Becoming a Terrorist: Non-Fiction Sources for Extremist Morality in Novels of Doyle and Lessing

UNIVERSITY OF MARIBOR FACULTY OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

BECOMING A TERRORIST: NON-FICTION SOURCES FOR EXTREMIST MORALITY IN NOVELS OF DOYLE AND LESSING

DIPLOMA THESIS

Mentors: Student: Prof. ddr. Kennedy Victor Špela Logar Associate prof. dr. Klampfer Friderik

Maribor, 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank both mentors, dr. Victor Kennedy and dr. Friderik Klampfer, for their professional guidance, assistance and advice with literature, and all the thought-provoking comments and ideas during the process of writing. Without their help and considerate counselling, the writing of the thesis would be hard and perplexed. Most of all I thank them for their patience and time dedicated to my diploma paper.

Most of all I would like to thank my husband, for all his moral and overall support during the last year.

ABSTRACT

Literature can provide the reader with a different view and perhaps a window for a deeper understanding of the behaviour of others and even suggest possible grounds for justification of their deeds. For example, the scientific literature on terrorists is scarce. Some of it suggests that terrorists are not psychotic, irrational individuals, but normal people who are forced to approach the world from a different perspective than the rest of us. In my thesis I will examine two novels by Roddy Doyle and Doris Lessing and compare their portrayals of terrorists with interviews from real-life terrorists found in Stefan Aust's The Baader-Meinhof Complex. From the perspective of individual psychology, social psychology and sociology, I will argue that Doyle and Lessing provide a realistic portrayal of terrorists' behaviour that helps us to better understand the extreme circumstances that these characters found themselves in, and their reactions to those circumstances.

KEY WORDS: terrorism, becoming a terrorist, justification, moral deeds, terrorist's behaviour, violence.

POVZETEK

Književnost lahko bralcu nudi drugačen pogled in mogoče okno za globje razumevanje obnašanja drugih in mogoče celo ponudi možne temelje za upravičevanje njihovih dejanj. Na primer, strokovna literatura o teroristih je skromna. Nekatera predlaga, da teroristi niso psihotični, neracionalno posamezniki, temveč normalni ljudje, ki so prisiljeni pristopiti svetu iz druge perspektive kot mi. V diplomskem delu sem preučila dva romana Roddy Doyla in Doris Lessingove ter Stefan Austov Baader-Meinhof Complex. Iz pogleda individualne psihologije, socialne psihologije in sociologije bom argumentirala, da Doyle in Lessingova nudita realističen portret obnašanja teroristov, ki nam pomaga bolje doumeti ekstremne okoliščine, v katerih se ti liki znajdejo, in njihove odzive na te okoliščine.

KLJUČNE BESEDE: terorizem, postati terorist, upravičevanje, moralna dejanja, obnašanje teroristov, nasilje.

KAZALO VSEBINE

1 INTRODUCTION ______1

1.1 Moral Justification of Terrorism ______1 1.2 Is a terrorist a prototypical malevolent mind? Or should we think of terrorists as ordinary people caught in unfavourable circumstances? ______4

2 TERRORISM ______12

2.1 What is terrorism? ______12 2.2 Terrorism from a moral point of view ______16 2.3 Violence as a Political Instrument – Can violence be (morally) justified as a political instrument? ______19

3 FICTION AS REFLECTION OF REALITY ______24

3.1 The epistemic value of fictional works ______24 3.2 Can we learn about the formation of a terrorist mind from fictional accounts? 25 3.2.1 A Star Called Henry ______25 Henry ______29 3.2.2 The Good Terrorist ______34 Alice ______35 3.3 Grounds in Reality ______41 3.3.1 TheBaader- Meinhof Complex ______42

4 THREE APPROACHES TO /VIEWS FOR UNDERSTANDING ______47

4.1 Individual Psychology ______47 4.1.1 Terrorism and psychopathy ______47 4.1.1.1 The frustration-aggression hypothesis ______50 4.1.1.2 Narcissism and narcissism-aggression______51 4.1.1.3 Terrorism and psychodynamic accounts ______53 4.2 Social Psychology ______55 4.2.1 The role of the leader and group belonging ______60 4.3 Sociology ______63

5 THE MIND OF A TERRORIST ______67

5.1 Nationalist-Separatist Terrorism ______67 Irish Republican Army (IRA) ______68 5.2 Social Revolutionary Terrorism ______71 The Red Army Faction (RAF) ______73

6 CONCLUSION______82

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Moral Justification of Terrorism

The term terrorism has become an inescapable part of our lives, one which cannot be avoided in every-day news. Terrorism in the previous century did exist with numerous terrorist groups’ activities in different countries and continents, which made their mark on history but it seems to have attained a different level in the 21st Century. If terrorism is an act of violence, can violence be ever morally justified? Surely if a victim defends himself/herself from the aggressor, that must be reasonable and justifiable. There are two viewpoints on this problem in ethics, as Iwill see, one from the consequentialist and the other from non-consequentialist theory. Based on the first theory, a person’s deeds are judged solely on the consequences of his deeds. If the consequences are best or sufficiently good, the action is right and if the consequences are bad, the action is wrong. What determines to the goodness and badness of the consequences is the effect on the people involved. The same goes for terrorism: if the consequences are good, terrorism is justified. Nick Fotion lists clear criteria for morally justifiable terrorist acts. First, we must be able to prove, that the goal is good enough to justify its means; secondly, that with the act of terrorism this goal will be achieved; and thirdly, that there are no other means possible which would cause less moral or collateral damage that can enable us to reach the same goal (Primorac, 2007).

Non-consequentialist theories also offer various arguments. From a wide perspective, terrorist acts can be justified in two ways: we can call upon right and righteousness of terrorism in certain circumstances, or claim that although intrinsically wrong, terrorism can nevertheless sometimes be all-things-considered morally justified. Therefore, non-consequentialists do not refuse consequence,

1 they just deny that it is only about consequence and take other circumstances into account.

Moving away from the action itself, in this paper the attention will be on the person, the terrorist. Who is a terrorist? What makes one become a terrorist? Is it something one is predisposed to become? How does a terrorist justify the killings and excuse the wrong doings to himself or herself? Where does his morality stand? I will emphasize the reasons which I believe are of crucial importance for becoming a terrorist. The aspects considered will be individual psychology, where the individual’s personality and character traits, his value system, personal morality, patterns of reasoning as well as potential forms of pathology will be inspected in order to find connections with one’s (rational?) decision to become a terrorist. The second aspect will be social psychology, where group belonging, group thinking and social identities will be considered; here, the role of the group leader and/or group will also be put into perspective and a connection with a missing father or mother figure and the leader as a substitute will be taken into account. The third aspect will be social, examining practices and institution(s), seeking causes of terrorism in politics, religion, cultural conflicts, poverty, inequality and the colonial past. I will also explore another assertion: if a child experiences some kind of trauma or is exposed to certain level of violence, such as violence to members of his or her family, is it possible that these events change his/her perspective on morals, on what is right and wrong, what sort of behaviour is permissible and accepted in society? Is it possible that these events significantly change the value system of a young individual in order that he or she is actually convinced that his violent actions are justifiable?

There is a naïve belief that terrorists are psychopathic monsters, this being the way we tend to reason and explain to ourselves the incomprehensible deeds of killing they perform, and to justify harsh reprisals. As I will show in the second part of this chapter, it is not so. A terrorist is no more than an average individual who decides to take certain action in order to stand for certain goals, to stand for his or her beliefs to better the life situation he or she has found himself or herself in. This should make us wonder; if there are no mental disabilities or justifiable

2 mental circumstances which differentiate them from us, does it mean that a potential terrorist lies within every one of us? Does this mean that under the right circumstances, which result from any of the three aspects I will contemplate in the paper, we all have equal possibilities to become a terrorist? Is becoming a terrorist something only a few steps away?

Literature can provide a useful source of understanding. Usually we as readers tend to take a subjective position, identifying ourselves with the characters, thinking, feeling and experiencing the situations they encounter. I will try to establish the bridge of understanding by examining two works of fiction, Doris Lessing’s The Good Terrorist and Roddy Doyle’s A Star Called Henry, where I will discuss the two main characters, Alice and Henry. We shall also explore two different times and places in the previous century, one being Ireland in the 1920s, the time of the Easter Rising and formation of the IRA, and the other England, London in particular in the 1980s, under the rule of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher and a fictional Communist Centre Union (CCU), which tries hard to join the IRA. The two stories and their protagonists differ in many ways; however they both lead to the same end – becoming a terrorist. The fiction reveals the process of gradual socialisation, described in detail in Chapter IV, as well as provides an experience level to the reader. For once, the story is not presented by the media, whose reporting is biased and seems to aim at only one thing: broadcasting as much terror, blood and suffering as possible, in order to raise ratings. For once, the story will be experienced through the eyes, involvement and contemplation of an individual undergoing the process of slow and gradual transformation into a terrorist. I will also bring into perspective Stefan Aust’s The Baader-Meinhof Complex, a chronicle of the rise and fall of the German RAF Baader-Meinhof group, which will help us link fiction to reality, and perhaps suggest there is a sleeping terrorist within all of us, waiting for the right conditions in order to be awaken.

By using all three aspects I will try to find grounds for understanding terrorists’ minds and actions and to find a way for reasoning their moral justification. I must point out, though, how scarce the first-hand research data on terrorism actually is.

There is only a small number of scientists, including psychologists, who have actually performed primary research on convicted and/or active terrorists. The largest study ever was conducted in 1981 in Germany, supported by the West German Ministry of the Interior, in which several researchers examined the cases of 227 German terrorists. There are also some autobiographical memoirs of PIRA agents, and by Michael Baumann, a member of the 2nd June Movement, “a leftist group loosely linked to the RAF” (Post, 2007; 128).

There are several theories on how can one become a terrorist. Some of them seem to be unreliable, some have been widely used in practice though they have not been proved on a scientific level (for example, the frustration-aggression hypothesis described in Chapter IV), then there are those who seem to be in common with terrorists in different groups (such as gradual socialisation) but the question of why still remains: why is it that only some of the members of the same community decide to cross the line and participate actively in terrorism?

1.2 Is a terrorist a prototypical malevolent mind? Or should we think of terrorists as ordinary people caught in unfavourable circumstances?

The general profile of a terrorist is still that of a “crazed fanatic, hell-bent on mindless destruction for its own sake” (Horgan, 2005; 21). We are greatly influenced by the distorted image provided daily by the media which most of the time projects only one perspective. The image of political violence, massive destruction and the amount of human suffering caused by the attacks tend to create a certain image in our minds which forms the subliminally projected opinion. Therefore “we fall foul of what psychologists refer to as the fundamental attribution error”, or as we may simply put it, to tagging (Horgan, 2005; 41). We tend to ascribe them various characteristics which we believe they must possess in order to try to rationally explain their doings. The result is a “distorted view of both the terrorist and the process of terrorism”, which concludes in an abnormal

4 behaviour of the terrorist (Horgan, 2005; 41). Labelling them as abnormal gives us some sense of false security in understanding their behaviour. Horgan does warn that this fades the line of responsibility for their deeds. However, in reality terrorist groups are well-organized, technically adept and “can have sophisticated political ends”, all skills, which form a “complex set of activities” in order to achieve a social or political goal (Horgan, 2005; 21).

Nevertheless, there is support for the argument that terrorist psychology differs from a non-terrorist’s in ‘positivism’, a nineteenth-century criminology, first introduced as an argument against the idea that criminals have free will:

(…) the perspective that offenders have free will and determine their own behaviour implied that their decisions to engage in criminal activities are largely informed by a rational process of judging whether the expected results of engagement in crime outweigh the consequences of the punishment that would follow if apprehended. On the other hand, the deterministic ‘positivism’ suggested that influences outside the realm of free will offer a more sensible approach to viewing the criminal. These influences were to be found, positivists argued, by looking at biological, sociological and psychological factors (e.g. genetics, environment and personality, respectively) or any combination of two or more of these (Horgan, 2005; 46).

Some of these will be discussed in this paper.

Primoratz claims that there are two types of terrorists, those who justify their deeds on collective responsibility and believe that only belonging to a certain political, religious or ethical group gives them the right to justifiably kill and those whose stands are more amoral and do not care much about responsibility of their actions (Primoratz, 2004; 19). Fotion, on the other hand, warns us that we must be aware that it is the terrorists who were the victims in the first place and their deeds of violence are reaction to temporary or long term trauma they have been exposed to. The terrorized may also harm others, because in their traumatic state they often act violently by pushing the government bodies, seeking food or security, even bring more harm upon themselves (Fotion, 2004; 48). This is the case with the Irish Republican Army members, as I will discuss later on.

In the German study, a member of the team, Bollinger, came to the conclusion that some terrorists interviewed “were attracted to violence – which he attributed to unconscious aggressive motives”, linked to “youthful conflicts with stepfathers (...) a result of identification with the violent acts of father figures”1 which a number of individuals had actually experienced. Therefore the (terrorist) group was representing the perfect environment to identify with the behaviour patterns imprinted in early youth. On the contrary, in the same study Jäger found no such mutual patterns; even more, in his interviews there were individuals showing “a strong prior aversion to aggression” with conscious “need to justify their behaviour and felt a sense of limitation” (Horgan, 2005; 47). Sullwold, another member, connected the initial findings to traits of narcissism. Based on the results of the German study Crenshaw suggests “that certain emotional deficiencies blind narcissists to the negative consequences of their actions” (Horgan, 2005; 47). Her analysis shows that individuals who display narcissistic tendencies quite possibly “’also possess a high tolerance for stress’”.2 Post also agrees with Crenshaw, adding that mutual personality features of terrorists are “tendency to externalise, to seek outside sources of blame for personal inadequacies”.3 He relies on Bollinger, who also drew another conclusion, for the individuals interviewed all displayed “narcissistic and borderline personalities – splitting. He found that they had split off the de-valued parts of themselves and projected them onto the establishment which then became the target of their violent aggression.”4

In 1992, Friedland published an analysis of “personality-centred explanations of terrorism which refer to process supporting the existence of some degree of ‘abnormality’ in the terrorist” (Horgan, 2005; 48). These are explained by abusive upbringing, a significant role is played by denying the father figure as well as abandoning his values, societies with widespread “fantasies of cleanliness”, as

1 Crenshaw, M., “The Psychology of Political Terrorism”, Political Psychology: Contemporary Problems and Issues, (London, 1986), p.387, quoted in Horgan, p. 47. 2 Lanceley, F.J., “The Anti-Social Personality as Hostage Taker”, Journal of Political Science and Administration, 9 (1981), p. 28, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 47. 3 Post, J.M., “Group and Organisational Dynamics of Political Terrorism: Implications for Counterterrorist Policy”, in Wilkinson, P., Steward, A.M, Contemporary Research on Terrorism (Aberdeen, 1987), quoted in Horgan, p. 47. 4 Ibid, p. 47-48.

