Small Group Bonds Fuel Suicide Bombers, Not Religion
What Makes A Suicide Bomber?
Are suicide bombers crazy, depressed or even suicidal? Not usually, found Shankar Vedantam. So why do they do what they do?
What prompts a man to agree to kill the pilot of a plane he is travelling on? To strap a bomb to his chest and explode himself? Is religion to blame? Do the young Muslim men blowing themselves up in Iraq and Pakistan and other theatres of today’s conflicts really believe that dozens of virgins will attend on them in the afterlife? For nonbelievers, followers of other faiths, and the vast majority of Muslims themselves, such beliefs seem fantastic. And if suicide bombers really seek nothing but death, it means they cannot be deterred.
There is an alternative explanation, but this does not give us many options, either. Are suicide bombers basically suicidal? Are they depressed people out to kill themselves, whose impulses are directed by terrorist masterminds into murderous channels? Might suicide terrorism be more about suicide than about terrorism?
Ariel Merari once wondered if this was so. But then the Israeli psychologist set out to do what most commentators on terrorism do not do — he began to look for evidence. He collected detailed biographical accounts of suicide terrorists. He spent hours interviewing young Arab men and women in Israeli prisons, people who had planned to kill themselves but had seen their missions go awry. And one by one, his preconceptions fell away.
Suicide terrorists are not crazy. If anything, Merari and other psychologists have found that these men and women seem to have fewer mental disorders than the general population. As a group, they are hardly more religious than everyone else. Large numbers of suicide terrorists do not come from religious backgrounds at all. Many are secular, even atheists.
While some seek Rambo-style personal vengeance against groups that have wounded them, most have not directly experienced humiliation at the hands of their enemies. A considerable number come from wealthy and privileged backgrounds. They are college graduates and professionals, doctors, engineers, and architects. Nor do "psychological autopsies" of dead suicide bombers and psychological inventories of captured terrorists show that they are psychopathic automatons or nihilists. In fact, suicide terrorists on average seem more idealistic than their peers. They are often hypersensitive to guilt.
Finally, the men and women Merari studied were not brainwashed simpletons who merely followed orders. They gave Merari thoughtful rationales for their behaviour. Many of the would-be suicide bombers calmly told the psychologist that if they were released from prison, they would attempt another mission. They thought he was crazy for not seeing how their course of action was obvious.
As the psychologist’s preconceptions fell away, he realised that we have misunderstood what motivates suicide bombers — and are therefore handicapped in our fight against them. Suicide bombers are not aberrational; large numbers of ordinary people can be turned into suicide bombers. The notion that suicide terrorists are mentally defective is also wrong. There is no clear psychological profile that predicts whether someone might become a suicide bomber. But there is a very distinct psychological profile of the process that produces suicide bombers.
Merari likened it to a tunnel. Ordinary people go in at one end, and laser-focused suicide terrorists come out the other. At every stage of the tunnel process, individuals in the tunnel believe — as you and I always believe — that they have complete agency, complete autonomy. The tunnel is really a powerful system of manipulation, but the coercion is subtle. This is why suicide bombers rarely go to their deaths feeling coerced. There is no more powerful testament to the power of the hidden brain than the suicide bomber’s tunnel. And it’s a vivid example of how our false assumptions about human behaviour and the brain exact a toll on our ability to make the right decisions as a society.
Suicidal attacks remain a prime weapon of terror and insurgency, from Baghdad to Mumbai — and the recruitment of suicide terrorists extends deep into many societies, ensnaring children and women as well as countless young men. No matter how broad the pool of recruits turns out to be or how often our intuitions encounter disconfirming evidence, we are tempted to fall back on the notion that suicide bombers must be psychologically different from other people, and that they must be mindless automatons programmed to kill themselves and others.
Suicide bombers themselves tell us why they become suicide bombers. In notes and videos, they often say they are motivated by religious beliefs and political causes. These reports confirm our intuitions, so we rarely question them. But, as we’ve done with numerous other examples, we ought to distinguish between what people sincerely believe and what might actually be happening at an unconscious level in their heads.
Suicide bombers may tell us that religious injunctions motivate their actions, but is this a fact or a deduction on their part to explain their behavior — not just to us but to themselves? Global data on suicide bombers, including data on terrorists from predominantly Muslim countries, show that religious belief is neither a necessary nor a sufficient explanation for suicide terrorism — even when such violence is carried out in the name of religion.
