credentials—whether they are strengths or liabilities—are in order. I am a sociologist by profession, but prior to my retirement in 2001, I, like almost all my colleagues, was not a student of terrorism. Within sociology I have studied collective behavior, social movements, cultural traumas, organizational responses to uncertainty, and comparative social structure and social change. For better or for worse, my work has almost always been interdisciplinary, and at different times I have had one foot in history, economics, anthropology, and political science. I also mention research that has reached into psychology. As part of this effort, I have undertaken full psychoanalytical training, including some practice. For the study of terrorism I regard interdisciplinarity as a strength, because the topic itself knows no disciplinary boundaries and spreads into all of them.

      My direct introduction to terrorism occurred almost immediately after my retirement on September 1, 2001. Shortly after the September 11 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., the presidents of the National Academies wrote a letter to President George W. Bush pledging the support and cooperation of scientists in dealing with the national crisis created by those events. The first tangible manifestation of this support was the creation of the Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism, which, within less than a year, issued a major report on scientific understanding and applications to defending the nation against most types of potential terrorist attack (Committee on Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism, 2002). I was one of two social scientists on that committee, and I drafted the chapter on terrorism and human populations. In addition, I chaired two National Research Council committees, one dealing with the social and psychological dimensions of terrorism generally (Smelser and Mitchell, 2002a) and one on the possibilities and limitations of deterrence theory in dealing with contemporary international terrorism (Smelser and Mitchell, 2002b). Subsequently I have been involved in a diversity of the National Academies’ activities relating to research and policies on terrorism. Engaged in these experiences, I was more or less forced to become a scholar of the subject. The experiences with the National Academies, moreover, provided the background for my decision to write a general book on the subject.

      This book is mainly academic in emphasis in that it synthesizes behavioral and social science research and seeks general understandings and explanations. To deflect any message of grandiosity that may be inferred from this statement of purpose, I hasten to add that no effort is made to cover all relevant social science materials; rather, I use materials selectively according to my own judgments of relevance and priority. Nor do I pretend that I am simply, automatically, and impersonally applying objective knowledge with no intrusion on my part. Some interpretations are my own, consistent, it is hoped, with our general knowledge of psychological and social processes. Nor, finally, can I avoid topics that are controversial. Terrorism in all its international and domestic ramifications is by now thoroughly politicized, and even statements intended to be objective about it excite partisan reactions. To take only one example, to objectify the ideological bases of terrorism and counterterrorism and to attempt to understand them as natural phenomena is to adopt a political distance from these ideologies that is offensive to those who believe in them. And as the shrillness of the American presidential campaign of 2004 amply demonstrated, almost no facet of our nation’s policies toward terrorism escapes partisan tint. All one scholar can do is to strive (but never succeed fully) to overcome partisan implications by bringing the best knowledge available to bear on any issue.

      I have supplemented my general analysis in two particular ways. First, in working through all the issues involved in the subject of terrorism, I came to locate a number of snarls in our thinking about it and practical predicaments in our dealing with it. I call these entrapments. Many of them arise because terrorism has foisted them on democratic societies. They are points of confusion and controversy—many touching the fundamentals of our political system—that result in repeated and seemingly irresolvable debates and conflicts. Furthermore, the entrapments do not yield solutions, because discourse seldom moves outside or rises above their own internal dynamics. Examples of entrapments are conflicts over defining terrorism, diagnosing the role of the media, and understanding the tension between security and civil liberties in responding to terrorism. I identify a number of points of entrapment as the work proceeds.

      Second, I have taken the occasion to add an autobiographical dimension in the form of boxed material in many of the chapters. These entries are illustrative personal experiences and observations arising from my work on terrorism, including work with other social scientists. They are designed to provide vivid and concrete illustrations of general issues and topics discussed in the text.