6 well as “a sense of fulfillment and power that individuals presumably derive from absolute dedication, commitment and self-sacrifice, and from the infliction of pain and death.”5 Is a terrorist somebody who is born evil, has a history of violence starting in his or her early childhood, has a thick psychiatric medical file and is socially outcast? Or is it not genotype but phenotype, i.e. family, environment, education and upbringing, which moulds the psyche of a killer-to-be? Or is it the combination of both? The first assumption fails. Jerrold M. Post and several other authors who have also studied the psychology of terrorists claim that “most terrorists are “normal” in the sense of not suffering from psychotic disorders” (Post, 2007; 3). He also quotes Crenshaw, who came to the conclusion that “the outstanding common characteristic of terrorists is their normality”6 and McCauley and Segal, who found that “the best documented generalisation is negative; terrorists do not show any striking psychopathology.”7 In his book John Horgan said “there are no individual psychological traits that distinguish terrorists from the general population”.8 The terrorist’s ‘normality’ is shown in the 1992 film Crying Game by Neil Jordan. When Jody, the British soldier is kidnapped, he is just a target, an object with a bag over his face. They spend days in complete silence. The moment the hood is off, the conversation takes off. Seeing a face personifies the entire situation. In no time we see two men having a relaxed dialogue, covering topics like women and sports. If one was only listening to the conversation, one could easily draw a conclusion that they were two lads having a pint in a pub. When the target is impersonal, for example a bomb set up to blast from afar, I presume it must be much easier for one to disconnect oneself; emotionally and rationally. A completely different situation is in perspective when there is a direct contact with

5 Friedland, N., “Becoming a Terrorist: Social and Individual Antecedents”, in Howard, L. (ed.), Terrorism: Roots, Impacts, Responses. (New York, 1992), quoted in Horgan, p. 48. 6 Crenshaw, M., “The Cause of Terrorism”, Comparative Politics 13 (1981), 379-399, quoted in Post, 2007, p. 3. 7 McCauley, C. R., Segal, M. E. “Social Psychology of Terrorist Groups” in Group, Organizational and Intergroup Relations, Annual Review of Social and Personality Psychology, Vol. 9, ed. C. Hendrick (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1987), quoted in Post, 2007, p.4. 8 Horgan, J., The Psychology of Terrorism, New York, (Routledge, 2005), quoted in Post, 2007, p. 3.

7 the victim. When a target gets a face. The situation becomes even slightly bizarre, when Fergus assists Jody, who cannot urinate with his hands tied at his back. It seems as within covering two typical male topics, women and sports, these two were able to share such an intimate moment. Even though the target becomes very subjective, Fergus still does not retreat from the task. Surprisingly, though knowing he will assassinate him, Jody tells Fergus he is kind because it is in his nature. He is not like the scorpion in the fable. Just as the scorpion stung the frog in the fable, Fergus kills Jody. Prior to that for some inexplicable reason he decides to spend the night with him, making the already intimate situation even more so. Despite the connection and new friendship, the group's belonging nevertheless dominates and Fergus performs his duty.

A unified conclusion was reached at the Madrid Summit on Terrorism, Security and Democracy, where on the first anniversary of the Madrid train station bombing the Committee on the Psychological Roots of Terrorism declared, that there are no sufficient explanations on the individual level to help understand what could be determined as the reason which drives people into terrorism. Yet, there is a “group, organisational and social psychology, with a particular emphasis on ‘collective identity’” which “provides the most constructive framework for understanding terrorist psychology and behaviour.”9

The fact is that we are still rather perplexed in understanding the psychology of terrorism. The lack of professional literature, research and primary data hinders us to form a clear ‘profile’. Given the fact, that there are many different types of terrorists who are driven by different motives and belong to groups, it would be naïve to expect that there is just one single psychology of a terrorist. This is why Post considers terrorisms and terrorist psychologies – both in plural, individually ascribed to individual profile. These are further discussed in Chapter II. Though in 1988, Schmid and Jongman stated in their book “there are probably few areas in the social science literature in which so much is written on the basis of so little research. Perhaps as much as 80 per cent of the literature is not research-based in

9 Post, J., “The Psychological Roots of Terrorism”, Addressing the Causes of Terrorism: The Club de Madrid Series on Democracy and Terrorism (Madrid: Club de Madrid, 2005), Vol. 1, pp. 7–12, quoted in Post, 2007, p.4.

8 any rigorous sense; indeed it is often narrative, condemnatory and prescriptive.”10 Sadly, nearly 30 years later, the fact still remains the same.

Is it therefore possible to understand the actions of terrorists by viewing them individually, taking into consideration all factors mentioned above? Is it possible to find the grounds to explain and morally justify the gruesome murders and mutilations? There are three approaches present in the literature that are further discussed in Chapter IV, which depict simplified character traits of the terrorists and these are the frustration–aggression hypothesis, narcissism and narcissism- aggression, and psychodynamic influences.

By reading fiction, the entire process of slowly transforming from a ‘normal’ individual, whose life situation and circumstances awake sorrow, sympathy and compassion in us, into an individual, whose doings are beyond our sane comprehension, we are given an opportunity to, though through the world of imagination, to try to grasp the justifications and rationalisations that make it possible for terrorists to live with their reprehensible actions. By reading either first or third person narrative, it allows us to go inside their minds, to relieve their fears, losses, pains and sense of injustice. In a way we are presented a personal allegation of how all the factors merge and influence the mentality of a protagonist. If we are capable to empathise with characters, perhaps there is a level of catharsis we might reach and comprehend to a certain point the justification of their actions.

“If we could understand why people performed evil acts then it should be possible to also address evil at a political rather than just a theological level”, says Formosa and claims, that evil in a moral sense refers to deeds which are not just wrong, but also evil (Formosa, 2007; 57). There are two reasons for acting; one is the actual reason one has for acting, and there is the justifiable or reasonable reason. To fully understand person's perspective, situation, act or reaction to something, one needs the same empirical experience; and even then it is uncertain whether one would be capable of understanding, since the account of several

10 Schmid, A.P., Jongman, A.J. (eds), Political Terrorism (Second Edition), (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1988), quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 21-22.

9 differences between the two would still exist, for example value system, personal morals, phenotype influence, etc. As Schatzki says, “’one can grasp what people are doing and why, and at the same time feel that one still doesn’t get it. The people’s behaviour remains opaque or baffling’” (Formosa, 2007; 61). We can fully understand a practice only after we are able to “meaningfully and completely engage in it”, only imagining being able to do the act does not provide real understanding (Formosa, 2007; 62). Although fiction can provide certain expect of understanding, by giving us a chance to we identify and empathise with the agent, this aspect is far from real understanding. The question of why still remains. What is interesting is Formosa’s conclusion based on Milgram’s experiment:

Part of seeing how people can bring themselves to perpetrate evil acts is to understand that certain situations are what I shall call evil-encouraging. While it is individuals, not situations, that bring about evil, it is essential to understand that individuals always act within a particular situation that, in many cases, allows or even encourages their evil behaviour. A situation is evil-encouraging if being in that situation increases the likelihood that one might perform an evil act (Formosa, 2007; 66).

The evil-encouraging situations are inequality, poverty, war zones, even beliefs can be evil-encouraging. Formosa warns us “that having a reason to act is very different from having a justified reason to act” (Formosa, 2007; 60).Though actual reasons may seem understandable, “there is never a justifiable reason to do evil” (Formosa, 2007; 60).

Doyle offers an interesting perspective into the terrorist’s mind, when he streams Henry’s thoughts about the level of his importance and role in the revolution, as well as what was it that assigned one’s status, when in the pre-election time, “many of my fellow revolutionaries, in their Sinn Féin guises, were adding letters to their names” (Doyle, 1999; 207). Henry, at the time only seventeen and therefore without the right to vote, was bearing a grudge:

There was no Henry Smart M.P. I was four years short of the voting age, I was never a member of Sinn Féin; I wouldn’t have stood for election if I’d

10 been asked, but that was the point and a point that didn’t drill itself into my head until 1922: I hadn’t been asked. I was bang in the middle of what was going to become big, big history, I was shaping the fate of my country, I was one of Collins’s anointed but, actually, I was excluded from everything. I was on a bike in the rain, all alone on the road. I was never one of the boys. I wasn’t a Christian brother’s boy, I’d been unlucky enough to miss Frongoch, I’d no farm in the family, no college, no priest, no past. Collins slept in the Greville Arms; I never made it up the steps. There was no Henry Smart M.P. There was no Annie’s Dead Husband M.P. And none of the other men of the slums and hovels ever made it on to the list. We were nameless and expandable, every bit as dead as the squaddies in France. We carried guns and messages. We were decoys and patsies. We followed orders and murdered (Doyle, 1999; 208).

2 TERRORISM

2.1 What is terrorism?

Etymologically, terrorism is derived from the word terror, originally used to depict a regime used by the Jacobins. There is a wide range of double standards as to who a terrorist is and what a terrorist action itself actually is which is why it is hard to define terrorism because there are always two sides of perspective and each in the eyes of the other can be viewed as the violator. There also exists a belief that terrorism is something done by small organisations or groups fighting against a state.

What can the definition of terrorism be? To focus only on the act itself and its direct purpose by which it should be justified, we must omit the agent (though an option that victims themselves can sometimes use terrorist acts in order to respond to an act of violence against them must be allowed) and the end result of the act. Several questions emerge: is an act itself terrorism or can a threat of violence be understood just as well? Is terrorism only violence against people or also violence against property? Is the basic intent of terrorism terror? Is terrorism only political or can it pursue other goals, e.g. criminal or religious? Is terrorism an act of violence, with a purpose to achieve political goals by causing fear, or is it political violence which intimidates and hurts the innocent, or is it forced intimidation with a political cause (Primoratz, 2004; XII)?

A very wide definition would be that terrorism is a tactic of intentional violent attacks on non-combatant targets by lethal or strong violence in order to reach political purpose (Coady, 2004; 7). If the property of noncombatants is targeted and is connected to ones’ lives and security, then it must be included into the definition. This is so called “tactical definition” where the noncombatants are those who are innocent in a sense of their own harmlessness because they do not

12 participate in evil which the terrorists are fighting against (Coady, 2004; 9). The definition can also be extended to include all those acts where insufficient attention was paid to, and insufficient effort made to avoid, damage to noncombatants. Coady’s definition is that terrorism is “(...)a political act, ordinarily committed by an organized group, which involves the intentional killing or other severe harming of noncombatants or the threat of the same or intentional severe damage to the property of non-combatants or the threat of the same”.11

Similar to Coady’s definition is that of Primoratz, who characterises terrorism as “the deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating some other people into a course of action they otherwise would not take” (Primoratz, 2004; 24). It has two targets: a direct one and an indirect one, the one that actually matters. Primary and secondary targets, by which the primary one is merely means to attain the secondary one. Another determining characteristic of terrorism is unpredictability – we do not know when, where, how or why they will attack. What we do know with a great certainty is who the target will be – civilians.

In the Introduction to The Mind of the Terrorist, Jerrold M. Post explains the psychology of the targets in even more detail. There needs to be a distinction between the target of violence and the targets of attention (i.e. primary and secondary according to Primorac), the first being the innocent victims or noncombatants. The targets of attention are further divided into 3 groups: target of terror, target of demands and target of influence. Target of terror are the members of the victims’ class, i.e. the rest of the noncombatants who were lucky not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The target of demands, “sometimes referred to as extortionate terrorism” is depicted by various threats of kidnappings, killings or beheadings (Post, 2007; 2). The targets of influence is usually “the West or the establishment” calling attention to the cause terrorists are fighting for (Post, 2007; 3). According to Post, terrorism is

11 Coady, C.A.J., ‘The Morality of Terrorism,’ Philosophy 60 (1985), p. 52, quoted in Primoratz, 2004, p. 21.

(…) a particular species of political violence. It is violence or the threat of violence against noncombatants or property in order to gain a political, ideological, or religious goal through fear and intimidation. Usually symbolic in nature, the act is designed to have an impact on an audience that differs from the immediate target of the violence (Post, 2007; 3).

Horgan also agrees that all terrorists use violence in order to achieve certain political goals and that even though the motivation for the acts of violence differs considerably around the globe, the methods used are strikingly similar. The primary target are mainly people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and, in connection with unpredictability, this is the reason why we feel so discontent about terrorism – it means it could be us, anytime, anywhere. Horgan defines three identifiable actors, which play their significant roles in the process and interact with each other: “the terrorist, the immediate symbolic target of the terrorist, and the eventual or overall target” (Horgan, 2005; 8). The civilians injured and killed by their bombs are not opponents in terrorists’ eyes (though Horgan states that certain groups with politico-religious aims tend to view them differently), they are merely “primarily incidental victims of the conflict between the terrorists and their enemy”, whose role is crucial, for it influences “the decisions of the political policy-makers” (Horgan, 2005; 8-9). He provides a very comprehensive definition by Alex P. Schmid:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi) clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human targets of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence- based communication processes between terrorist (organisation), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a

target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.12

Schmid also divides terrorism in three groups: political, criminal and pathological terrorism. Criminal terrorism would be the attacks of various drug cartels in Mexico, assassinations of several Mexican mayors in 2015, in order to prevent Mexican government in its fight against drugs and organised crime. The recent murder of Gisela Mota earlier this year (January 2016) can also be categorised in this group. Only hours after inauguration an armed group of men invaded her home and cold-bloodedly shot her 4 times in the presence of the family members. For The Guardian, the governor of the southern state of Morelos stated, it was “the members of a Mexican drug trafficking group [who] killed a newly inaugurated mayor to convince other officials to reject state police control of local cops and allow cartels to co-opt low-paid local police”.13 Political terrorism is divided into “state terrorism” and “sub-state terrorism”. The first is the case of state turning its own resources (i.e. police, army) against its own people. This, for an example, would be Saddam Hussein’s attacks on Kurdish citizens in 1980s or secret support of terrorist groups or organisations in order to achieve own national interests and goals. This support can vary from “doctrinal, financial, tactical, and logistical, including in providing training” (Post, 2007; 5). What is interesting is that the countries considered as state supporters of terrorism are the ones on State Department list, i.e. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Cuba, and are mostly those which have been invaded by the United States in order ‘to fight the terrorism’, excluding (for now) Iran, North Korea and Cuba.

The other, “sub-state” terrorism is terrorism from below and represents the area of interest for this thesis. It is divided into social revolutionary terrorism, nationalist- separatist terrorism or ethnic-nationalist terrorism, right wing terrorism, religious extremist terrorism and single-issue terrorism. Social revolutionary terrorism,

12 Schmid, A. P., ‘Terrorism and the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction: From Where the Risk?’, in M.Taylor and J. Horgan (eds), The Future of Terrorism (London: Frank Cass, 2000), p. 106–132, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p.18. 13 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/04/mexico-new-mayor-killed-drug-group-rojos- morelos

15 infused by Marxism-Leninism and seeking to overthrow the capitalist order, was represented by Red Army Faction in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy and the Weather Underground in the United States. Nationalist-separatist terrorism is represented by Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) in Northern Ireland, Fatah, Palestinian Front for the Libation of Palestine (PFLP) together with other secular Palestinian groups, and Euskadi ta Askatasuna in Spain (ETA), minority groups, who are all seeking establishment of an independent state. Considering their different perspectives we could expect their psychology to differ notably. Both, IRA and RAF will be discussed in detail in Chapter V, where the difference between the two types of terrorism will be explained.

According to John Horgan, the definition of terrorism is the following:

First, and most obviously, the violence committed by groups labelled terrorist is distinguished from ‘ordinary’ violence because of the political context to the activities and ideology of the perpetrators and (often) to the nature of the victims and the specific victimizing process. Second, there are specific immediate aims of terrorism, such as the psychological aspect of spreading fear. Third, many victims of both state and subversive political terrorism are non-combatant civilians, with no responsibility in any conflict, thereby demonstrating one of the blatant disregards which terrorists have for the stated conventions of conflict. Finally, and a logical next step from these recurring points, can we therefore truly distinguish terrorism from conventional forms of warfare, when as atrocity after atrocity has shown over the years, conventional war and state violence often bears too many similarities to behaviour we label terroristic? This possibly poses most obstacles for conceptual development, but we can address it directly (Horgan, 2005; 15).

2.2 Terrorism from a moral point of view

“Their moral being consists in being revolutionaries, in acting for that single aim, sacrificing all else to it: their personal life, their individual tastes and preferences their own gentleness, their sympathy for the

individual man and woman, their own maternity and their own children. ... Leninism is a political asceticism in which there are no rights because everything is subordinated to an objective.”14

Can terrorism ever be morally justified? In order to even try to answer this question we must first clarify what being moral or morality actually is. According to the Oxford Dictionary, moral is (1) something concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour; and (2) holding and manifesting the high principles for proper conduct.15 Therefore we are trying to establish whether terrorist acts can in certain circumstances be actually justified in a positive manner. Coady, for example, claims that overall, terrorism is bad. It violates the basic ius in bello principle, which states that non-combatants are immune against direct military attack. He believes any sort of killing is bad: “intentional killing of noncombatants is morally reprehensible, but so is the bringingit about that combatants are killed in an unjust war” (Coady, 2004; 81). Very similar is the standpoint of Primoratz, who labels terrorism as “almost completely impermissible”16 and allows certain exceptions in specific circumstances, although he defends a strong moral judgment in terrorism and attacking the non-combatants.