If the victims of terrorist attacks are unconsciously influenced by the psychology of large groups, the "peer pressure" of strangers, I believe the perpetrators of such attacks are unconsciously influenced by the psychology of small groups. It is small-group psychology — intense bonds of loyalty between small "bands of brothers" — that is common to suicide terrorism across the world, not religion or any particular political belief. Small-group dynamics don’t explain only how ordinary people can be turned into suicide bombers; they explain how ordinary people can be prompted to do any number of extraordinary things.
The dastardliness of terrorist acts keeps us from seeing that the unconscious motivations of suicide terrorists are not unlike the motivations of many other groups, including those we consider heroes. Small-group psychology explains the behaviour of the ordinary men and women in the uniforms of the New York police department and the New York fire department who calmly walked into the Twin Towers — and to near-certain death — on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Small-group dynamics explain why ordinary people in military uniforms throw their bodies over live hand grenades and why soldiers volunteer for combat missions where the odds of survival are zero. Patriotism is the name we give to such behaviour, but military commanders have known for generations that people don’t give their lives for king, God, and country. That’s what they say. In reality, ordinary men and women give their lives for the sake of the small group of buddies in the trench next to them.
Ariel Merari told me that when Japanese Vice Admiral Takijiro Onishi first sought kamikaze volunteers in the fading days of World War II, he lined up a squadron of pilots and said, "The only way we can save Japan is by sacrificing ourselves. I know it’s too much to ask, so if any one of you doesn’t want to do it, step forward."
"Of course," Merari added, "nobody stepped forward. It was group pressure. The people you were standing next to were people with whom you had fought. You valued their opinion. You didn’t want them to think you were a coward."
Small-group dynamics have the power to overturn people’s beliefs about what is and isn’t rational behavior. To the extent that suicide bombers report being troubled by anything, they mostly report they are troubled about being held back too long. Kamikaze pilots worried that Japan was running out of fuel, and that there would not be enough gasoline for them to fly their one-way missions.
The power that small groups wield over individuals explains why in every historical instance that has produced suicide bombers, the supply of men and women willing to volunteer to kill themselves has exceeded the demand. Far from being subpar, many of these volunteers are talented. From the point of view of the manipulative groups that train and produce suicide bombers, why would you take the dumb and the deranged when you can have the smart and the skilled?
Suicide bombers belong to a very exclusive club, and the exclusivity of this club is one of its central appeals. The first step into the tunnel — the funnel that pulls ordinary people into the suicide bomber’s world — is the ego-stroking notion that access to the tunnel is limited, that it is a reward for the most dedicated people, for those with rare talent. To enter the tunnel is to set yourself off from your peers, to be recognised as special.
This is an edited extract from The Hidden Brain: how our unconscious minds elect presidents, control markets, wage wars, and save our lives by Shankar Vedantam (Scribe).
http://newmatilda.com/2010/04/13/what-makes-suicide-bomber
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
It sounds very similar to the protesters in the 60s - you know, the ones that robbed banks and bombed draft offices. Rich kids, privileged kids, kids who had been raised to think they could do no wrong. I've seen parents like that- "my child can do no wrong even if I see them doing wrong." And I think, what are you teaching your child?
I once had a brief discussion with a Middle Eastern student while I was at university. He was amazed that ordinary Americans thought suicide bombers were terrorists, that we had no sympathy for them or their cause. This was a long time before 9/11.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Yeah, cj. You read about soldiers and firefighters and cops and even ordinary mums and dads giving their lives up for others and you have to think the sacrifice mechanism is identical to that in bombers. In a fundamental sort of way we are all the same person.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I think one of the mistakes we (atheist activists) often make is in thinking of "religion," "faith," and "religious behavior" as interchangeable concepts. When we say the word "religion," we're talking about a conglomerate of beliefs, behaviors, dogma, political organizations, social groups, social bonds, and probably a few other things.
Put simply, it's vague to the point of meaningless to say, "Religion causes X." Whatever X happens to be.
When we look at Islamic suicide bombers, we have to ask a lot of questions:
* To what degree are the goals of a suicide bombing directed towards political, ideological, dogmatic, or socioeconomic goals?
* To what degree does religious fanaticism override good logic? (In other words, if we're going to say that a religious behavior is irrational, the means to the end must be irrational.)
* To what degree can we reasonably conclude that this strategy (suicide bombing) represents a course of action that could only be attributed to religious motivations?