      I have arranged the chapters in a mainly analytical way. One could argue that issues of definition should come first. However, this item is so nettlesome and so demanding of conceptual throat clearing that I decided to begin straightaway with substance, and discuss definitions in the appendix. Chapter 2 takes up the causes and conditions of terrorism, focusing on its insurgent and international forms but not on state terrorism—historically an equally important and certainly a more lethal form than the first two but the product of a quite different set of determining conditions. This chapter is a complex one, corresponding to the complexity involved in sorting out the multiple causes, their significance at different levels, and their permutations and combinations. Chapter 3 singles out the ideologies that inspire terrorism. Concentrating on them helps elicit their crucial importance in unraveling and explaining terrorist behavior. In chapter 4 I turn to a combination of topics: the motivation of individual terrorists, their recruitment, the significance of the groups they form, their decline, their audiences, and the roles of the media in terrorism. These topics are often treated separately in the literature. For reasons that will become clear, however, I will argue that all of them—and ideology, too, for that matter—are inseparable parts of the driving motivational complex for terrorists and the commission of terrorist acts.

      Chapter 5 turns to the study of target societies and deals with the social psychology of anticipating. experiencing, and coping with the threat of rare but potentially catastrophic events; the social and psychological aspects of educating, preparing, and warning the population about terrorism; and the diversity of responses to terrorist threats and attacks. In chapter 6 I deal with the complexities involved in living with the possibility of terrorist attacks, including defending democratic societies against them. Chapter 7 takes up even more general historical issues involved in dealing with international terrorism and is concerned directly with the contemporary world situation, especially the United States’ place in it, as well as domestic and foreign public policies. Chapters 6 and 7 are more reflective and evaluative than the others and include many judgments of my own that seem plausible in light of what we know, but they are in no sense disciplined applications of sure knowledge.

      I envision that the book will have three audiences—other scholars, public officials concerned with terrorism and responsible for confronting it, and interested general readers. Communicating with the first and third of these audiences is relatively nonproblematical, but I am fully aware of the limitations of academic material for policy makers and policy executors. There are inherent reasons why knowledge produced by academics does not interest—and may even irritate—those in policy arenas. At the most general level, academics and policy makers (and most military officers and journalists) have different and noncomparable priorities. The former are typically interested in general explanations arrived at by objective examination of available evidence (Wieviorka, 1995, p. 605). Many of the explanatory factors they identify, moreover, lie beyond the possibility of political or public intervention. The latter are interested in applied, timely decisions and implementations intended to have desired effects. In consequence, people on both sides of the academy–policy divide often cannot hear one another, and become impatient as a result.

      Terrorism policy reflects this disconnect in an extreme way. By its very nature, terrorism demands focus and urgency, because it is uncertain and because it carries threats of death and destruction. Most policy makers cannot afford to appreciate the nicety, conditionality, and qualifications of academic analysis (Ezekiel and Post, 1991, pp. 118–19). This tension is superimposed on a traditional residue of mutual stereotyping and distrust between academic people of thought and policy people of action (Merari, 1991, p. 88). Despite these general limitations, some parts of this book may be directly relevant to policy. For example, my analysis produces a critique of the reliance on gadgets, game theory, and goodness—that is, the combination of technological solutions, instrumentalism, and moralism—that appears to have dominated our nation’s response to terrorism since September 11, 2001. In addition, the discussions of counterproductive effects of overreacting to terrorist threats, underpreparing and overpreparing populations for danger, and the vulnerabilities of first-responding agencies are surely relevant to planning and policy. Many other points on the political, economic, social, and cultural aspects of terrorism and terrorist groups should be relevant for longer-term policy. One must acknowledge, however, that in democracies facing danger and among politicians sensitive to the media and public opinion and ultimately accountable in the electoral process, short-term reactions and accommodations typically trump longer-term polices and general reflection.