However, Coady believes there could be exceptions; some connected with utilitarian perspective. The first way is that all moral restrictions are merely “rules of thumb”, which are possibly and necessarily violated, when the balance of total consequences of this violation results in more general happiness than misery; and this, he believes, is a misguided ethical perspective (Coady, 2004; 82). There is also consequentialism, mentioned in the Introduction, which justifies killings for the sake of the positive consequences. There are however, claims Coady, two standpoints. One could be called “balanced exceptionism” (Coady, 2004; 82). Moral principles are based on the pre-calculated consequences, meaning that the prima facie obligation not to kill innocent can easily be outweighed by a prima facie obligation towards the well-being of a certain group. As W. D. Ross also

14 Silj, A., Never Again Without a Rifle: The Origins of Italian Terrorism (New York: KARZ Publishers, 1979), p. 208, quoted in Post, 2007, p. 111. 15 http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral 16 Primorac, I. “The Morality of terrorism”, Journal of Applied Philosophy 14, (1997), p. 231, quoted in Coady, 2004, p. 81.

17 ads, one cannot be held responsible if one’s decision was carefully contemplated.17 The second way is something he calls “dirty hands” (Coady, 2004; 83). Though similar, it differs in three respects: firstly, it is stressed that it is only the political realm where exceptions are allowed; secondly, there is the usual emphasis of extreme nature in which the morals should be ignored; and thirdly, it is stressed that injustice caused by violation of moral prohibitions still remains injustice (Coady, 2004; 83). The basic idea, simplified by Coady, communicates there are certain necessities in life, especially political life, which might require breach of important moral prohibitions in special circumstances and it comes forward in different variations. The question then arises, how can we define these special circumstances, in which the violation of moral prohibitions would be fully accepted? What conditions would we claim as justifiable for taking a life? What form, be that a state, a ruler or well-being of the majority, could provide a rationale for killing?

There seems to be a presence of double standards, though. The ‘dirty hands’ principle is allowed and accepted when used by states and their representatives, however it does not seem to apply to the use of violence by oppressed groups, e.g. Palestine resistance groups who commit terrorist acts in order to protect their lives and existence. Why would states be privileged with use of supreme emergency? Why would killing innocent victims in order to reach a higher goal be accepted and justified under the term collateral damage when executed by a state and condemned under the same circumstances under the term terrorism when used against a state in order to reach a higher goal on a smaller scale? Michael Walzer suggests that “communities, in emergencies, seem to have different and larger prerogatives. I am not sure that I can account for the difference, without ascribing to communal life a kind of transcendence that I don’t believe it to have”.18 If there could be an argument proving this suggestion, there would still exist a gap between organized groups and a state. Therefore Coady believes, there are only two ways: “either we insist that major terrorism (as characterised by tactical

17 Ross, W.D., The Right and the Good, Claredon Press, (Oxford, 1930), p. 28, quoted in Primorac, 2005, p. 121. 18Walzer, M., Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, Basic Books, (New York, 2000), p.254, quoted in Primoratz, 2004, p. 89.

18 definition) is always morally wrong and never to be allowed, or we accept that there can be circumstances in which the values served by terrorist actions are so important that it is right to do them” (Primoratz, 2004; 93). If we accept the latter then the right to resort to terrorism should not be restricted to states. In his article, Peter Simpson suggests, that using force as a response “to violence used to enforce the injustice”, is justified (Simpson, 2004; 167). “Using force in order to fight force and in self-defence is justified. “Whatever uses of force are necessary to escape the injustice of the regime, or to create alternative political arrangements that will better promote the common good, are just” (Simpson, 2004; 168).

According to the “dirty hands” principle, we see that Henry Smart’s deeds were justifiable and so were the Baader-Meinhof’s gang, since they both fought in a political zone in order to better the future for themselves as well as the next generations. Their deeds were not preventing grand evils such as the Holocaust, they were trying to better the life conditions in their countries. However, as I will show, the CCU group in Lessing’s novel seems least to comply with any of the aforementioned principles. Though in their minds they firmly believe they are fighting for a greater cause, have socialist and revolutionary grounds and actually making a difference. During the process they become aware that their current involvement does not suffice to make a stand; which is why they wish to join the IRA, in order to reaffirm their reputation. When Jasper and Bert’s attempt to become an IRA’s side division is, as Alice and Pat did expect, taken unseriously, the CCU decides to take its deeds a step further. When the time comes for the bomb attack, it is Alice’s moral principles which stand in the way of carrying out her original intention.

2.3 Violence as a Political Instrument – Can violence be (morally) justified as a political instrument?

In order to accomplish its goal, terrorism uses violence to change someone’s behaviour or to reach a (higher) political cause. Terrorism does not exist without

19 violence, hence it is mandatory for its existence, but can it be justified? Can we justly say that there are situations which justify killing, situations in which a human life is worth sacrificing and those in which it is not?

If we move away from terrorism, we see in everyday examples that violence is justified when employed by the world’s leading countries. The attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria by the No. 1 country which condemns terrorism – the USA, were all justified by the need to fight evil and justly defeat the enemy. The level of “collateral damage” (intentionally put in quotation marks) was insignificant, the lives of the innocent and children were insignificant, because they had to fight terrorism at any cost.

Schmid presents his idea of terrorism as something both valid and useful, and compares it to a conventional war state: “conventional war is so called because, as said above, it is expected to employ rules and guidelines during its conduct. The Geneva Convention and Hague Regulations formally describe these.”19 He suggests that the concept of terrorism very often resembles exceptions to this warfare, which are usually perfectly justified. Schmid also believes that a narrow definition of terrorism could lead to a better understanding of it. He recommends defining terrorism “in terms of the methods used” and denying rhetoric the option of legitimizing it (Horgan, 2005; 17). He defines terrorism as the “peacetime equivalent of war crimes” (Horgan, 2005; 17). “We can therefore simultaneously escape the choice between a purely criminal model of terrorism, which highlights the illegal means only, and a war model, which portrays terrorism as the simple (and equally trite) idea of it being a simple continuation of politics by other available means” (Horgan, 2005; 17). He claims that violence committed by terrorists differs from ‘ordinary’ violence due to the political context which drive them and their ideology; as Jack simply explains it to Henry in Doyle’s book, “(…) We cannot win and winning is not our intention. What we have to do, all we can do is keep at them until it becomes unbearable. To provoke them and make them mad. We need reprisals and innocent victims and outrages and we need them

19Schmid, A.P., Defining Terrorism: The Response Problem as a Definition Problem, Western Responses to Terrorism, (London: Frank Cass, 1993), p.11, quoted in Horgan, p.17.

20 to give them to us. To keep at them until the costs are so heavy, they’ll decide they have to go. But we’ll never beat them” (Doyle, 1999; 252). Next, there are the specific immediate aims of terrorism, for example the “psychological aspect of spreading fear”; furthermore, both forms of violence, as state as subversive political terror, claim victims in non-combatant civilians, without recognizing the responsibility, by which they demonstrate shameless ignorance (Horgan, 2005; 15). How is it then possible, that we determine the difference between terrorism and conventional war, since, as we have seen, they bare too many resemblances?

Another question is the source of motivation and justification for the use of violence. It is difficult to determine, whether self-accounts of involvement are rooted in individual’s own truth perception or is this commonly shares or acquired ‘truth’, which an individual in time overtakes for his own. There is a possibility that personal accounts in some terrorist are genuine, however the assumption of existence of “fraternalistic over egoistic”20 goals suggests “a learning quality incurred from continued involvement” (Horgan, 2005; 77). As Henry Smart said, “Some of us knew the way and it was up to us to lead. Not to ask permission of a voting majority, but to lead, to really lead, to show, demonstrate, live, die. To inspire, provoke, and terrify” (Doyle, 1999; 209). This would also explain the rhetoric of terrorists. Cordes reveals it is quite likely that terrorists try to persuade themselves, and their audience, through repeated propaganda and thus justify their actions. The role of the group represents a strong factor and will be further discussed in Chapter IV. Justification in sense ‘no other choice’ was found by Taylor and Quale’s interviewees, as a common cause of initial involvement (Horgan, 2005; 78).

We meet an interesting perspective in Post, presented by terrorist scholar Peter Merkl: “Are members of terrorist organisations, once assembled, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, who, unwilling to be dismissed when the job is done,

20 Burgess, M., Ferguson, N., Hollywood, I. ‘From Individual Discontent to Collective Armed Struggle: Personal Accounts of the Impetus for Membership or Non-membership in Paramilitary Groups’, Unpublished Draft (Liverpool: Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University College, 2003), quoted in Horgan, 2005, p.77.

21 continue the violence?”21 Post’s perspective on this thought is interesting, and very much could stand its ground. He suggests that after joining the group, prior to alienation, an individual is overwhelmed by the position, attention, adrenalin and excitement. The fact that group can play the role of a family is introduced in Chapter IV, but what Post indicates is the, perhaps subliminal, unwillingness “to succeed in accomplishing the cause” for that might possibly mean the end of the group, the end of belonging, the end of, we might conclude, their existence or at least the meaning of it? This could explain the persistence of the nationalist- separatist causes, such as described by a Fatah member:

I regarded armed actions to be essential, it is the very basis of my organization and I am sure that was the case in the other Palestinian organizations. The aim was to cause as much carnage as possible. The main thing was the amount of blood. An armed action proclaims that I am here, I exist, I am strong, I am in control, I am in the field, I am on the map.22

“Thus the cause is not the cause, rather the rationale”, says Post while it is outgrown by the belonging to a group and becomes raison d’etre (Post, 2007; 61). This pattern has been noticed in other terrorist groups as well and the idea it puts forward is that “being a fighter – in this case independence, total separatism-has become more important than accomplishing the goal of autonomy. It is not easy to return to a mundane job when one has been in the adrenalin-charged heroic environment of the group fighting for a noble cause” (Post, 2007; 61). The exact perspective is put to a question, in a dialogue by Henry and Jack:

- This is just a beginning, Henry. We’re going to take over everything. Commerce, the post, the courts, tax collection. The works, man. We’ll run the country like they’re not even here. And all the time we’ll be persuading them to go. - And what happens after that? - After what?

21 Merkl, P., “Approaches to the Study of Political Violence,” in Political Violence and Terror: Motifs and Motivations, ed. Peter Merkl (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), p. 3, quoted in Post, 2007, p. 61. 22 Post, J., Sprinzak, E., Denny, L., “The Terrorists in Their Own Words: Interviews with 35 incarcerated Middle Eastern Terrorists,” Terrorism and Political Violence 15, no. 1 (2003): 171– 184, quoted in Post, 2007, p. 61.

- After they go. - What do you mean? (Doyle, 1999; 179)

3 FICTION AS REFLECTION OF REALITY

3.1 The epistemic value of fictional works

An average person has encountered terrorism, its acts and consequences, mostly through media; there are rare individuals who have had personal encounters with it and survived to talk about it. Learning from terrorists themselves is impossible. As Post states in his Introduction:

All too many terrorist experts have never laid eyes upon a terrorist, much less spoken with one. It may be that the gravest threat to international security is not the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction but the proliferation of terrorism experts. If one really wants to understand “what makes terrorists tick,” the best way is to ask them. As a result, I try to lead the reader into the minds of the terrorists by drawing on their own words— those I have gathered from an interview project with incarcerated Middle Eastern terrorists, from my experiences and in-depth interviews with terrorists during my service as an expert witness in terrorist trials, from terrorist memoirs and biographies of terrorist leaders and their followers, as well as from other terrorist scholars who have interviewed terrorists (Post, 2007; 8-9).

In a way, this is what fiction can do as well. Reading fiction can, on one hand, give us a more objective perspective than the evening news, where the camera shots and the reporter’s words project an exact specific idea into our minds, narrowing down the option of creating our own point of view; on the other hand, identification with characters, their way of perception and their situations, can provide us with revelation, understanding and, perhaps, even an insight into their world.

If we study the lives of the two authors, Doyle and Lessing, we see they both have some sort of political past, even though just a brief one. Doyle was a member of

24 the Irish Socialist Party from 1978-198223; Lessing, apparently feeling trapped by her marriage, joined a group of communists (according to biography on her website, it was the “Left Book Club, a group of Communists”24). However, during the postwar years she became disillusioned about communism and left the party in 1954. On the top of that, she also grew up in a colony in Southern Rhodesia, today’s Zimbabwe. If there is a part of reality in fiction, could not there be a part of fiction depicting reality?

3.2 Can we learn about the formation of a terrorist mind from fictional accounts?

3.2.1 A Star Called Henry

Ireland was a restless, impoverished and tired country in the beginning of the 20th Century. After the Great Potato Famine, the population fell by a half between 1841 and 1911 from about 8.2 million to less than 4.4 million (Hoppen, 1989; 92) and life became very hard, to some even unbearable. The land was plagued with sickness, unwanted pregnancies, funerals, hunger, and severe poverty. Many of those who survived left the country in a search for a better life.

However, the origins of the English – Irish conflict actually date as far as to the 12th Century, when English mercenaries first invaded Ireland (Post, 2007; 39). The geographical split happened in 1607, after the English had defeated the last of the Ulster kings and the northern part of the island was given to the English and Scottish colonists. As the new settlers arrived, they displaced the native Catholic population with their Protestant, hence the religious division followed. In order to

23 https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~cinichol/252/DoyleRoddyOverview.htm 24 http://www.dorislessing.org/biography.html

25 justify their conquest, the British “propagated a theory that Irish were an inferior people” (Post, 2007; 39). They did whatever was in their power to crush them in all aspects: national, intellectual, political, economic or religious.

Between the sixteenth and nineteenth century, a number of laws were passed that were intended to prevent the Irish from taking any part in the commercial or intellectual part of their country. Called the Penal Laws, they left the Irish with no right to vote or hold office, no right to purchase or lease land, no right to educate a child in any way at home or abroad, no right to engage in commerce. Priests were banned and hunted with bloodhounds.25

Because of the maltreatment they received, the English were the main enemy. The responsibility for the state of the country and her people lay on their backs. Children were being brought up in a bitter and hateful society and the loathing of the English was a part of their upbringing. They were taught to love and respect everything that was Irish and had a sense of Irishness.

Roddy Doyle’s masterpiece about the life of a Dublin’s slum boy, who became one of the leading characters in the fight for Irish independence, is remarkable. Through the first person narrator, the depiction of Ireland’s situation from the beginning of 20th Century through the War of Independence makes us readers feel as if Doyle was present in the warfare and is actually presenting an autobiographic story. Poverty, scarcity, famine, lack of decent housing, tuberculosis, unemployment, all these seem to dominate Ireland in the beginning of the 20th Century. We read about children with no childhoods, for they either died soon after being born, before they were able to go to school or they started to work at an early age, when they should be getting their basic education. In between, there was sheer survival. This was the life in the slums of Dublin. Lack of food, lack of clothes, lack of warmth, lack of proper bed, lack of love.Lack of life.

Hatred towards the English is shown throughout the book, for example when Victor dies: “The city killed Victor. And, today, the King was being crowned. In

25 »The Historic Hedge Schools of Ireland«, Ye Hedge School, September 3, 2006; www.hedgeschool.homestead.com/Irishhistory.html, quoted in Post, 2007, p.40.

26 another city. In London. Did they cough till they died in London? Did kings and queens cough up blood? Did their children die under tarpaulins” (Doyle, 1999; 83)? However, this is not an example of what Post calls ‘hatred bred in their bone’, because there had not been anyone in his early childhood to plant the hatred. He was a neglected boy, a self-made man. He had no awareness of Irishness. “Ireland was something in songs that drunken old men wept about as they held on to the railings at three in the morning and we homed in to rob them; that was all” (Doyle, 1999; 69).

