When discussing about the term violent extremists or terrorism several organizations tend to come across people’s mind such as the infamous Ku Klux Klan (KKK) whom committed heinous acts of violence against American minorities, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) which due to political reasons carried out terrorist attacks in London resulting in civilian casualties, the Al-Qaeda who focused their attacks against nations that were considered to be kafir and lastly the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) which shared the ideology of Al- Qaeda thus resulting in attacks on European nations (O’Donnell, 2006; Derkins, 2003; Cooley, 2002; Al-Tamimi, 2014). Even though there have been several attacks initiated by different violent extremist groups there seems to be a staggering focus on two dates due to the mark that they have left on the Western world; the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the 7/7 bombings that took place in London (Rehman, 2005; Thomas, 2012). In light of these attacks there has been a blooming array of research articles in which researchers have tried to define the notion of terrorism. In his article Crenshaw (1992) has defined terrorism as a specific type of political violence, which involves attacks on small numbers of victims with the aim of influencing a broader audience. On the other hand, the definition of terrorism has since been revised and expanded on thus resulting in the following “the threatened or actual use of illegal force directed against civilian targets by nonstate actors in order to attain a political goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.” (LaFree and Ackerman, 2009). Furthermore, LaFree and Ackerman (2009) stated that there seems to be no consensus amongst academics at the moment when defining terrorism, adding that “the term terrorism yields varying definitions, often loaded with political and emotional implications”. This idea of non-consensus can be clearly identified in Schmid and Jongman’s (1988) book in which they have identified a number of 109 different definitions which attempted to explain the term of terrorism. Even though there was such a high number of non-concording definition Schimd and Jongman (1988) identified some key components present throughout the definitions such as the presence of violence, the idea of inflicting fear through the use of threats or the clear discrepancy between the targets and the victims. Moreover, these dissonances between these competing definitions have been scrutinized in the first chapter of many influential and more recent books (Hoffman, 1998; Smelser, 2009; LaFree and Ackerman, 2009).
On the other side of the spectrum, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings it has been noticed that there were a widespread belief of a terrorist prototype amongst non-academics. When talking about a person that is affiliated with a terrorist group or a terrorist itself people seem to think that they are usually males between the ages of 20 and 30, Muslims or home-grown Muslims, unemployed, bodily able, with low educational attainments and thought to suffer from mental health issues (Dzhaneryan, Gvozdeva, and Gabdulina, 2013; Hudson and Majeska, 1999; Miller, 2009). Due to this mistaken perception of terrorists, media channels used it as a weapon by depicting Muslims as either being terrorists or suicide bombers therefore resulting in them being treated unfairly and discriminated in the education system, the legal system and in their workplace (Sardar, 2002; Moore, Mason and Lewis, 2008). Even though there has been some acceptance over these prototypal myths by people and some bodies of research that terrorists match the description above mentioned, it has been proven through the use proficient research that those prototypes are to some extent invalid. Firstly, the notion that violent extremists suffer from mental health issues has been refuted by some academics whom concluded that terrorists are more stable and healthier from a psychological stand point of view than any other type of criminals (Horgan, 2005; Lyons and Harbinson, 1986). Secondly, Silke (2008) has disproven the idea that all violent extremists are Muslims and males by stating that terrorist come from a wide pallet of ethnic backgrounds and vary from a gender perspective. Finally, research has shown that most people whom join violent extremists organisations tend to do so during their teenage period up until the age of twenty-five therefore refuting to some extent the notion that enrolment takes place during one’s early twenties (Budd, Sharp and Mayhew, 2005).
Although research has centred around the notion of defining terrorism and confirming or infirming the existence of a violent extremist prototype per se, there is also a primary focus on the individual processes and the group processes that result in one’s engagement with terrorism. For instance, studies such as the one conducted by McCauley and Moskalenko (2008) examined the pathways to terrorism radicalization by the individual, group and mass levels of radicalization. Other studies such as the one conducted by Moghaddam (2005) developed the infamous staircase towards terrorism which an individual will be following during his on-going radicalization process; this staircase ranges from ground floor also known as perceived unfairness and injustice and it reaches its peak at the fifth floor which involves performing the terrorist attack itself. Taking into account the aforementioned, the aim of this essay is to explore what are the essential individual processes and group processes that coerce one to join a terrorist organisation and carry out terrorist attacks.