      PART II

      CAUSES AND DYNAMICS

      CHAPTER 2

      Conditions and Causes of Terrorism

      IN THE LAST DECADE of the nineteenth century,Emile Durkheim, one of the founders of sociology, launched his campaign to establish the field as a science (Durkheim, 1958 [1893]). He was a positivist, insisting on the independent significance of social facts (institutions, rates of behavior, collective sentiments). Among the scientific tenets he propounded was the principle that an observed social fact (for example, a group suicide rate) has a single cause that produces that effect (in the case of suicide, the cause was found in the force of social cohesion) (Durkheim, 1951 [1895]). He held to this principle of single cause ¨ single effect tenaciously: "A given effect always has a single corresponding cause" (Durkheim, 1958 [1893], p. 128, italics in original). In his actual interpretation of statistical and historical events, however, his analyses usually revealed a more subtle and complicated view of social processes than a literal application of his favored principle would have yielded (Smelser, 1976).

      Writing a decade later, Max Weber, an equally eminent founder, voiced a more qualified version of sociology as a science. With respect to the issue of causation in particular, he envisioned the confluence of multiple causes to produce a given historical phenomenon, and, by implication, a single cause in combination with others to produce multiple effects (and by further extension, the interaction and feedback among multiple causes) (Weber, 1949). In explaining the rise of rational bourgeois capitalism, for example—one of his enduring preoccupations—Weber acknowledged the causal role of technology, legal conditions, a stable monetary system, and a facilitative administrative apparatus of the state (Weber, 1950). Much of his comparative work was dedicated to teasing out the significance of these respective conditions and to establishing the causal role of different religious traditions on economic growth and rationalization.

      When confronting a historical phenomenon such as terrorism, it seems advisable to side with Weber on the issue of causation (for further defense of this position, see Crelinson, 1987, pp. 5–6). For one thing, I establish in the appendix that it is impossible to consider terrorism as a single effect at all; rather, the phenomenon as it has been identified seems to beg for disaggregation along several dimensions. Furthermore, it is possible to identify several different kinds of causes, ranging from very general (remote) to highly specific (immediate) causes (see Tocqueville, 1955 [1856], on the causes of the French Revolution). Some causes, such as predisposing economic, political, and cultural conditions, may facilitate the growth of organized movements that engage in terrorism, but those conditions do not guarantee the appearance of violence. Indeed, such conditions may persist for decades without producing such a consequence. For violence to develop, the facilitative conditions must combine with other factors, such as a special ideology enunciated by charismatic leaders, the development of effective recruiting machinery, and substantial support for protest on the part of relevant publics. Moreover, some factors in the causal nexus are neither predisposing nor impelling but are primarily inhibitive measures, such as co-opting terrorist-prone movements into institutionalized political channels or protecting targets against attacks. In a word, everything points to the advisability of identifying and arrangingmultiple causal factors acting in combination with one another and to assess the specific value that is added by each factor to the explanation.

      It is important to recognize the principle of multiple and multilevel causation of a phenomenon such as terrorism, because many forces pull us toward thinking about it in simplified if not single-cause terms. We hear in political and public discourse and in the media—and from scholars, who normally love complexity—that terrorism is caused by psychopaths, fanatics, religious fundamentalism, Islam, American support for Israel, oil, economic penetration, globalization, inadvisable foreign policies, failed states, or states that harbor or are permissive of terrorism. The tendency to oversimplify lies in the fact that terrorism itself is simultaneously dangerous, uncertain, terrifying, and cognitively destabilizing. A certain unjustified but substantial psychological comfort is gained by simplification, because simplification suggests that the threat is more readily comprehensible and therefore controllable or preventable by working on the single cause. In reality, terrorism is an unusually complex phenomenon and demands sorting out its conditions and causes.

      The purpose of this chapter is to array the range of conditions and causes of terrorism—so far as we can understand them through behavioral and social science knowledge—and to demonstrate how they funnel by different processes toward the special violent outcomes that constitute terrorism. Consistent with reasoning advanced in the appendix, my focus is on agitational terrorism or terrorism from below, and I do not consider enforcement terrorism or state terrorism (Ward-law, 1989, pp. 10–11), because the causal patterns for each differ so much from one another.