When World War I broke out, Ireland seemed to be on the verge of civil war. With the joined forces of Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and Irish Volunteers (which in 1919 became Irish Republic Army), times seem to be changing for the ruling Conservatives, who enjoyed a permanent majority in the House of Lords. The country was crying for social, economic, political changes and above all, its independence from England.

In the period 1914-1921, therefore, Ireland was not simply a country divided between nationalists (of all persuasions), on the one side, and unionists, on the other, but one in which the more ancient fault lines separating the bourgeoisie of town and country from those of little or no property had lost neither their depth nor their importance (Hoppen, 1989; 113).

It all changed with Easter Monday in 1916, when Sinn Féin (meaning Ourselves) party made it to the forefront and became the uniting point for the extreme nationalist sentiment. It is also the beginning of Part Two in the book. Henry Smart is, only fourteen years of age, a member of the Irish Citizen Army. And his story to glory commences.

Doyle’s depiction of Dublin’s slum people is not very descriptive, when he describes Melody Nash, Henry’s mother for the first time: “She was a child of the Dublin slums, no proper child at all. Her parents, her grandparents, had never known good food. Bad food, bad drink, bad air. Bad bones, bad eyes, bad skin; thin, stooped, mangled” (Doyle, 1999; 5). Nevertheless, we can almost see and feel the devastating conditions when Doyle describes their life style and Smart’s living conditions:

Behind her, the damp, scabbed walls, the rotten wood, the wet air, the leaking, bursting ceilings. Decomposing wallpaper, pools of stagnant water, rats on the scent of baby milk. Colonies of flies in the wet, crumbling walls. Typhoid and other death in every breath, on every surface. Banisters that shook when held, floors that creaked and groaned, timber that cried for sparks. There was no rest, nowhere she could lie down and forget. Shouts and fights, rage and coughing, coughing – death creeping nearer. And the rooms behind the steps got smaller and darker and more and more evil. We fell further and further. The walls crumbled and closed in on us. Her children died and joined the stars. Rooms with no windows, floors that bred cockroaches. We cried at the smell of other people’s lousy food. We cried at the pain that burned through our sores. We cried for arms to gather and hold us. We cried for heat and for socks, for milk, and light, for an end to the itches that stopped us from sleeping. We cried at the lice that shone and curled and mocked us. We cried for our mother to come and save us. Poor Mother. Finally, finally, we crept down to our last room, a basement, as low as we could go, a hole that yawned and swallowed us. We lay down and slept in the ground water of the River Liffey, we slept piled together with the sewer slugs and worms (Doyle, 1999; 8).

Disease and illness were everywhere; there was also syphilis, which Melody was romantically warned about on her wedding day:

You won’t get it, of course, but he might. And then he’ll pass it on to you, so you’d want to be careful. Rots the brain till you fall over in the street because your legs don’t know what they’re supposed to be doing. You die screaming and roaring, there’s no cure at all for it. If you’re lucky they’ll bring you to the Locke Hospital and smother you with a pillow. That’s what they do to the unfortunate girls that catch it off the sailors. Just make sure he comes home every night and you’ll be alright (Doyle, 1999; 9-10).

And there was ‘the cough’, tuberculosis, which took Victor, Henry’s younger brother away: “It was the cough. I knew that now. It had got darker and deeper; it had brought blood with it in the last months. But we’d never said anything about it. It was just a cough. In the dead of night, (…) That was what we heard – the city coughing” (Doyle, 1999; 82).

Henry

Born in the slums to a one-legged father, Henry Smart, a bouncer at a brothel and a ‘messenger’, a cold-blooded murderer for Dublin's criminal Alfie Gandon, and to Melody Nash, just another child of the slums, Henry was the third child, the first live-born; the first two did not make it through the first year, they died of tuberculosis. Both losses, together with miscarriages she had had in between, tremendously influenced Melody’s mental well-being. Severely depressed, she was an unfit mother for Henry when he was born, only eleven months after she bid farewell to her last child. Although a miracle in the slum for his size and his glow of good health, Henry was a child with no identity from the day he was born. He was baptised the second he came to life without having a name. Naming him the same as her first lost child, Henry, was too much for Melody, since she had never let her first Henry go. Consequently, she could not bring herself to call out his name. From his first day onwards, Henry felt that he was unwanted.

I was the other Henry. The shadow. The impostor. She still fed me, held me, doted on me. But when her husband was in the room she began to feel sharp cuckoo lips on her breast. She stopped eating. (…) My father saw the food left on the plate, saw her fading. He cursed the vanity and sentimentality that had suckered him into giving me his old name. (…) And he looked at me and saw a different child. He began to see a baby who was eating his wife away. He wanted to hold me but sometimes, even as he bent over me, he couldn’t lift his arms to do it” (Doyle, 1999; 33).

Such negligence can be life threatening for a baby and it certainly left a mark on little Henry. Although he was the boy without identity, he most certainly made one later, throughout Ireland. Despite this fact, he stayed marked for life by his older brother, the star called Henry.

“Infested, hungry and unloved, I fell in with the crowd” (Doyle, 1999; 45). Only a three-year-old he was ramping the streets of Dublin. He “was at home in the rags and scarcity, dirt and weakness” (Doyle, 1999; 45). An abandoned child, with a deprivation of primal need for being loved and accepted, found a substitute for his family. The missing father and mother role in Henry’s case were substituted first

29 by the streets and crowds of Dublin, followed by the Irish republican Brotherhood, and later by the IRA. Brief reunion with his father, when running away from the police, shattered him and probably killed the last speck of hope for trusting and relying on somebody; on anybody. Ever again. He was damaged for life. Damaged so badly that in the moment of realisation that their father had left them again, this time for good, he fell into the effect of self-mutilation. He wanted to crack open his head against the street in order to erase all the memories, visual and emotional, the turmoil of feelings he had just gone through, the happiness, safety and belonging he had felt back in his arms again. He wanted it all gone. “(…) I tried to knock them all out of my head. His hands as he lifted me, the crazy escape, his laugh, his hands as he lifted me, his hands as he lifted me – I dropped my head onto the cobbles again, and again and again. (…) I was absolutely alone” (Doyle, 1999; 59). A five-year-old child, abandoned by his father, with mentally ill mother, whose presence was nullified; in the world of poverty, sickness, crime, with full responsibility on his back for four years younger brother, along with the pressure of keeping him away from the reality that their daddy had left them behind. Only ONE of the listed reasons leaves a tremendous impact on the psyche of a child in the most crucial years of identity and self-image formation. The combination of them all result in a seriously damaged young man, who is prepared to do anything for his survival. Even die.

The thing is Henry and Victor were not lonesome cases. “There were thousands of street arabs just like us” (Doyle, 1999; 63). The life forced him to grow up, he was never a child. He was well aware of his status and the fact that he cannot prosper.

Henry’s strong character juxtaposed his denied identity, and he was forcefully driven from within to form one. His character overtook any place or situation; he acted as if he was invincible and unstoppable. When he walked into Miss O’Shea’s classroom, he owned the place; and he owned Miss O’Shea. When he walked into a pub, his charisma in a way overtook the place. His energy, his zest gave away he was predestined for something special. It was in his glow when he was born. He was unconquerable.

Only at the age of five, Henry had a sharp eye for social difference and injustice. During the King Edward’s parade, he and Victor dared to curse the King for everything he was representing: richness, comfort, well-being: “I saw the wealth and colour, the shining red face, the moustache and beard that were better groomed than the horses, and I knew that he didn’t come from Dublin. (…) I was angry. He didn’t belong. I looked at his carriage and thought of the cart that had carried us from house to house to basement” (Doyle, 1999; 52).This is shown again later, during the Easter Rising, when he carefully plans ahead where his bullets would target. All the targets were symbols of what he had been yearning for: clothes, shoes, cakes, entry to a café he was inappropriate for. “I shot and killed all that I had been denied, all the commerce and snobbery that had been mocking me and other hundreds of thousands behind glass and locks, all the injustice, unfairness and shoes – while the lads took chunks out of the military” (Doyle, 1999; 105). What is more interesting, this does not seem to be Henry’s personal thing. It is their mutual fight. They were fighting a class war. It was the poor against the rich; the deprived against the privileged: “(…) we’d nothing against Englishmen either, or Scots or Welshmen. We were fighting a class war. We weren’t at the same battle as the rest of the rebels. And they’d find that out soon enough” (Doyle, 1999; 107). The situation changed after the Easter Rising, though. They were fighting for Ireland, fighting in order to make the country better, to make their lives better, worth living, to stop poverty and achieve better life conditions for the people, the people of the slums, and they hated them as they were walking through streets of Dublin after surrender, protected by the British army:

(…) through the rubbish and abuse, the sticks and smouldering masonry that were thrown at us as we crossed Dublin. The kids and shawlies, beggars and workers came out and lined the streets. They spat and cursed (…) They hated us. I could feel it, a heat coming off them. (…) They wanted to tear us with their own nails and teeth (Doyle, 1999; 137-138).

The gender inequality was also strongly present. Although women had their own paramilitary organisation, “as an auxiliary corps, to complement the Irish

Volunteer Force (IVF)”26, Doyle describes the situation fairly unequal. Miss O’Shea asserts that she did not come to the G.P.O to do household chores: “I didn’t come here to make stew, Henry. (…) I’m here for my freedom. Just like you and the men upstairs. (…) I want my freedom too” (Doyle, 1999; 122).

Henry learned he is the only one who can take care of himself. We could say he does not feel the same belonging and sacrifice for the group as Alice in The Good Terrorist does. When they took the G.P.O. on Easter Monday, for example, the first thought in his mind was this is the post office, “a land of opportunity, a great big building full of money. And I wanted some of it. My conscience wouldn’t let me ignore it” (Doyle, 1999; 89). Having money equals survival. It would be immoral not take any of the money lying around. When The Proclamation of Independence was read out for the first time, he did not share the patriotic pride and excitement he was observing on his comrades’ faces. His part was fought for Victor. This did change, however, after the first shooting, when they beat the soldiers. There was a shift. The wave of energy of victory and belonging took him over. “I’d never been so close to people before. There’d only ever been Victor. I was sharing the world with these men. I trusted them; their nearness lit me” (Doyle, 1999; 106, emphasis added). There it is – group belonging. A fragile identity of a fourteen-year old, who all of a sudden finds a sense in life, finds the meaning.

Another shift occurs after he meets Jack Dalton, a man with visions of a revolution, an architect with ideas of building magnificent Ireland, wiping the last speck of the English out of the country: “When the country was free, when the last Englishman was on a boat or in a box, then he’d start designing houses that were fit for people. He’d build halls and cathedrals. Dublin would be a jewel again. (…) There’d be no evidence left of England by the time we stopped for a rest and our dinner” (Doyle, 1999; 171). The national pride in Jack slowly made its way into Henry. Jack would use no granite for his construction, because it comes from Wicklow, “Along with most of the other traitors and Protestants who’ve made our country’s history such a misery” (Doyle, 1999; 171). Although sometimes what

26 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/profiles/po13.shtml

32 he said made no sense, there was something purifying in the idea “of knocking down Dublin and starting afresh” (Doyle, 1999; 171). Henry was ready to die again. A year after Paddy’s brain was all over his hands, a year after he had walked over the bodies of the other lads. Henry, who never genuinely cared about “what de Valera sang in his prison cell”, he was ready to “fall dead for a version of Ireland that had little or nothing to do with the Ireland I’d gone out to die for the last time” (Doyle, 1999; 171).

We also read about a sort of division in people, the women of Dublin seem to be torn in two: on one side Henry was sure they would turn him in, for he was one of the rebels who were being shot. “They'd like to tan your arse but they'll never hand you over to that shower of murderers” (Doyle, 1999; 145). Annie seemed very convinced Henry was safe walking around with her. On the other hand, despite the fact the women did not believe in the revolution, Annie was certain their husbands would join in: “And what's more, they'll make their husbands join the rebels if they ever come back from the war” (Doyle, 1999; 145). During this time, the executions were taking place. Doyle is interweaving three stories at the same time: there is the new affair on the horizon, almost animalistic relationship between Annie and Henry, who use each other for raw sex, as if this is the only thing that can make them feel alive and enable them to survive. A fourteen year old chap. There are the nightmares Henry copes with; the vivid depictions of Paddy's death, clear signs of post-traumatic stress disorder:

(...) his brains and dry shards of his skull flew back at me, into my nostrils and mouth and eyes. There was an eyeball in my mouth, growing, sliding, I couldn't get rid of it. Dying, drowning, the shout that would save me couldn't get to my mouth. My mouth was open, stretched, trying to reach the noise. But I was drowning” (Doyle, 1999; 143).

There are repetitive nightmares, and there are executions. His fighting comrades who are captured are being shot day after day. And their names are publicly declared, day after day. In order to teach them a lesson, to plant the seed of terror.

The lives of the Irish were harsh. Hunger and poverty when young, scarcity in everything, as they grew up the only work they could get was at the docks,

33 shovelling goods out of ships, coal, grains, phosphorite... Slow payable death... But Henry loved it. As if only in hard situations he felt alive; as if only fighting for survival meant life for him: “And I loved it. The work. Every minute of it. I loved the dirt that settled on me. I loved the racket and danger, the smell and feel of foreign things, even when it was only coal or even the phosphorite. (…) And I loved the escape in the evenings, the tiredness and the end of it, the first drink and then home to Annie. I was alive all day and night” (Doyle, 1999; 157).

3.2.2 The Good Terrorist

The situation in 1980s England, the setting of The Good Terrorist, is a social turmoil. In her two amendments, Margaret Thatcher changed the entire political, economic and social landscape of Britain for the worse. In 1979, when she was elected Prime Minister, there were over a million unemployed (5.2 per cent), economic growth was low and inflation was rising. All these were due to the regime practiced by the Labour cabinet, followed by the Tories since World War II. When she moved to No 10 Downing Street she quoted St Francis Assissi: "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony" (Hutton, 1987; 124). Her aim though, claims Hutton, was to harmonize them with her own. Monetarism which was appealing to Ms Thatcher with its virtues was a means to tame inflation. "The less government intervened in the economy, the less it would have to spend, and the less money it would have to print. The less money printed, the less money supply would grow. This would roll back state outlays, make businesses stand on their own, and reduce inflation all at once" (Hutton, 1987; 125-126).If only that were true.

Two years later, in 1981, the unemployment figure had tripled, which is noted in the novel (Lessing, 2013; 352). Not only was the budget still set to "good house- keeping", she even "reduced government borrowing and raised taxes" (Hutton, 1987; 127). She firmly believed that "taxation is the only moral way to pay for higher spending", so she "slashed subsidies to industry and housing, and reduced

34 spending on roads, hospitals, and schools, though less sharply (Hutton, 1987; 127). The situation in Britain was heating up. The union leaders were calling for one-day strikes; however they were poorly supported by the public. Those who had jobs were grateful and not foolish to risk losing them. There was a new culture among young people, though. Punk was on the rise, fighting the system and everything it supported. Winning the Falkland War for Thatcher was what attacking Afghanistan and Iraq were for George W. Bush - it won her enough support for another term. Still, unemployment was high, over 10% in 1987. Hutton provides a social depiction: “Poverty is widespread. Of Britain's 55 million people, 12 million have living standards below the Council of Europe's minimum. One in six children is not properly fed or clothed. Seven of the 12 poorest regions in the 12-nation Common Market are in Britain; of the Common Market poorest cities, 10 are British” (Hutton, 1987; 133).

Alice Mellings, the protagonist of Lessing’s novel, has a completely different background to Henry Smart. Born to a well-situated bourgeois family in London, her childhood depicts a different picture. She had both parental figures present, though there seems to be something wrong with the relationships, but it is unclear what. She had no experience of harsh life. She was brought up in a middle-class family, with proper housing and good education. After she finished her university studies she was living with her parents’ support, most likely due to the unemployment situation in the country at the time.