When discussing the individual processes, which lead to one committing, a terrorist attack it has been noticed that academic research have focused mainly on a single-discipline approach rather than a multidiscipline one (Helmus, 2009). Nowadays, there seems to be a general consensus amongst academic bodies that in order to fully understand one’s internal processes that lead towards terrorism a multidisciplinary methodology needs to be employed (Victoroff, 2005; Moghadam, 2005). One of the most common internal factors that lead to an individual’s involvement in terrorist activities is the notion of personal victimisation. (Varvin, 2003; Helmus, 2009; McCauley and Moskalenko, 2008). The notion of personal grievance refers to the idea that an individual will either personally be subjected to victimisation (this also includes one’s family and friends) or a large collective with whom the individual identifies himself as being part of (e.g. ethnic community). The importance of this phenomenon was explored by Volkan (1997) who discovered that many of terrorists have had experienced victimisation during their childhood period and adolescence thus making them more prone to develop personal identity problems. Furthermore, the importance of personal victimisation was clearly identified in Spechard and Khapta’s (2006) study in which they have interviewed family members of deceased terrorists. Concurring with the literature the results of the study stated that all of the dead terrorists have either been tortured in a brutal manner or they have witnessed family members either being killed or beaten. Another internal contributing factor that enables an individual’s engagement with terrorism is the notion of perceived rewards; this notion of perceived rewards has strong ties with both behaviourism and rational choice theory. The idea behind behaviourism is that there are certain positive consequences (rewards) will increase the likelihood of an occurring behaviour whereas negative consequences (punishments) will hinder the occurrence of the behaviour (Skinner, 1974). On the other hand, the idea behind rational choice theory that in a given situation a person will make a decision that will lead to the optimisation of their pleasure and profit (Berrebi, 2009). One of the most notable rewards across literature that enable an individual to commit terrorist attacks is in regards to the gain of religious rewards (Jones, 2008; Gunning and Jackson, 2011; Berman, 2011). There are several religious benefits perceived by the individual such as being forgiven for the sins committed, being able to communicate with God, being able to bring 70 family members or friends in paradise and being granted 72 virgins in order to experience sexual pleasure (Soibelman, 2004; Pedahzur, 2006). Other individuals might be inclined to join violent extremist groups due to the receival of financial rewards. Some studies have shown that many individuals were receiving regular salaries and that in the event of their death in action they were assured that their families would receive financial compensations (Wright, 2006; Soibelman, 2004). Other individual factors such as depravation has a significant impact upon one’s decision to engage with terrorism. Gurr (1970) developed the theory of relative depravation, which states that people are more likely to engage in rebellious activities when they can no longer endure the despair of their lot. Victoroff (2005) stated that partial or absolute economic depravation are more likely to ignite within a person terrorist sentiments, especially in people whom are part of oppressed underclasses. As an example during the conflicts that have occurred in Palestinian a lot of people have suffered from economic austerity. Thus factoring in the cultural importance that is associated with male figures (e.g. they are the main breadwinners) there was no surprise that these economic prospects have enticed individuals to partake in terrorist attacks as a form of revenge (Bennet, 2004).
In contrast with the aforementioned sociological theories that explain one’s internal process towards carrying out terrorist attacks academics have also centred on psychological theories. One of the most intriguing one is the narcissism theory that is derived from Kohut’s (1972) self-psychology. Self-psychology states that in the absence of maternal empathy one’s self image gets irreparably damaged (also known as narcissistic injury) thus resulting in reoccurring infantile grandiose fantasies or in the failure to assimilate the idealised image of the mother (Kohut, 1972; Victoroff, 2005). Moreover, it was proposed by Crayton (1983) that if a person that suffered from narcissistic injury during childhood experienced any sort of political humiliation that trauma would reawaken their injury. The danger that this poses is that adults whom have experienced narcissistic re-traumatization will be more inclined to resort to terrorist activities in order to eradicate the cause of harm; this is also commonly known as narcissistic rage (Crayton, 1983 Victoroff, 2005). Some bodies of research have stated that an individual might be inclined towards committing terrorist attacks due to the fact that there is a primordial maybe even genetically need to resort to such actions in order to experience high levels of stimulations thus procuring them with the much needed satisfaction (Fried, 1982; Kellen, 1979; Hacker, 1983). It is a very well known fact that planning and performing terrorist attacks is an extremely thrilling and satisfying job for the people that do it (Victoroff, 2005). Furthermore, this idea was supported by captured violent extremists whom on several occasions emphasised the satisfaction and excitement of taking part in these exhilarating actions (Juergensmeyer, 2000). Other theories such as the developmental theory tried to predict that young people with aggressive tempers would be more inclined to join terrorist organisations (Petit, 1997). It is known that during the adolescence period there seems to be a proneness towards committing criminal offences, with the most prolific period of offending between the ages of 15 and 18, but also a tendency of these acts to desist for most individuals when growing older (Farrington, 2003; Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein, 2003). Furthermore, a study conducted by Fox and Zawitz (1999) yielded results of between 54% and 96% of young males engaging in at least on type of delinquent behaviour; in addition, Moffitt (1993) commented on this effect by stating that delinquency acts are so elevated and common amongst young people that it leads to some sort of normalisation of the act during the teenage period. Studies such as Steinberg’s (2004; 2007) have also suggested that risk is a combination of both psychosocial factors and logical reasoning and that the reason for young people engaging in crimes is that both of those factors do not develop completely up until reaching young adulthood. In addition, studies regarding brain activations have shown that in young people, the part of the brain that has been associated with obtaining potential rewards was activated significantly in the presence of peers, thus enabling them to more easily take risks (Chein, Albert, O’Brien, Uckert, and Steinberg, 2011). However, even though such a highly plausible supposition might be indeed true there are no research journals, which support the idea that young people might be more prone towards joining violent extremists groups (Victoroff, 2005).