      A promising way of confronting this formidable task is to conceive of the causal processes leading to acts of terrorism behavior as a series of transitions from extremely general processes involved in the genesis of terrorism to its specific manifestations. This means that we do not leapfrog from general conditions to specific outcomes. Rather, we think in terms of analytically identifiable situations—call them phases, if you will, though linear temporality is not asserted—each of which sets the stage for the transition to the next identifiable situation. Different complexes of conditions and causes play their respective roles at each transition, as the whole process marches forward as a continuous combination and recombination of causal factors.

      The major identifiable transitions are:

      • What are the conditions, both national and international, that affect the differential propensity for alienation and dissatisfaction to develop?

      • What are the conditions under which political alienation and dissatisfaction crystallize into politically conscious collectivities and audiences supportive of them?

      • What are the conditions under which such collectivities—or, more typically, subgroups of them—become prone to violence?

      • What conditions the movement of violence in the direction of one of its subtypes, terrorism?

      • Under what conditions does the impulse to terrorism result in terrorist actions?

      Our knowledge about these transitions is incomplete, sometimes woefully so, but disaggregating the process into the transitions suggested is a fruitful way of addressing its otherwise bewildering complexity.

      In contemplating and undertaking this task, we run headlong into the general dilemma of historical specificity versus general patterns, a dilemma that arises when striving for explanations of historical phenomena. No final solution to this dilemma has ever been put forth. One of the best scholars of terrorism, Martha Crenshaw, in her respect for the uniqueness of historical contexts of terrorism, declared simply that the causes and consequences of terrorism are comprehensible only in terms of political conflicts in specific historical periods (Crenshaw, 1995a, p. 24). At the same time, also adopting the logic of the narrowing funnel of causes, she moved in the direction of seeking generalizations about which elements in what situations encourage oppositions or states to turn to terrorist tactics (ibid., p. 5) while at the same time denying the possibility of a completely general theory or deterministic explanations (ibid., p. 4). In my estimation, the only sensible strategy is to walk such a middle line, though as a lifetime practicing social scientist, my inclination has been and will be to lean toward pushing the search for regularities. At the same time, decades of research have taught me that to press theoretical certitude beyond the limits of our conceptual and empirical knowledge is also a pitfall.

      The Structural Origins of Discontent

      Early in my career I wrote an ambitious treatise that tried to establish a common framework for explaining a wide variety of collective actions—panics, crazes, violent outbursts, reform movements, revolutionary movements, and religious sects (Smelser, 1962). One of the main classes of variables I identified at that time was what I called structural strain—the presence of deprivation; the presence of fault lines such as racial and ethnic divisions; and ambiguities, anomalies, and discontinuities occasioned by irregular social change. I interpreted these conditions as the bases of individual and group dissatisfaction that underlay all the kinds of collective responses that interested me. The language of strain has been superseded by other terms, but the underlying logic remains in the literature on social movements (see Buechler, 2004).

      Even at that time, I came to some conclusions that still apply to understanding the significance of strains:

      • After examining a range of literature on the origins of social movements, I concluded that the variety of strains was almost endless—dislocation through migration, unemployment and poverty, anomic conditions, downward mobility, cultural (especially religious, ethnic, and racial) divisions, colonial domination, disenfranchisement, political persecution, and many others.

      • As a corollary to this multiplicity, it followed that no single type of strain could be identified as the single cause for one type of collective response or another (thus defying Durkheim’s canon); as a consequence, looking for strong correlations between types of strain and types of collective action was of limited value. Some kind of strain (and resultant dissatisfaction) seemed to be a necessary cause for such action, but it had to combine with a variety of other conditions to be activated as a causal variable.