Alice

Alice is a rather complex character. Though calm, down to earth and, organised when it comes to arranging their squads, extremely articulate and steady when dealing with the officials, fully in control of her emotions, she seems to possess another side; perhaps more than just one. She absolutely hates and despises the system and anything connected with the bourgeoisie. She keeps addressing her parents, Theresa, and any other representative as ‘them’ opposed to ‘us’. The hatred of the system has no explicable background, though it seems rather

35 personal: “’The filthy shitty swine, the shitty fucking fascist swine…’ She was full of energy of hate” (Lessing, 2013; 7). It seems incomprehensible to her that a human being just like her could destroy something still of good use, in this case the lavatories in a house they are about to inhabit: “But they are people, people did this. To stop other people from living. I don’t believe it. Who can they be? What can they be like” (Lessing, 2013; 7)? On one hand she loathes them, on the other she seems to yearn for what this system has to offer. She is intolerant towards her mother and her ways, but deep within, she hungers for it. Although she seems to be disgusted by Theresa and Anthony’s relationship, she is actually jealous of their connection, relation, and their nearness.

She seems to take the fight on a more personal level, which we get to observe through her relationships with the house she undertakes. The house seems to symbolize the uncompleted child within, her own being, her success. Every little success with the house, either mending it herself, organising somebody to do it or passing over the system in order to get the electricity or gas back, make her fly on the wings of accomplishment. She loves being a housemother; there are times when it seems she is feeding herself on it, in an ill manner. Most times she comes across as a mother to Jasper, too. She is a sort of ‘mother Theresa’ character, for apart from the CCU members, she cannot help herself not to offer home to Philip, Jim, Mary Williams and her fiancé. Later, when Faye tries to commit suicide, it is Alice who, with a clear head, nurtures Faye back to life and manages to clean the blood pool in her room.

Her relationship with Jasper is a rather complex one. She seems to be in a sort of symbiosis with him, a pathological liaison, where Jasper is the one taking all the time and Alice providing. At times it seems she needs him just as she needs the air: “Where was Jasper? She wanted Jasper. The need for Jasper overtook her sometimes, like this. Just to know he was there somewhere, or if not, soon would be. Her heart was pounding in distress, missing Jasper” (Lessing, 2013; 73). It is not subliminal, though, she is aware of it:

Has Jasper taken his things to another room – and her heart seemed to give way. For, if he was going to shut her out, then, with Bert here, she knew she

would find it hard to keep the connection with him that was the meaning and purpose of her life. He would not leave her, she knew that; but he could seem to go very far away. (Lessing, 2013; 81, emphasis added)

They come across more like a brother and a sister than a couple and Jasper clearly has homosexual tendencies towards Bert, to whom he gives far more attention than Alice. But while lying in their room, in separate sleeping bags by separate walls, we seriously question the value of this relationship. For Alice, however, it seems to be the perfection: “We are together… This is like a marriage; talking together before going to sleep” (Lessing, 2013; 89). There are moments when she comes in touch with the fact he is bad for her:

(…) sometimes, very seldom, the thought came into her head: If I were alone, if I did not have Jasper to worry about … Rarely, and this was one of the times, she knew she was tied to him by what seemed like a tight cord of anxiety that vibrated to his needs, never hers; how she was afflicted by him by what seemed like a tight cord of anxiety that vibrated to his needs, never hers; how she was afflicted by him, how he weighed her down (Lessing, 2013; 170).

We do not know much about his past, either, except that he is full of hatred for his father, a Midland solicitor who by dubious investments lost all of his family’s property. A clever boy as he was, he had to continue his education on a charity scholarship which is probably the origin of his opposition towards the system that marked him for life. Though passionate and well-read as well as articulate, we cannot help thinking that Jasper wants to play terrorist than actually feel the need and urge to change something. According to Alice it means a lot to him, therefore it means a lot to Alice. His fight is actually her fight.

As righteous as Alice is within her CCU membership and her position in the group, she has absolutely no restrains from committing a crime for the sake of the group’s benefit. She believes her cause is righteous to the level she justifies the thefts she commits from her family members. Some of these are not minor. The squat comes before her family; the squat is her family. She calmly steals a rug from her mother’s house; she takes three hundred pounds from her father’s jacket. She sneaks into the house and goes through her father’s wardrobe, while his

37 second wife and their children are playing in the garden, praying to God to find some money. Though she knows he would miss it, “it wasn’t just a jar of fucking bloody ginger, or peaches”, she feels satisfied thinking he would probably blame Jane on it (Lessing, 213; 84). It is interesting how she justifies lies to herself. “She wasn’t one of these poor deprived kids who slipped in through an open window or an inadequately locked door and then did not know better than to steal a television or a video” (Lessing, 213; 199). She has done just as same, twice, although she does not admit it to herself. In her eyes, she is not a thief. After stealing from her mother and father, she still contemplates:

But to become a thief, a real thief – that was a step away from herself. How could she describe herself as a revolutionary, a serious person, if she were a thief? Besides, if she were caught, it would be bad for the Cause. No. Besides, she had always been honest, had never stolen anything, not even as a child. She had not gone through that period of nicking things out of her mother’s handbag, her father’s pockets, the way some small children did. Never (Lessing, 2013; 199, emphasis added).

She gets so desperate she steals the money from the weekly income in her father’s firm. The level of calmness is amazing; the level of her attentiveness and focus rather scary. Reading through the robbery, we think again that Alice is a borderline personality; and she seems to possess more than just one. Another reference towards Alice’s pathological lying happens toward the end of the book when her mother shares some occurrence with her, and Alice denies it. This event on the final pages puts the entire story into a questionable perspective:

(…) you seemed to be to move, I had already arranged everything with the estate agent. As you know, since you were making the telephone calls …” She stopped herself, sighed. “No, of course it wasn’t that. Your father said he had had enough. That was the reason. Cedric said: Enough! And I don’t blame him.” “Wait a minute,” said Alice, “what do you mean, I made the telephone calls?” “Well, of course you did. You took it all on, didn’t you? Being helpful. As only you know how to be.” “I made the calls?”

Alice could remember nothing of that. Dorothy could not believe Alice did not remember. For the thousandth time the situation was recurring where Alice said, “I don’t remember, no, you’re wrong,” thinking that her mother maliciously made things up, while Dorothy sighed and pursued interesting thoughts about the pathology of lying (Lessing, 2013; 350).

The need for money is one of the central worries in her life. Knowing she cannot exist without it, at the same time she blames the middle class for acting exactly as she does: “God, how she hated them. The middle classes, penny-pinching, doling out their little bits, in their minds always the thought of saving and accumulating, saving – thought Alice…” (Lessing, 2013, 164). In that moment it occurs to her:

“She thought: I’ve been living like this for years. How many? Is it twelve now? No, fourteen – no, more … The work I’ve done for other people, getting things together, making things happen, sheltering the homeless, getting them fed – and as often as not, paying for it. Suppose I had put aside a little, even a little, of that money, for myself, what would I have now? Even if it were only a few hundred ponds, five hundred, six, I wouldn’t be standing here sick with worry … (Lessing, 2013; 164)

The thought does not settle, though. The hatred for the middle-class is seeded deeply, but where does it originate from? So deep that when she is offered an undercover position, for the sake of which she would have to lead a bourgeoisie life, she turns it down. She does not want to be like them. “We aren’t going to live in that house as they do. We aren’t going to consume, and spend, and go soft and lie awake worrying about our pensions. We’re not like them. They’re disgusting” (Lessing, 2031; 178).

One thing which is clearly depicted in the novel is the importance of the group. The group represents a family. Alice often refers to them literally with those words: “her friends, her family” (Lessing, 2013, 84); “there was a warm good feeling in the room. A family …” (Lessing, 2013, 87) This bears such importance to Alice it is strange how she sometimes despises it:

What she saw made her eyes fill with tears. They were sitting round the table, Bert and Pat, these two close together; Jasper; Jim smiling and happy; and Philip, already working on the cooker, bending over behind it, a cup of

coffee on its top. Bert had gone to his friend Philip’s girlfriend, Felicity, the thermos had been filled, he had bought croissants and butter and jam. It was a real meal” (Lessing, 2013; 90).

We cannot help thinking that the entire idea of being a terrorist is a game to most of the CCU members. When going to riots, they are like children playing not to get caught. When demonstrating at a university in London during a visit by “Queen Bitch Thatcher” (Lessing, 2013; 252), both Alice and Jasper want to get caught: “He was longing for a real tussle. So was she. So were the police, who grinned challengingly at the demonstrators. (…) She yearned for it, longed for the moment when she would feel the rough violence of the policemen’s hands on her shoulders, would let herself go limp, would be dragged to the van … “ (Lessing, 2013; 254). Even Dorothy’s mother was attending demonstrations and had an interesting perspective on them:

“No, not since I understood that demos and all that are just for fun.” “For fun, are they?” “Yes, that’s right. People go on demos because they get a kick out of it. Like picnics.” “You can’t be serious, Dorothy.” “Of course I’m serious. No one bothers to ask any longer if it achieves anything, going on marches or demos. They talk about how they feel. That’s what they care about. It’s for kicks. It’s for fun.” “Dorothy, that’s simply perverse.” “Why is it perverse if it’s true? You’ve just got to use your eyes and look— people picketing, or marching or demonstrating, they are having a marvellous time. And if they are beaten up by the police, so much the better” (Lessing, 2013; 359).

The only persons who seem to be serious about it are Pat, who leaves the squat for the ‘training’, and Jocelyn, who is by far the most professional in the house. Pat is the one who shows Alice how absurd and ridiculous Bert and Jasper are in their idea of becoming genuine IRA members. It all seems child’s play until they decide to set a bomb and are delivered a parcel with weapons to be hidden in their house. The encounter with a real terrorist, an alleged Russian spy or agent, we

40 never learn the truth, makes Alice realise she might not really be capable of ‘the real thing’. A similar situation occurs when they open the parcels to see what the contents are. “(…) and Bert said, laughing, ‘You’d think we were scared shitless – and I believe I am. Suddenly, it’s all for real …’ They all laughed, except for Alice, who was standing with both hands loosely fisted, covering her half-opened mouth” (Lessing, 2013; 330-331).

We encounter some borderline personalities in the book, Alice already being mentioned in the above paragraph. Faye is another unstable individual, the one that terrorist leaders tend to avoid. She is a highly suicidal and mentally unstable, and is first to volunteer to set the bomb in front of the designated hotel. Her instability comes forth at the worst of all possible times; instead of leaving the vehicle, she decides she will accomplish her long struggled goal – by committing a suicide, this time successfully.

3.3 Grounds in Reality

Apart from two fictional works we will also take a look at a book written by German reporter Stefan Aust. Aust, who was at time working for a popular magazine der Spiegel, and today works at an online offspring which is the most widely-read German online magazine. He personally knew Ulrike Meinhof because they worked together on several articles during the American war in Vietnam, criticising Germany for allowing Americans to use military bases in Germany. He never met Andreas Baader in person, though. His book is a product of intense research of files covering sixty metres of shelves in his apartment. The main use for this thesis is presented in terrorists’ letters, diary entries and communiques. The situation in Germany is described in more detail in Chapter V. In this chapter I will try to bring together significant statements which might bring us to more understanding of terrorist’s actions.

3.3.1 The Baader- Meinhof Complex

One of the first things we learn about Andreas Baader is that he was spoiled by his mother, grandmother and aunt. His teachers seemed to share the opinion that Baader was intelligent but volatile, and extremely strong-willed. His narcissistic views put him high on his imaginative pedestals, him seeing “(…) himself as general of the Red Army. And here were his soldiers. (…) He was playing about with fantasies like that” (Aust, 2008; 47). His ego prevented two alliances of RAF in the future. He just had to be the leader. The Baader-Meinhof gang was appealing to many young people, especially young offenders after the arson in 1968. Ulrike Meinhof, who lacked a personality of her own, was full of admiration for the couple, believing she could learn from them. Baader’s personality was described by prison doctors as that of a terrorist.

Ulrike’s argument for freeing Baader from custody was that he was “a cadre”, a word which group used to denote a leading figure; the second reason was their belief, that “the people whom we want to show what politics is all about today are the kind who will have no difficulty in identifying with the freeing of a prisoner themselves”; and third, just to show that they mean business (Aust, 2008; 11).

Although they seemed to be well read, the members were pretty ignorant about the Middle East situation and the political, social and cultural ways of the Islamic world, for example, they had no idea the camp was under the authority of Abu Hassan, one of the most important figures of Al Fatah of that time. They had no idea of gender differentiation in Islamic world and by presenting nude in the training camp, they actually had no idea on what scale they were jeopardising their own lives.

Only a year after joining the SPD (The Social Democratic Party of Germany, SozialdemokratischeParteiDeutschlands, SPD), Gudrun Ensslin together with her fiancé left, after they joined together with the Cristian Democratic Union and formed the Grand Coalition. The enemy became the friend. It became clear that through politics, no matters could be resolved.

According to the group's lawyer Horst Mahler, morals were the pillars of the RAF:

We were all very moralistic, so it [American bombing of North Vietnam] didn’t leave us cold. I still remember an occasion when Ulrike Meinhof, watching one of those TV reports with dreadful pictures of Vietnam, jumped up in tears and said no one was going to do this to her, it debased everyone. We must act, she said, we couldn’t just sit around doing nothing” (Aust, 2008; 20).

Where did this call for moral come from? Were there not double standards? They based their grounds for justification of their actions on morals, defending what they did as righteous. What were their morals based on in order to support such argument?

On the other hand, it is hard to believe that Baader had any morals whatsoever. While offering moral support to his young offenders, he would accompany them with the following words: “Don’t let it bother you. These are your future doctors and lawyers. They’ll be living off you anyway. So help yourselves. No moral scruples” (Aust, 208; 50). If crime can be justified, there is no place for morals.

In one of her articles, Ulrike made parallels to the Third Reich:

At the moment when solidarity with the Vietnamese becomes a matter of serious concern, when people want to weaken the American position all over the world as far as possible in the interests of the Vietnamese, then I really see no difference between the police terrorist methods that we have already seen in Berlin, and that threaten us now, and the terrorism of the SA in the 1930s (Aust, 2008; 20).

After an attempt on Rudi Dutschke’s life, she wrote in konkret a justification of their future actions:

It is protest if I say this or that does not suit me. It is resistance if I ensure that what does not suit me no longer occurs. Counter-violence, as practiced this Easter, is not calculated to arouse sympathy or bring alarmed liberals over to the side of the APO. Counter-violence runs the risk of turning to violence where police brutality decides the rules of the game, where

helpless rage takes over from cool rationality, where the paramilitary actions of the police encounter a paramilitary reply … “ (Aust, 2008; 36).

As Gudrun Ensslin upon her arrest for an act of arson she committed with Baader and two other members, said in an interview, they were aware of their wrongdoings, but they still felt strongly that their deeds were justified. Asked directly if what they did was right, she replied: “It was right for something to be done. We have said clearly enough we did the wrong thing. But there’s no reason for us to discuss it with the law or the state. We must discuss it with people who think as we do” (Aust; 2008; 41). “One must show that one can justify one’s ideas briefly, in a perfectly normal way, without any heroic euphoria” (Aust, 2008; 41). Crime became a means for self-realisation and self-liberation. It was the only tool left for them to use.

One of Ulrike Meinhof’s diary entries displays the urge to belong to the group as well as how much fulfilment it brings:

Our house, the parties, Kampen [Meinhof’s husband], all of that’s only partly enjoyable, but among other things it’s the basis from which I can be a subversive element. TV appearances, contacts, the attention I get, they’re all part of my career, as a journalist and a Socialist, they get me a hearing beyond konkret [their magazine], by way of radio and television. I even find it pleasant, but it doesn’t satisfy my need for warmth, solidarity, belonging to a group. The part I play, the part which got me entry to that society, corresponds only very partially to my real nature and needs, because it involves me in adopting the attitude of a puppet, forcing me to say things smilingly when to me, to all of us, they are deadly serious – so I say them with a grin, as if masked” (Aust, 2008; 24).