Alongside the psychological and sociological processes that might influence an individual to commit terrorist attacks, amongst the academic literature this phenomenon was also explained in the form of a staircase towards violent extremism (Moghaddam, 2005). This staircase seeks to explain how individuals go through the process of radicalization by advancing through different floors until the climax of committing an attack is reached; it has to be taken into account that some of the people rather than advancing through the different floors will actually remain stagnant at a certain floor. Moghaddam (2005) proposes that there are a large number of individuals whom can be identified as being part of the ground floor. These people are usually the ones that perceive themselves as being deprived or treated in an unfair manner; some of the individuals that are part of the ground floor will climb to the first floor in search of solutions that will ameliorate the situation. If those whom reached the first floor realise that they are unable to improve the situation and achieve greater justice will be more inclined to continue climbing up to the second floor. The individuals that reach the second floor will be directed by the leader to displace their built up aggression from the perceived unfairness towards the “enemy”; the ones that will be more prone to displace that aggression in a physical manner will continue climbing to the third floor. The third floor is considered to be the most important one in one’s radicalization process, due to the fact that they will be exposed and actively engage with the terrorist organization’s morality. Those that engage fully with this morality will be more likely to advance to the fourth floor as they perceive terrorism as a justified means of obtaining greater justice. When a person reaches the fourth floor they will be taught to perceive the world as being a matter of “us versus them”; furthermore, the recruitment of potential terrorist takes place on this floor. On the fifth floor only certain individuals will be selected and trained. The training consists of inhibiting the person’s auto- preservation mechanism alongside with the mechanisms that might impede them to cause harm to others. After the training was successfully completed the individuals will be equipped and sent out in order to perform a terrorist attack on a given target.
On the other hand, research has also focused on studying the way through which group processes contribute to an individual’s involvement in terrorist activities. It has been pointed out that in the case of suicide bomber groups no cost is considered to be to great if it will be in the benefit of the unit and the cause (Varshney, 2003). However, when referring to the rational choice theory it is understandable that some of the individuals will not perceive the act as being beneficial for them due to the fact that they will not be able to see their dreams fulfilled; because of this fact some individuals might not carry out the attack, letting others pay the costs (e.g. death) whilst they along with the group will enjoy the benefits from any advancement of the group (Varshney, 2003; McCauley and Moskalenko, 2008). Although, this might be true in the case of big groups the same does not apply for smaller groups. The disadvantage of a small group is that all the members know each other and they know each other’s behaviours thus free-riding is not possible. If an individual does not carry out the attack, he will more than likely be identified and punished for going against the norms of the group and ultimately coerced in fulfilling his purpose for the greater good (McCauley and Moskalenko, 2008). Nonetheless, apart from coercion and punishment academics have identified a more powerful means through which groups convince an individual to carry out attacks; this method is referred through academic journals as the power of love. The underpinning idea behind this method is that the majority of the terrorists tend to avoid recruiting strangers thus the majority of the newcomers are friends, lovers or family members of existing recruits. Therefore, the new recruits are welcomed into the group with love and support, which with time increases and strengthens the cohesion of the collective (Wasmund, 1986; Porta, 1995; White, 1988; McCauley and Moskalenko, 2008). Due to this shared love and friendship individuals will be more prone and susceptible to commit violent extremist activities in order to protect the collective that they cherish; this can be clearly identified in the fallowing extract from Porta’s (1995) book “…as far as I am concerned it was up to emotional feelings of passion for the people I shared my life with”. Another theory that explores the influence of the group upon the individual is the group polarisation theory developed by Brown (1986). The group polarisation theory suggests that within a group a shift will be noticed towards the opinion that is favoured by most of the members of the group; for instance if most of the individuals favour racial equality than the group will focus on the subject of racial equality (Brown, 1986; Isenberg, 1986). In the case of a terrorist group this poses a significant threat to the individual, as he will more than likely feel pressured to concur with the majority of the group, even if he rationally doesn’t agree with the decisions just so he can avoid being persecuted. Furthermore, an imbalance of status can be noticed during group polarisation as individuals whose convictions are more firm and strong will have and actual influence on the group and change less whereas those who are not as extreme in their convictions will have less of and influence on the group and will have to change more in order to fit in with the new norms of the group (Clark, Crockett and Archer, 1971; Pruit, 1971; Brown, 1986). The group can have a huge impact upon an individual when the collective is facing against repercussions from state powers. In some of the cases terrorist attacks are met with a response from the targeted state power that is meant to deter the attackers. However, in the case of terrorist attacks most of them are carried out by people whom are highly dedicated to the cause thus usually resulting in a clash of powers. If the groups suffer the loss of a member this will create a ripple effect within the heart of the collective. Taking into account the power of love theory and the group polarisation theory it can be understood that such a loos for the collective will only instigate the members to retaliate. The group will influence the individual, whom might not have committed the attack usually, by invoking that their brothers or sisters have died and that they need to be avenged; by doing this, the group directly induces to the individual what is known as survival guilt. This survival guilt combined with the groups desire for vengeance and the loss of a close friend ultimately lead to the person going against their auto-preservation instinct and rationale thus enabling them to conduct the attack (Kubany et.al., 1996; McCauley and Moskalenko, 2008).