      • Strains could not be identified solely as objective conditions, such as absolute level of poverty, but always had to be assessed in relation to some kind of expectation on the part of the population that was experiencing it. This is, of course, the principle of relative deprivation, which seems to be a universal feature of dissatisfaction. This principle often leads to the apparently ironic result that when a group is actually advancing, it feels itself worse off. For example, Tocqueville (1955 [1856]) described heightened dissatisfaction among the middle classes and peasants in eighteenth-century France, even though their well-being, from a material point of view, was improving. This improvement made other, remaining foci of exclusion more visible and aggravating.

      These three principles should govern our search for the broadest determining conditions that lead to those group dissatisfactions that sometimes generate impulses to collective action and, in their respective forms, may turn toward expressions of violence, including terrorism.

      Dispossession: A Key Predisposing Condition

      By dispossession I refer to perceptions on the part of a group that it is systematically excluded, discriminated against, or disadvantaged with respect to some meaningful aspect of social, economic, and political life to which it feels entitled. There is no society in the world that does not have many groups that feel illegitimately dispossessed. Despite its widespread if not universal existence, this phenomenon of dispossession must be invoked as a necessary condition for dissatisfaction and collective mobilization. As a general principle, those contented with their lot do not protest, unless they feel imperiled—in which case they fear dispossession.

      Historical illustrations. I begin by illustrating dispossession, as well as its relative deprivation aspect, with three empirical examples:

      • Most of the nation-building efforts on the part of the Western nations have involved a systematic effort to homogenize the language and political cultures of their peoples through educating their children in schools, using the media to create national symbols, myths, and memories, and other means (Anderson, 1991; Gellner, 1983).More recently, the sustained efforts of the last Shah in the mid-twentieth century to develop Iran into a Western-style country simultaneously aimed to suppress clerical influences, ethnic differences, and nomadic uprisings (Green, 1995, 557–58).We should also remind ourselves that much of contemporary Muslim fundamentalism rose to salience in the wake of disillusionment with other secular nation-building efforts (many including religious repression) in a number of other Arab countries (Kamrava, 2005). This process of cultural homogenization, at the very least, offended the sensibilities of particular groups, and in many cases occasioned political persecution of them. These efforts to homogenize have never been completely successful.

      Turbulence and violence occur especially in the early stages of state formation (Chopra, 2001, pp. 15–16). Europe today bears dozens of historical residues of its relative incompleteness in the presence of regional communities: the Bretons, the Basques, the Tyroleans, the Welsh, and the Scots, to say nothing of the religious-ethnic-linguistic subnational groups in Central and Southeastern Europe. Typically these people feel dominated and dispossessed in various ways, and this constitutes a basis for latent and sometimes openly expressed antagonism toward the parent state and other groups.

      • Slavery could be said to be a source of absolute deprivation for black Americans in almost every respect. In the decades that followed emancipation, many black leaders hailed its end and foresaw full incorporation of the race as American citizens. After decades of disappointment, however, occasioned by the reimposition of harsh Jim Crow arrangements in the South and continuing discrimination elsewhere, a deep disillusionment set in. This disillusionment was relative because it was experienced in the context of earlier high hopes. For a variety of reasons it did not generate revolutionary protest, but it did occasion remarkable efforts to revitalize black American culture, the most notable of which was the Harlem Renaissance. Some of this effort even incorporated the experience of slavery into a new positive identity (Eyerman, 2004).

      • The civil rights movement of the 1950s and early 1960s, under the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr., was by all realistic standards a resounding success, leading to the formal desegregation of eating establishments, public transportation, and other facilities and stimulating the government to introduce many reforms. It was also a movement that raised expectations not only among black citizens but among other groups as well (youth, women, other ethnic groups). Yet the imperfect realization of these successes in practice and the persistence of other deprivations (primarily economic) led to a renewed dissatisfaction and a radicalization of at least a minority of black activists. In this case, the movement spawned a submovement of violence (through mechanisms to be identified later) that has been treated as terrorism in the literature, especially as manifested in the activities of the Black Panthers.

      These examples provide an idea of the processes and mechanisms by which relative deprivation and dissatisfaction are generated and which in many cases have spawned domestic social movements, a few of which have resorted to violence.

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1