Here the level of importance and belonging is clearly shown. This is also presented by the plea of former inmates of the detention centres, who desperately wanted Ensslin and Baader to return. “They wanted us to come back, it would all be all right, they said, and they needed us. We were a kind of space station to them. They could imagine doing anything if we were with them. But when we left them they felt abandoned” (Aust, 2008; 52).

Belonging to a group comes across as understandable. What still seems to confuse and rather shock, is the fact that both, Ulrike Meinhof and Gudrun Ensslin, had left their own children. Meinhof’s argument for this was the following:

’You can’t support anti-authoritarian policies and hit your children at home. But nor, in the long run, can you refrain from hitting your children at home without being political – I mean, you can’t give up competing within a family without also having to fight to neutralize competitive relationships outside the family, the sort of thing we all get involved in, so that …’ She hesitated, and then added very quietly: ‘… you begin to leave your family’(Aust, 2008; 54).

This is what she did, a few months after this interview. She was probably influenced by Gudrun’s arguments. “Gudrun Ensslin was a missionary figure representing a new morality. The morality of a revolutionary who must sever all connection with her origins and burn all her bridges behind her, so that the only life still open to her is one untrammelled by possessions and lived outside the law” (Aust, 2008; 55). Another incomprehensible matter is also the inclination of Meinhof when in Palestine. Ensslin suggested Meinhof’s two girls be moved to a Palestinian orphaned children’s camp and they would have remained there forever. She did, however, hinted at guilt feelings abandoning her children sometimes, upon which, reports Aust, she was attacked by Baader and Ensslin.

There was actually a profile one had to match in order to become a new member in the group: “A certain psychological disposition is a pre-condition of joining”, Ulrich Stolze said after his arrest; “you have to be emotionally convinced that all attempts at reform simply stabilize the present system of society and consolidate capitalism” (Aust, 2008; 91).

In 1970 the group went underground. During 6 months’ time, many members had been arrested; no serious action had been undertaken. Ulrike complained to Astrid Proll: “I’m fed up with this. All this hanging around, acting as look-out, checking out cars. I don’t want to end up in jail for that kind of thing, not any more, not for such petty details” (Aust, 2008; 97). Though Baader always spoke of the group, chastised individuals for the mistakes Meinhof was trying to pinpoint, it was

Baader and Ensslin who determined the course of events. Alfred Klaus, a policeman who was to set up a Special Commission on Terrorism, studied all the police files, the KPD, The Communist Party of Germany, and came to a conclusion that “the motives for the crimes perpetrated by these people, and the revolutionary aims they pursue, have their origin in the social conflicts of recent years, set off by the anti-authoritarian student movement and other forces of the APO” (Aust, 2008; 102). Another notion in his report was “these were ‘criminal personalities’ such as the police had never encountered before. They were intelligent and ready to do anything without thought for their own lives” (Aust, 2008; 103).

Ulrike underwent brain surgery, after being diagnosed a suspected tumour during her pregnancy. She suffered serious complications, until finally being operated on, when doctors found out she had an enlarged vessel in her brain which could not be removed, so the surgeons clamped it off with a silver clip. Could this be of any connection to her unexplicable behaviour? In one interview Aust said, “When I knew her, Ulrike was a more traditional socialist (...) If she’d gone to East Germany and become a communist, I could have imagined that. But I was surprised when she took up the gun”.27Not only she took up a gun, through the years she managed to upskill breaking into cars and became the fastest in the group.

Becker’s idea presented in Chapter V, that these children are avenging Nazi liaisons of their parents collapses when we take Ulrike Meinhof and Gudrun Ensslin into account. The former grew up in a Hitler disliked family (mother and her friend Renate both opposed Hitler’s regime, Ensslin grew up in a politically aware family).

All these characters of the group fall into the category of a missing father, therefore they could be more prone to substituting the belonging to the group for the missing parental void: Ulrike Meier lost both her parents in her childhood; Andreas Baader grew up without his father; Horst Mahler grew up without his father; and so did Jan-Carl Jaspe.

27 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marshall-fine/interview-stefan-aust-on_b_267944.html

4 THREE APPROACHES TO / VIEWS FOR UNDERSTANDING

4.1 Individual Psychology

4.1.1 Terrorism and psychopathy

The definition of a psychopathic individual is “one whose behaviour is marked by specific and consistently observed trait behaviours, but perhaps typified at the broadest possible level by an unwillingness to conform to social or communal rules” (Horgan, 2005; 42). The area which we will pay more attention to is the individual’s “lack of remorse or guilt for his/her activities and a selfish, egotistical world that precludes any general welfare for others” (Horgan, 2005; 42).

We can find mutual grounds between psychopathic and terrorist behaviour: they both wilfully participate in violent acts, causing destruction, suffering, death, and they are willing to accept full responsibility for it as they consider their deeds important and justifiable. The lack of guilty conscience for the victims is also present. An individual is required to perform violent activities and in order to be able to do this, back in 1976 Cooper suggested: “’The true terrorist must steel himself against tender-heartedness through a fierce faith in his credo or by a blessed retreat into a comforting, individual madness’”; therefore, “as a result, it is a simple inevitability that ‘the political terrorist needs either a highly-insulated conscience or a certain detachment from reality’”28. As Doyle puts it through Henry’s perspective: “They were looking for a strange mix of man – dissident and slave, a man who was quick with his brain and an eejit. They knew what they were doing when they chose me; I was quick and ruthless, outspoken and loyal – and such an eejit it took me years to realise what was going on” (Doyle, 1999;

28 Cooper, H.H.A, ‘The Terrorist and the Victim’, Victimology, 1, 2 (1976), p. 229–239, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p.44.

240). There are some authors, Kellen for example, who opposes these analysts claiming they completely disregard the possibility of a terrorist actually feeling remorse for his deeds, and claims there are actually some terrorists who are capable of feeling sorry for what they did (Horgan, 2005; p. 45). We see this change in Doyle’s Henry after he realises the actual cause of the fight and regrets every single murder he had committed. The presence of guilty conscience is there with Lessing’s Alice as soon as she realises the bombs will be timed for the blast and not electronically operated which means they would not be able to control and minimize the casualties. She receives a Lenin’s quotation to her response: “Morality has to be subdued to the needs of Revolution” (Lessing, 2013; 371). Knowing Alice’s moral, the squad brings the decision in her absence and despite her objecting and suggesting the bombing being carried out in the middle of the night, Jocelyn calmly explains and reminds her what the cause of terrorism actually is: “(…) But it’s the question of how to make the greatest impact. A few windows in the middle of the night – and so what? But this way it’ll be the front page in all the papers tomorrow and on the News tonight” (Lessing, 2013; 371). In 1981, a review of approaches was published by R. R. Corrado, who even stressed the “presence of distinct psychological abnormalities in terrorists” and came to a conclusion that “psychopathy was then the feature most prominently associated with terrorists” (Horgan, 2005; 44). He argues, though, that the psychopathy argument shall remain limited due to the lack of background or context support. Though if we try to profile Alice she comes across as an unstable individual, a borderline personality. One moment she shouts terrible things at her mother, leaves her home in a complete fury, and a few hours later she dares to call her on the phone and ask for money, all sweet and tender, only seconds away from bursting again with fury of a child who does not get her way. She seems to switch from a complete rage against her mother or Theresa into a concentrated, cold and careful manner. We can see the similarity in her relationship to Jasper, as well. Although she displays pathological love for him, there are moments of fury which overcome her mind and, just like with the others, she manages to push them aside.

A clear psychopathological reference of the members of the group was made in Horst Mahler’s speech prepared for the court which was never used:

Hardly ever did a member of the RAF pin down the psychopathology of the group as precisely as Horst Mahler in the plea that he never delivered. At the end he comes to the conclusion, crossed out in the manuscript: ‘From the bourgeois humanist position, the individual can preserve himself as a human being only in the abstract negation of the bourgeois world, that is by destroying himself … The defendants were like Hesse’s wolf on the steppes … ‘ Mahler, not himself a terrorist at the time, had identified the fundamental motive in literary terms: the act of liberation in the act of destruction. Suicide as the final act of rebellion (Aust, 2008; 39).

Horgan also brings attention to one major difference: terrorists’ choice of victims is incidental, chosen only on symbolic grounds; the psychopath, on the other hand, chooses his victims carefully, premeditated, his reasons are “personal, fuelled and sustained by elaborate personal fantasies”. (Horgan, 2005; 45)

There is, indeed, a fact we must not ignore and that is the one of (social) isolation. The social as well as individual life of a political terrorist is isolated from any interaction and therefore must be immensely psychologically impacted. Ulrike Meinhof once stated: “I’m fed up with this. All this hanging around, acting as look-out, checking out cars. I don’t want to end up in jail for that kind of thing, not any more, not for such petty details” (Aust, 2008; 97). Once entering an organisation, an individual buys a lifetime membership, which “involves the formation of focused and lasting relationships which themselves are important in facilitating greater movement towards more extreme commitment towards the group and its ideals” (Horgan, 2005; 44). As Ivan said to Henry, “If you’re not with us you’re against us. That’s the thinking” (Doyle, 327).

Another perspective we need to take into consideration is unreliability of some analysis. The author mentioned above, Konrad Keller, for example made an assumption on Carlos the Jackal’s psychopathy solemnly on “what he says about himself and from the exploits he stresses in his interviews”. 29 In one case, claims Horgan, K. I. Pierce even “made a diagnosis of psychopathy based mainly on an

29 Kellen, K., On Terrorists and Terrorism: A Rand Note N-1942-RC (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1982), quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 45.

49 individual having tattoos on his torso”30. It is this kind of information that proves how ambiguous, even implausible, the present evidence regarding terrorist mentality actually is. We can, however, find three specific characterisations/traits of character, which are present in the literature and will be discussed further: the frustration-aggression hypothesis, the narcissism and narcissism-aggression, and psychodynamic influences.

4.1.1.1 The frustration-aggression hypothesis

The frustration-aggression hypothesis or the FAH, which was originally developed by Berkowitz, “basically describes a response to frustration or blockage of attainment of one’s personal or environmental goals” (Horgan, 2005; 49). This can also be described as ‘fight or flight’ situation – i.e. “an aggressive defensive reaction, or none at all”. The FAH is very notable in the literature, but on the other hand also criticised for its simplicity, due to the claiming that frustrating situations always result in aggressive behaviour. In his book, Hudson mentions Oots and Wiegele who

(…) characterize the potential terrorist as “a frustrated individual who has become aroused and has repeatedly experienced the fight or flight syndrome. Moreover, after these repeated arousals, the potential terrorist seeks relief through an aggressive act and also seeks, in part, to remove the initial cause of his frustration by achieving the political goal which he has hitherto been denied.”31

Feracutti, for example, claims that the FAH shifts the problem away from “the social universe to the idioverse, and motives and counter motives are superficially

30 Silke, A.P., ‘Cheshire-Cat Logic: The Recurring Theme of Terrorist Abnormality in Psychological Research’, Psychology, Crime and Law, 4 (1998), p. 51–69, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 45. 31 Oots, K. L., Wiegele, T. C.,'Terrorist and Victim: Psychiatric and Physiological Approaches from a Social Science Perspective', Terrorism: An International Journal, 8, No. 1, (1985), p. 1– 32., quoted in Hudson, 1999, p. 18.

50 handled”32. It also fails to explain why only a certain number of frustrated individuals become involved in terrorism, while the majority refrains from it? We must remember that the FAH describes individual behaviour, and it has not been regarded or modified to group violence. Friedland also argues that the FAH and other derived hypothesis only consider individual psychology while disregarding social and political conflicts and person’s underprivileged and disadvantaged status, whether real or imagined. What is the condition, if there is a sole one, or is it a combination of various factors which ignite one in a crowd of many that he or she decides to cross the line? Where does the trigger lie?

Horgan believes the FAH may explain a “certain proportion of terrorists, whom he calls “the have-nots” and they could be the equivalent to Post’s ‘hatred bread in the bone’ group, which is discussed later in Chapter V (Horgan, 2005; 51). This would certainly apply to Northern Ireland and the IRA, for example, where generations have suffered suppression, violence, and deprivation. It does, however, not explain “the have-a-lots” as Horgan names the other group, where he classifies the West German students, who predominantly came from wealthy backgrounds, or intellectuals (Horgan, 2005; 51). The FAH hypothesis is inconclusive; therefore it does not provide thorough ground for drawing further conclusions.

4.1.1.2 Narcissism and narcissism-aggression

The already mentioned West German study suggested that narcissism is the main motivation for terrorist actions and Richard Pearlstein, the main supporter of this idea, says that:

(…) narcissism may be viewed as a range of psychoanalytic orientations, impulses, or behavioral patterns either wholly or overwhelmingly subject to ego concern, as opposed to object concern. Narcissism also might be seen as

32 Ferracuti, F., ‘A Sociopsychiatric Interpretation of Terrorism’, The Annals of the American Academy (AAPSS), 463 (1982), p. 129–140, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 50.

the manner in which an individual relates to the external, object world, either wholly or overwhelmingly upon the latter’s potential capacity to provide that individual with sufficient ego reinforcement, satisfaction, or compensation…narcissism should be defined as an internal, intrapsychic, regulatory ‘tool’ that enables the individual to defend the self from damage and harm.33

In his study Pearlstein affirms the default presence of narcissism in terrorists and does not mention any of the works, which, supported by empirical study, suggest absence of narcissistic characteristics, and refuses contemporary authors who suggest the same, i.e. the absence. Post, for example, points out there are certain similarities between terrorists and narcissists, but not more than that. Pearlstein does not address any of these and in his book declares that “the external psychological determinants or sources of political terrorism appear to lie in what are termed narcissistic injury and narcissistic disappointment”.34

Again we are facing an ill-founded hypothesis which seems to be concluded from one perspective only. Pearlstein’s conclusions are based on limited sources and are highly subjective; he used autobiographic material by Susan Stern, a member of the US ‘Weathermen’, which entitles us to be suspicious on validity of information), in other cases he used personal letters written to judges, journalists’ articles, government reports, etc. all based on the lives of nine terrorists (including Ulrike Meinhof). We are warned by Horgan, however, that he “does not acknowledge the pitfalls of uncritically accepting data generated from a group of terrorists who have received a substantial amount of attention from authors and journalists” (Horgan, 2005; 52).

In literature, however, we can detect narcissistic traits in the main characters. With Henry, for example, though his personality has been grand from early on, there is a switch which shows narcissistic features:

(…) I was one self-important little rebel. I had no idea of my tininess and anonymity. I was the Henry Smart of song and legend. I was the inspiration

33 Pearlstein, R., The Mind of the Political Terrorist, (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 1991), p.7, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 51. 34Pearlstein, The Mind of the Political Terrorist, p.171, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 51-52.

for a generation, a giant on a bicycle, moving from county to county, leaving my mark in the foreheads of the gallant young men, a living example to them all, and a man with a secret mission beneath the one that was whispered into the ears of all the young men of the parish: I was one of the chosen. I was a gunman. I could hear Jack Dalton’s song even in the loudest storms – He was prince of the city streets, no other lad came near – I could hear Collins talking only to me – We’re nearly there, Henry, we’re nearly there. (…) Some of us knew the way and it was up to us to lead, not to ask permission of a voting majority, but to lead, to really lead to show, demonstrate, live, die. To inspire, provoke and terrify (Doyle, 1999; 208- 209).

Also with Lessing’s characters, Alice, Jasper, Faye, Roberta, and Bert. They all show signs of borderline personalities combined with narcissistic splitting. It seems as though they have de-valued themselves and projected them onto the establishment which then became the target of their violent aggression.

4.1.1.3 Terrorism and psychodynamic accounts

The third hypothesis is the psychodynamic accounts, origins of which lie in Sigmund Freud’s work and put forward a perspective of human behaviour heavily, if not completely influenced by variety of concealed, unconscious desires, which are rooted in unresolved childhood conflicts.