When we look at these questions objectively, it doesn't even take peer review backing to realize that suicide bombing is not a purely religious activity. (We could just remember World War II, and that ought to take care of the notion.)
I'll be the first to admit that originally, my mouth worked before my brain kicked in on this subject, but in hindsight, it just doesn't make sense to blame many suicide bombings on religion. Taking 9/11 as an example, there are several sticking points that just don't fit into that paradigm.
* 9/11 was a very, very effective attack. Any military strategist would have been quite proud to have come up with it.
* The majority of the suicide attackers were not ignorant sheep. They were very smart, and there were plenty of reports that many of them were not especially pious in the observance of other Islamic religious demands.
* There were significant political and economic motivations for 9/11.
* Given the desire to attack the U.S. and limited tactical opportunities, 9/11, far from defying logic, seems like one of the best things they could have accomplished.
Compare this with something I do believe is caused by religion -- death by neglect. There have been numerous news reports of various people -- adults and children -- who died because they believed God would heal them or their children. They shunned medical help. One man spent months blogging about the power of Jesus to heal him while he slowly shat himself to death. This kind of behavior is irrational in the extreme, and doesn't accomplish any kind of goal that can be attributed to anything other than irrationality. And the clear source of this irrationality was Christian dogma. Not political ideology, economic gain, or anything else logical.
In short, I think it's probably fair to say that religious ideology is a factor in suicide bombing. I imagine religious ideology is a good selling point when recruiting fresh young minds to the "movement." Religious behaviors, including synchronized group activities (daily prayers) are excellent dopamine triggers, and contribute to group cohesion, loyalty and bonding. Shared dogma/ideology does the same thing. Surely there are some members of these organizations who are firm, devout believers, and their contributions can't be overlooked. But we need to be sure to think of these behaviors as complex interactions of causal and contributing agents, not a linear progression from Religion --->>> Suicide Bombing.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
He says they're not brainwashed, but what's the difference between brainwashing and that "tunnel" he keeps mentioning ?
Language sucks at describing human brains. Brainwashing can and does produce the same kinds of effects as small group bonding, but the techniques for achieving the ends are not identical. It's probably some of both, but I think the broad point is that brainwashing isn't a religious thing. We can brainwash people with religion, but we can also brainwash people with other things as well.
In a way, this is a kind of goal-post shifting. Take your average suicide bomber. If we could wave a magic wand and take away all the religious elements of his group bonding/brainwashing/training, would he still carry out the bombing? More importantly, if the leaders/organizers of the attack didn't have religion as a tool, could they/would they use something else? Would it/could it be more effective?
The answer to most of these questions is a definite "possibly/probably." But such discussions are somewhat pointless. It is a religious movement, and religious dogma is being used as part of the process, so we can't say that it doesn't play a part. And the broader question is how religious dogma plays into the larger socio-political process that has led to the ideological differences between the Middle East and the West. It's sort of silly to exonerate religion if a theocracy was instrumental in maintaining the political ideology of separatism and conquest, but it's also silly to blame religion entirely when oil is very valuable and it makes sense to hoard it while trying to capture new oil-rich territory.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Neat article.
Things are usually more complicated than it looks like on the TV news.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
AKA narcissism
Not a terribly difficult thing to spot, actually. My parents were somewhat narcissistic themselves, and to this day they BMG to no end when I exhibit narcissistic behavior myself!
The thing is... there's a MORE dangerous cousin of narcissism -MALIGNANT NARCISSISM*!
I suspect the 'King of Terrorists' himself -OBL- was/is a 'malignant narcissist'. The evidence stacks up in favor of that.
*And UNFORTUNATELY, the evidence for me being a malignant narcissist appears readily abundant as well! But then, the psyche-diagram appears to have been made by a theist-group!
I'll leave CJ on this note:
To AE: Brilliant fucking article! One of the best I've read in a while...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Huh. Seriously, I think you are right.
I never got into the 60s rebellion stuff. First off, I am oldest child and a disgusting suck up. Secondly, my parents were working poor. Dad was a truck driver, Mom a bookkeeper (not an accountant). We didn't do without food, but we were a long way from middle class. I could not and can not deliberately damage someone's small business in a riot or by bombing an office next door or flying an airplane into the building. I know how hard those people worked for their living.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
You've got self-discipline! Cherish it, while you are STILL able to hold on to your dignity... (I don't have much self-discipline, but at least I'm driven)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)