Can Science Solve Terrorism?

Interview by John Horgan the American science writer with John Horgan the Irish psychologist and terrorism expert.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-science-solve-terrorism-q-amp-a-with-psychologist-john-horgan/

Editor's note (11/16/15): Following the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13, Scientific American is republishing the following article, which originally ran after the attack on Charlie Hebdo, a Parisian newspaper, in January 2015.

Can Science Solve Terrorism? Q&A with Psychologist John Horgan

March 2, 2015

•••••

Q: Are there any especially insidious misconceptions about terrorists?

A: There are way too many to list here. An issue I find problematic right now is the idea that to prevent terrorism, we have to first prevent radicalization. It’s an assumption that seems credible, and few would argue against it, but I’m not yet convinced of its scientific validity. There are far more people who hold "radical" views than will ever become involved in terrorism, and there are plenty of terrorists (who are already small in number – a point we tend to forget) who don’t initially hold radical views but drift into terrorism regardless. In fact, more and more evidence suggests that quite a few terrorists acquire their radical views through ideological training only after they become involved with a recruiter or a group. We don’t know nearly enough about the temporal sequencing of this process, yet I never cease to be amazed by how quickly policymakers are to embrace what seems to be an unending series of dueling metaphors that substitute for serious analysis and research.

•••••

Q: What are the major reasons why people turn to terrorism, and especially suicidal terrorism?

A: It’s typically a combination of big issues and little ones, or what some call "push and pull" factors. The bigger issues include alienation, shared anger or outrage (e.g. at some foreign policy), frustration, disillusionment, a sense of victimization by the actions, or in the case of Syria, inactions, of others. The littler issues, the "lures" include the perceived benefits of turning – e.g. adventure, excitement, camaraderie, a sense of belonging, being part of something far bigger etc. The key to understanding is not just to ask why people turn but how they turn, and what strategies recruiters use in that process. Effective recruiters will use whatever tools in their arsenal to pull someone in, whether it is convincing them of their duty to go fight in defense of others, to convincing them that involvement offers them a way out of the humiliation and victimization the recruiter will remind the young person they are otherwise destined to face at home.

•••••

Q: You have written about "disengagement" from terrorism. How can people be encouraged to turn away from terrorism?

A: I was struck by how rife disillusionment is inside terror groups. The idealism that helps draw someone into terrorism often conflicts with the reality as experienced by the newly minted recruit. Entrapment (in a psychological sense) develops quickly and recruits have to cope with that disillusionment one way or another. You acquiesce to it and move on, maybe by embracing ideological content or seeking comfort in the camaraderie. Or you struggle with and try to conceal it until you can get out. Some terrorists report being disillusioned long before they have been able to disengage from terrorism. They report a sense of suffocation – being unable to leave for fear of retaliation (either by the terrorists or by the State) and being equally afraid of their disillusionment being detected by those close to them in the movement. I think we need to do a better job of providing "off-ramps" not just for people who are on the road to terrorism in the first place, but also to those who have gotten themselves in a jam and want to get out before it’s too late. Some see that as a soft option. I see it as reducing the nature and extent of the problem. We certainly need to do a far better job of showcasing accounts of repentant former terrorists who are in an ideal position to credibly undermine the allure of involvement in the first place.

•••••

It’s the uncritical embracing of religious ideology that is often associated with terrorism. This is why I think converts appear especially susceptible to terrorist recruiters. They don’t have the deeper religious knowledge that could easily rebut many of the clichéd arguments used by recruiters attempting to inspire young Muslims to mobilize in the first place.

•••••

Q: Will the world ever be free of terrorism?

A: Not until it becomes an ineffective and unattractive strategy for groups who bank on the predictability of our responses to their actions. For that to happen, it depends in part on States holding the moral high ground, formulating responses based on evidence, and not falling into the traps that terrorist groups are so clever at setting for States. So, in other words, no.

=========

For more articles from the Scientific American in-depth report on terrorism, see

http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/combating-terrorism-with-science/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20151118