A personality theory developed by Erik Erikson suggests “the formation of an ‘identity’ (and soon after, ‘negative’ identity) is crucial to personality development” (Horgan, 2005; 53). He states that a series of crisis a child experiences in childhood, which the child should overcome in sequence, help the child’s personality become entirely merged. Failing to resolve these early conflicts very often results in various psychological problems later in life. An example of this is Lessing’s character Faye, who, according to her lover’s words, “has had a terrible life, such an awful shitty terrible life…” (Lessing, 2013; 113).

Both, Post and Kaplan claim, that the motivation is fully entangled with a need for group belonging; and they both claim any group would do. With a distorted identity (or perhaps even missing identity), the space in individual’s psyche is overtaken by the group identity: group is I and I am the group. Post even suggests high influence of intrapersonal relations within the group and group’s ideology. Martha Crenshaw interprets Erikson’s theory with extra consideration to motivation:

At the stage of identity formation, individuals seek both meaning and a sense of wholeness or completeness as well as what Erikson…terms ‘fidelity’, a need to have faith in something or someone outside oneself as well as to be trustworthy in its service. Ideologies then are guardians of identity. Erikson further suggests that political undergrounds utilize youth’s need for fidelity as well as the ‘store of wrath’ held by those deprived of something in which to have faith. A crisis of identity (when the individual who finds self-definition difficult is suffering from ambiguity, fragmentation, and contradiction) makes some adolescents susceptible to ‘totalism’ or to totalistic collective identities that promise certainty. In such collectivities the troubled young finds not only an identity but an explanation for their difficulties and a promise for the future.35

Is it possible to draw a conclusion from the quoted text that young adolescents coming from distorted family backgrounds, with traumatised childhood, insecure homes, unresolved issues, a missing father and/or mother role and, above all, unformed or injured identity form a potential group of future terrorists? Does the group form some kind of a shelter, security, a promise for (a safe) future?

Horgan also brings to our attention the role of the family in the entire process of group integration and warns at the same time, that “its [i.e. role of the family’s] limited applicability to understanding terrorists in general, and the equally limited conceptual utility of psychodynamic explanations altogether only serves to confuse the clarity of our knowledge of terrorist psychology” (Horgan, 2005; 54).

35 Crenshaw, ‘The Psychology of Political Terrorism’, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 53.

4.2 Social Psychology

It seems the, that if becoming a terrorist is a gradual process, “a sense of gradual progression towards increased involvement with terrorist activities, (…) a gradual process of incremental involvement” (Horgan, 2005; 81). It is not explicit, but due to closely examined cases we can say there is a “slow, but real marginalization away from conventional society (conventional relative to what the individual is moving towards) and towards extremism” (Horgan, 2005; 82). There is a sense of respect the recruits seem to enjoy within their communities. In their research, Post and Denny discover several similarities of individual’s path to terrorism, one of them being a special social status enjoyed by the new members: “Recruits were treated with great respect. A youngster who belonged to Hamas or Fatah was regarded more highly than one who didn’t belong to a group, and got better treatment than unaffiliated kids.”36

Enlistment was for me the natural and done thing ... in a way, it can be compared to a young Israeli from a nationalist Zionist family who wants to fulfill himself through army service. My motivation in joining Fatah was both ideological and personal. It was a question of self-fulfillment, of honor and a feeling of independence ... the goal of every young Palestinian was to be a fighter. After recruitment, my social status was greatly enhanced. I got a lot of respect from my acquaintances, and from the young people in the village (Post, 2007; 27).

Similar statements are found amongst PIRA members, as one interviewed activist mentioned to Burgess, Ferguson and Hollywood:

The idols among our community shot up because they stood for something… As soon as your parents, and the priest at the altar, and your teacher are saying These men are good men. They are fighting a just thing

36 Post, J.M., Denny, L.M., ‘The Terrorists in their Own Words: Interviews With 35 Incarcerated Middle Eastern Terrorists’. This was the original unpublished draft, which was later published (but without some of the detail mentioned here) as J.M.Post, E.Sprinzak and L.M.Denny, ‘The Terrorists in their Own Words: Interviews with 35 Incarcerated Middle Eastern Terrorists’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 15, 1 (2003), p. 171–184, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 80.

here’, it filters down quickly that these people are important and whatever they say must be right. So all of a sudden, you are bordering on supporting something that is against the government.37

We can see there is a strong presence of community support for the activism and even glorification, in a way. We can also see this in the books. In A Star Called Henry, Doyle describes how the community was working together. When he was training men for the coming War of Independence in the Roscommon County, out in the country, there was old Missis O’Shea offering him shelter whenever he was passing her way. We also see how well these people were implemented; she never wanted to know any names. She offered safe accommodation along with a hot meal, passed the messages on, arranged other necessities, but all without the names. The process of gradual socialisation is described by Doyle when Henry is carrying out his recruitment training out in the country. Though the young men were natural in moving in the darkness, hiding and creeping around, avoiding the dangers, “they were all already better guerrillas than I’d [Henry] ever be” (Doyle, 1999; 220), there was still the discipline, punctuality and obedience to be taught, which makes it look more like a military training:

I ran them and biked them and made them crawl through winter bog water. I went to their homes, in windows, over half-doors and dragged them out. I pulled them off bikes and women. I marched them through rivers, over mountains. I made them carry their bikes through the bogs. (…) I brought them near fun and death. We went on long bike rides with stones in our pockets and we often ran into the peelers in their black uniforms on moonless nights, cycled right into them, and the men came away blooded, happy and anonymous. And I took the Widowmaker from off my back one evening when there was enough of the day left for them all to witness me shooting the wheel out from under a peeler’s bike as he cycled past us on the road to Tulsk. I let them bring me to all the barracks, Scramoge, Roosky, Termonbarry, and I let them tell me what cover to use, which adjoining shop to burrow through, who were our friends along the street and who weren’t. I gathered them in guarded barns and lectured them on tactics and military precedent. I blinded them with the wisdom I’d lifted form Small Wars:

37 Burgess, M., Ferguson, N., Hollywood, I., ‘From Individual Discontent to Collective Armed Struggle: Personal Accounts of the Impetus for Membership or Non-membership in Paramilitary Groups’, Unpublished Draft (Liverpool: Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University College, 2003), quoted in Horgan, 2005, 80.

Their Principles and Practice. I gave them flanks and sorties and enfilades and they gave me the geography and we stayed the nights playing our own local chess on the floors of the barns. I knocked on the door of the local curate and I told him that the Sinn Féin people up in Dublin had told me that he’d be the right man to mind the money for the guns we had to buy. (Doyle, 1999; 225-226)

On the contrary, the striking level of cruelty is described with Ivan’s fast process. His process of gradual socialization seems anything but gradual, since he becomes abruptly drunk with power, sometimes showing signs of psychopathic behaviour:

“Ivan had become a big man in the parish, a man who might have killed a peeler, a man who had it in his power to leave any man dead in a ditch with a piece of paper pinned to his lapel: Killed as a spy by the IRA. Power had gone into Ivan’s soul. He had cut the hair off girls who’d been seen giving soldiers the eye, tied them to gates and railings, their hair cut with shears and a singeing machine. And he always kept a lock of the hair, to post to the victim weeks later. He’d gone further than that. He’d punch two pig rings into a young one’s ears, because she was a peeler’s niece and her boyfriend had refused to stop seeing her. He’d hang a donkey from a tree for delivering turf to Strokestown barracks. And he’d become a great man for letter writing. Unless you withdraw your services from the local peelers within three days of receiving this notice you will undergo the extreme penalty at the hands of the I.R.A. i.e. DEATH” (Doyle, 1999; 235).

His profile would fit Taylor and Quayle’s study of Loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland, who gathered the following comment from a terrorist leader: “‘there are very few obvious what do you call them… psychopaths…they’d stand out like a sore thumb and everyone would know them’”38. Ivan fits the description. His self- absorbed behaviour shows correspondence to pathological egocentricity which is usually found in psychopathic individuals. This, however, is incompatible with the required characteristics which the terrorist leaders usually look for in the possible candidates: “high motivation, discipline and an ability to remain reliable and task-focused in the face of stress, possible capture and imprisonment” (Horgan, 2005; 44).

38 M.Taylor and E.Quayle, Terrorist Lives (London: Brassey’s, 1994), quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 44.

Lessing depicts gradual socialisation in London in the beginning of the 1980s. The members of the Communist Centre Union (CCU) attend rallies and demonstrations, where they intentionally disturb the police and even try to get themselves arrested by demolishing government property, which epitomizes everything they hate. They were spraying graffiti slogans over railway bridges and visible walls.

There are two different case studies, one performed by Kellen, who studied the histories of German terrorists and the other by Taylor, who had discussions with Loyalist terrorists in Northern Ireland, which both came to similar conclusions, and, I dare insinuate, discovered the formula for becoming a terrorist. According to their research, the pattern a future terrorist takes is combined not only of gradual socialisation, which slowly but steadily increases into a committed involvement; there is also “a sense of increasing disillusionment with alternative avenues” which develops simultaneously with an increasing involvement in various activities, ranging from minor courier jobs, storing and distributing the propaganda material, spraying graffiti with propaganda message, storing weapons, leaving threatening messages on the phone or in homes or offices, to real actions such as kidnappings and killings, which then eventually reach a climax in becoming a terrorist (Horgan, 2005; 82). What exactly an “alternative avenue” is cannot really be identifiable, “but the perception of the person involved is real and tangible, and allows for this relative judgement to be made” (Horgan, 2005; 82).

Another fact discovered in interviews is that all individuals were involved in political action prior to joining the extremist group. For example, Ulrike Meier and Horst Mahler were both involved in community activism (though as we will explain further in Chapter V, Meier’s reasons for joining the group were different from Mahler’s) protesting against the building nuclear powerplants. Many PIRA members in Northern Ireland joined after being actively involved in the ranks of Sinn Fein and the process of initiation was described specifically by a PIRA veteran interviewed by White and Falkenberg White:

(…) well it—there’s progression, you know? When you would go in you wouldn’t be, you would be given less difficult tasks initially. And then just

as you become more experienced you would move along and somebody would come in behind you. And you know, and then somebody—people were probably getting arrested or interned or whatever, so there was that kind of progression along with military training until you were actively involved in operations… I suppose it took maybe six or seven months.39

A remarkably similar process has been recognized also in Spain with ETA members and in Italy with the former Red Brigades. The latter data provides us with another process, which has not been researched - a matter of personal choice. In several interviews, which Alison Jamieson had with Adriana Faranda, a path of individual’s choice came into perspective, as Faranda explains with her words:

Things are never quite as clear as that. Countless others lived in Rome at the same time as me: kids of my age who weren’t as involved as me, either in the political struggles or in the choices of the successive years. I suppose really it was the way I experienced the events of that time, my own personal stand-point on the problems, the crises, the hopes and the expectation that we had as well as what was happening outside which determined that particular path…there were lots of little steps which led to where I ended up…it wasn’t a major leap in the true sense of the word. It was just another stage…it was a choice. 40

Another feature pointed out by Horgan is the psychological baggage each individual must face with each role he takes. This is present in both, active services and inactive, the latter, we could say, being used as mental extortion. The psychological baggage in active roles (shootings, kidnappings and bombings) would “be limited as a result of security concerns” but there is also “a strong sense of psychological value by keeping opportunities for access to such a role limited” (Horgan, 2005, 86). Interviews by Hassan with Al Qassam (an armed wing of Hamas) members affirm, that keeping those accepted for martyrdom operations linger, actually builds a sense of individual disappointment, resulting in even greater desire to become the chosen one for the operation.

39 White, R.W., Falkenberg White, T., ‘Revolution in the City: On the Resources of Urban Guerrillas’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 3, 4 (1991), p. 100–132, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 85. 40 Jamieson, A., The Heart Attacked, (London: Marian Boyars, 1989), p. 266–267, quoted in Horgan, 2005, p. 84.

Despite all the reasons mentioned above, confirmed by the members from various terrorist groups, the question of why still remains. Why is it that only some in the group of many, who are exposed to the same conditions and experience the same triggers, undergo the same (mis)treatment, only few will decide to cross the line, make a life-time engagement and become a terrorist?

4.2.1 The role of the leader and group belonging

Another interesting feature that should not be dismissed is the relationship towards a leader and a group. It seems as though the powerful personalities the leaders (mostly) overtake and fill out the void left by the missing mother or father role. As it is revealed in Chapter V, where lives of individual members of terrorist groups are introduced, most of them come from distorted families with either one or both violent or missing parents, for example Ulrike Meinhof as well as Doyle’s protagonist, Henry Smart. This would lead to earlier mentioned ill-formed identity and make an individual more exposed to other influences.

What is interesting, however, is that there seem to be two types of leaders. The ‘James Connolly type’ (as I name it), an altruistic type, where the cause and the benefit of the people come first and the narcissistic type, where individual’s primer goals seems to be satisfying of his own ego and conformation of his (godly) greatness. The latter type can be recognised with Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK, Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan), who saw himself as a model of behaviour: “Everyone should take note of the way I live, what I do and I don’t do. The way I eat, the way I think, my orders and even my inactivity should be carefully studied. There will be lessons to be learned for several generations because Apo is a great teacher.”41 However arrogant this statement seems to be, the sort of behaviour seemed incredibly attractive to the weak and threatened, because they saw him as a strong and reliable leader. Furthermore, he represented somewhat of religious importance for them. As a 17-

41 Witschi, B., “Who Is Abdullah Ocalan?” CNN.com (1999). Retrieved on 10 October 2005 from www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/ocalan/stories/ocalan.profile, quoted in Post, 2007, p. 75.

60 year-old suicide bomber explained “The organization and its cause have replaced the sanctity of religion.”42 Another example is Vellupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of LTTE, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as the Tamil Tigers, who managed to escape several bombings and assassinations and consequently created an image of “almost sacred, godlike figure shielded from danger, immortal” (Post, 2007; 88). When asked to resign as a leader, due to some internal differences, he was faced with a competitor and had no support within the group, he declined, “demonstrating an overwhelming sense of wounded pride deriving from his exaggerated self-importance” (Post, 2007; 88). Many of his followers literally worshipped him, thought of him higher than their own god. Then there is Andreas Baader, “(...) a bully who liked to use his fists. He wanted to be a gang leader, and if a boy did not wish to follow Andy, he could expect a bloody nose”.43 A detailed description of Baader follows in Chapter V.

In the beginning of his book, Psychology of Terrorism, Chris Stout makes a reference to a document Combating Terrorism: Some Responses from the Behavioral Sciences (2002) written by Susan E. Brandon, a Senior Scientist, Science Directorate at the American Psychological Association, where she describes what sort of a person is most likely to become a leader of a terrorist group:

Usually they are right-wing authoritarians who also score highly not only on the RWA but also on the "Social Dominance Orientation Scale" (Pratto, 2001). Social dominators are highly prejudiced, power-hungry individuals with a strong drive to dominate others and with little moral restraint. They may be either reactionary or revolutionary; however, they gravitate to right- wing groups because members in these groups are gullible. Skilled social dominators present whatever image will bring them power, without necessarily believing in what they say they stand for. For example, they tend to agree that it is more important to look religious than to actually be such, and are likely to strongly believe in letting other people die for "the cause,"

42 Ergil, D., “Suicide Terrorism in Turkey,Civil Wars 3, no. 1 (2000): 51, quoted in Post, 2007, p. 77. 43 Becker, J., Hitler’s Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Terrorist Gang (New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1977), p. 74, quoted in Post, 2007, p. 125.

and profess their own willingness to do so too, but have little intention of actually letting that happen. (Altmeyer, 1998)44

The power James Connolly and his words had on the men is depicted when he is shot. The idea, that his grandness is vulnerable, even mortal, we might say, is incomprehensible to his followers. “The idea of Connolly even bleeding rattled us badly. He wasn’t just a man; he was all of us. We all needed him. He’d made us all believe in ourselves” (Doyle, 1999; 127). Doyle perfectly describes the force and influence a powerful leader has in a group. Not only does he represent or even substitutes a parental role; he is their sheer existence. He is the one who ignites the spark of essence. As if without him and his words, they cease to exist. Throughout the pages, Connolly addresses Henry as ‘a son’. He is also the one who taught him how to read and made him understand reading is just as important as bread and water. He builds up their identity and self-consciousness:

- Is there anyone better than you, Henry? - No, Mister Connolly. - That’s right. No one at all. Do you ever look in to your eyes, Henry? - No, Mister Connolly. - You should, son. There’s intelligence in there, I can see it sparkling. And creativity and anything else you want. They’re all in there. And my daughter tells me you’re a good-looking lad. Look into your eyes every morning, son. It’ll do you good (Doyle, 1999; 127).

Connolly made each and every man feel important, needed, entitled to what he was fighting for.

He’d fed me, given me clothes, he let me sleep in the Hall. He made me read. He let me know that he liked me. He explained why we were poor and why we didn’t have to be. He told me that I was right to be angry. He was always busy and distant but there was always a wink or a quick grin as he looked up from his work or passed me. He wanted me there. Paddy and Felix were the same, and the rest of the Citizen Army men. They’d all been made by Connolly and Larkin. They’d been told that they’d mattered, that things could be different. And should and would be different. That it was in our hands. We could change the world. That all we had to do

44 Stout, Chris E., Psychology of terrorism, (Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, 2004), p. 4-5.

was do it. We had time on our side, and the numbers, and God if we wanted Him and, most of all, ourselves. It was up to us (Doyle, 1999; 127).

The life of James Connolly is described in more detail in Chapter V.

We see a completely different situation in The Good Terrorist, where the group does not have a typical leader, they jointly bring decisions. On the first glimpse, it is Bert who is presented as the head of the house, though it soon seems they are under the authority of the next door house where the orders seem to be coming from. However, at times it appears it is Alice who is the head of the events, though the members soon realise that despite her genuine hatred against the system she is in possession of too many moral barriers.

If we return to this section opening point, group seems to be substitute for family. We have already stated in Chapter II that belonging to a group exceeds the cause of the fight and listed some possible reasons why group might play such an important part for an individual. The same case is with the characters in our books: we could say that Henry Smart is an abandoned child since he is brought up by the street and himself; Andreas Baader had no father figure and was brought up in a permissive environment; Ulrike Meinhoff lost both of her parents in her childhood. It is not clearly specified, what the case with Alice Mellings is, but we see the relationship with both, mother and father, is unhealthy. We learn little of her childhood except for the fact she does bear a great resentment towards both of her parents, especially her father for leaving and creating a new family. The only one who fails this predisposition, as I will further show in Chapter V, is Gudrun Ensslin.

4.3 Sociology

In June 2003 a conference was held in Oslo, where similarities in terrorism circumstances were addressed. The attendees came to a conclusion that there are

63 several ‘root causes’ which are “routinely associated with leading to the emergence of terrorism:

• lack of democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law • failed or weak states • rapid modernization • extremist ideologies of a secular or religious nature • historical antecedents of political violence, civil wars, revolutions, dictatorships or occupation • hegemony and inequality of power • illegitimate or corrupt governments • powerful external actors upholding illegitimate governments • repression by foreign occupation or by colonial powers • the experience of discrimination on the basis of ethnic or religious origins • failure or unwillingness by the state to integrate dissident groups or emerging social classes • the experience of social injustice • the presence of charismatic ideological leaders • triggering events” (Horgan, 2005; 72).

Horgan rejects the idea of rooting terrorism to poverty or civil strife alone and presents the fact that terrorism “can technically come from anywhere and anyone” (Horgan, 2005; 73).

There has been a frequent assumption which relates terrorism to an “existence of a ‘catalyst’ event for involvement”, suggesting that there is a triggering event which plays as a key factor and leads an individual to terrorism (Horgan, 2005; 75). A senior member of PIRA who was interviewed by Horgan described an incident which presented a crucial moment:

Well, I suppose really, our understanding of conflict, or our politicisation, is something that grows and it continues to grow throughout our lives. And I know it varies, of course, but for me anyway, the sight of the B Specials [a paramilitary reserve police force in Northern Ireland] and the RUC [Royal Ulster Constabulary, the police service of Northern Ireland] beating

nationalist people off the street in Derry was a big factor in joining the Republican movement. When I started going to Republican marches, things like that sort of, awakened some kinds of a commitment I think, within my conscience. It certainly was later a commitment I would be prepared to pursue at that stage. So it took a while, but yes, I became involved then as a republican, ah, activist. To me, terrorist is a dirty word, and I certainly don’t…nor have I ever considered myself to be one, but ah, I remain an activist to this day. But that said, I always felt that the initial emotional thing, sort of developed into a greater understanding of what struggle is all about. And also, the fact, that I wouldn’t be as emotionally responsive now as I would have been back then…it’s deepened now, if you know wh-, if you understand me. I think it’s something that’s still developing I’d say even today (Horgan, 2005; 74-75).

Such events hold great personal significance, and can result from either personal victimization, i.e. direct victimisation of an individual or one of his family members or it can be a distant victimisation, such as the one described above. The mutual ‘real factor’ seems to be “a sense of communal identification with those victimized, and often an unwavering, confident dedication to the preservation and importance of the memory of the particular event itself” (Horgan, 2005; 76). But, as we have already asked ourselves, instead of trying to identify where the trigger lies, it might perhaps be more useful to investigate how and why (only) certain people are individually affected and process those traumatic events as a catalyst.

“The experience of social injustice” together with “historical antecedents of political violence, civil wars, revolutions, dictatorships or occupation” is clearly evident in Posts description of Omar Rezaq and Leila Khaled:

When one has been nursed on the mother’s milk of hatred and bitterness, the need for vengeance is bred in the bone. In ethnic/nationalist conflicts, hatred has been transmitted generationally, and the psycho politics of hatred are deeply rooted. The generational transmission of Palestinian hatred exemplified by the lives of terrorists Omar Rezaq and Leila Khaled, the deep-seated hatred reflected in the interviews of secular Palestinian terrorists, all inspired by the model of Yasser Arafat, argue for continuation of Palestinian/Israeli hatred and perpetuation of the violent struggle (Post, 2007; 37).

The present void in identity is filled with success in actions, which probably justifies their deeds. Rezaq himself stated “I started dreaming that one day we will have a country, have an identity, [and be] our own citizens” (Post, 2007; 19).

A similar situation combined with repression not by foreign nor colonial powers, but home country can be seen in Kurdish identification in Ocallan’s 1998 cease- fire declaration:

On the one hand, you say that the Kurds are as much owners of these lands as the Turks, that all their national and social rights will be recognized; on the other hand, even our name is denied. This is what led to the violence. We are surely the side that should be least responsible. We wanted our identity. We wanted our democracy. We wanted our culture. Can anybody live without culture? Can anybody live without democracy? What do you expect us to do after even our name has been denied? —Abdullah Ocalan, founder of the PKK, in his 1998 cease-fire declaration45

What Kurds have been facing is an ethnical cleansing. The Turks have robbed them not only from of their land, but also of their language, their culture, their identity.

We can find these ‘root causes’ in fiction discussed in this thesis. Doyle, for example embodies history of political violence, occupation and repression, lack of democracy, inequality, discrimination based on national and religious reasons, and social injustice, deprived from decent living. Sixty years later and geographically nearby, Lessing encompasses rapid modernisation, hegemony of one political party, a strong presence of social injustice, high unemployment, closely followed by unwillingness of the state to integrate dissident groups, and political conflicts. In Baader-Meinhof’s Germany there is a strong political conflict, sort of post war extended era, major gap between the left and the right politics, there is poor economy and lack of jobs for graduated youth who still carry the resentment for their fathers and grandfathers and anything connected to the Nazi Germany, the justicial youth on their moral march.

45 Post, 2007; p. 67.

5 THE MIND OF A TERRORIST

5.1 Nationalist-Separatist Terrorism

Nationalist-separatist terrorism carries on the cause of parents (in the case if the IRA even grandparents and great-grandparents) for it can be traceable all the way back to the 11th Century. The hatred in a part of their identity; as Post quotes several times in his book, it is “bred in the bone” (Post, 2007; 8). Nationalist- separatist terrorists spent their entire childhood listening to “their parents complaining of the lands stolen from them”, family members being tortured or killed, their national or ethnical identity being taken away from them (Post, 2007; 8). They are oppressed by another group, a state and/or its regime in most cases, which had been dehumanizing them culturally, historically, in the aspect of language and identity for decades, in case of the Irish for centuries, so they fought back with dehumanisation. The stronger the oppression was, the stronger the identity of the terrorist group grew. Nationalist-separatists widely used Marxist- Leninist rhetoric due to its usefulness with their poor economic status. Their primary goal, however, was a separate state, social and economic justice and independence. They had a full support by their social environment, in some interviews the terrorists even stated, they gained a special status in their society and acknowledgeable level of respect, as stated by a young Palestinian terrorist: “After recruitment, my social status was greatly enhanced. I got a lot of respect from my acquaintances, and from the young people in the village” (Post, 2007; 27).

Another interesting point is that nationalist-separatists’ heroic leaders “were not of charismatic stature”, as I will later show in the case with social revolutionist terrorists (Post, 2007; 12). They were the “bearers of the culture” with “no legitimate voice in the political discourse” so they used violence as means of

67 communication in order to gain international attention (Post, 2007, 12). Majority of them joined groups in their mid- or late teens, which are crucial years for the formation of personal identity. This is also the reason for lack of education, because most of them left public schools. However, they were often imprisoned together with their followers, which even “intensified their commitment to the cause” and it was the prison which offered further education, “served as postgraduate education in terrorism”, especially in political philosophy of Marx and Lenin (Post, 2007; 13).

In their early youth they were often exposed to violent acts of their oppressors, watching their own people being tortured, mutilated and killed, all this enhanced the hatred they had been exposed to from their early days on.

Irish Republican Army (IRA)

The origins of the struggle between the British and the Irish can be dated back to 12th Century. The roots or the IRA date back to 19th Century, when the nationalists demanded Home Rule, the central importance in the fight for independence. The Protestant minority inhabiting the Northern Ireland, which was separated back in 1607, was in fear of Catholic dominance. The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was formed by the Unionists, in case the domain of Home Rule would be excluded. A minority of Irish Republican Brotherhood, which was formed after the Protestant Rebellion in 1850, was dissatisfied with Home Rule alone and wanted a complete independence from Britain. They called themselves the Irish Republican Army, where in their name alone they “revealed its members’ militancy and their belief that only violence could achieve their separatist goals” (Post, 2007; 40).

A Rebellion was planned on Easter Sunday 1916 and prior to that the founding document of the IRA, the Proclamation of the Republic, was issued:

POBLACHT NA H EIREANN THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT of the IRISH REPUBLIC TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND

IRISHMEN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom. Having organized and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organization, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, ... having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and ... she strikes in full confidence of victory. We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. We hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations. The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. ... Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National Government, the Provisional Government, ... will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people. We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God, Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity, or rapine. In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.

A key figure in the IRA was James Connolly. Originating from a poor family, he joined the British Army at the age of 14 years old, where he remained for 7 years. During his service, all of which took place in Ireland, “he witnessed first hand the mistreatment of the Irish people by the British, which led to an intense hatred of the British Army” (Post, 2007; 41). It was this hatred that represented the drive in fighting for the Irish cause. Though he was one of the few without the university education, Connolly was “a self-taught intellectual” and “became a prominent voice in European socialism” (Post, 2007; 41). Joseph O’Toole, the future Labour

Member of Parliament said that “Connolly was one of the most convincing speakers I ever heard in my life, a man with a great passion for the cause of the laboring classes, and probably a greater passion for the cause of Ireland.”46 Connolly was living and breathing Ireland. During his life, he published 6 books, founded many organisations (The Irish Socialist Republican Party in 1896), co- founded the Irish Citizen Army, which later merged with the Irish Republican Brotherhood on the Easter Rising. He was also the first person who used a hunger strike as an act of protest against the unfair treatment of the Irish Republicans in the British prisons, which was later an adopted method of the IRA prisoners.

The Easter Rising in 1916 “enshrined Connolly’s name in the pantheon of Irish heroes” (Post, 2007; 42). After occupying the General Post Office in Dublin and publicly reading the Proclamation of the Republic, it did not take long for the British forces to gain control over the uprising and capture the leaders. What followed was an exhibition of power and control, displayed through rising fear and use of public announcement, similar to present day media reporting. All captured men were sentenced to death and each day the British shot two or three, extending it through weeks. Each death was accompanied by the news in the papers. Was this not an act of state terrorism? The prime goal certainly was to punish the rebels, but there was the other message displayed to the rest of Irish population. It was the means of teaching them a lesson, and the means was through fear and terror. “And even though it was British policy not to execute a wounded man”, a person shot next to last was a disabled man, “basically a cripple” (Post, 2007; 43). Furthermore, Connolly, who was shot last, was badly wounded, “his leg was gangrenous and he couldn’t stand”, so they tied him on a chair.47 He was shot “the day after the British House of Commons promised there would be no more executions” (Post, 2007; 43). Was this execution not an act of terrorism? Were the British forces not terrorists?

46 Greaves,C. Desmond, The Life and Times of James Connolly (New York:International Publishers, 1961), p. 135, quoted in Post, p. 42. 47 English, Richard, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 6, quoted in Post, p. 43.

In the following years there was a growth of Republican activities, leading to the creation of Sinn Fein (‘our selves’), a political wing of the IRA, which came up as the second biggest party at the general elections in August, 1923, after the Civil War ended. However, Sinn Fein rejected any collaboration with the parliament, thus rejecting the recognition of the Irish Free State. The IRA was growing stronger.

What is interesting is the IRA’s strategy with recruitment of new members. These boys and girls, in their mid- or late teens were all from families, where hatred was bred in their bones, as Post repeatedly writes. As in Joe Cahill’s family, his mother made sure “to instill in her family a sense of Irishness and a love of all things Irish”48 and to retell the story of the Easter Rising throughout his childhood. Still, becoming a member was not an easy task as it was described by Joe Cahill, a significant IRA member, who later, in 1969, established the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA):

“You had to go through these classes in history, political awareness and security. It was a long process, because you had to do examinations. You were told what lay before you, what you could expect—membership in the IRA could mean being on the run, imprisonment or death. They asked you to think about all these things. They actually painted a very black picture of what could happen to you.”49

5.2 Social Revolutionary Terrorism

In contrast to nationalist-separatists, whose messages were based on Marx and Lenin, the social revolutionary terrorism rose from the so-called New Left, though “the core issues were cloaked in Marxist- Leninist rhetoric” (Post, 2007; 101). For

48 Anderson, Brendan, Joe Cahill: A Life in the IRA (Dublin: The O’Brien Press, 2004), p. 17, quoted in Post, p. 44. 49 Anderson, Brendan, Joe Cahill: A Life in the IRA (Dublin: The O’Brien Press, 2004), p. 23-24, quoted in Post, p. 45.

71 them, just like nationalist-separatists, action was propaganda, violence means of communication.

This was the time of the post-World War II baby boom generation in Germany. Seeking a better life for themselves than their parents’, the youth massively enrolled universities and consequently had to face the system, which was unprepared for such high numbers of students as well as the employment market, which could not meet the demand of workers with degree. There were students, idealistic youth seeking justice, present at movements and protests in Europe and the USA, demonstrating for their struggle against social injustice. There was high influence of television and the antimilitaristic protests against the US staged war in Vietnam. “It was a time of widespread social protest, of youth decrying the wide exploitation of the Third World and the disadvantaged in their midst by corrupt capitalist leaders” (Post, 2007; 102).

At first, it was only about the legitimate political protests. Soon the ones, who believed there was no result or effect in peaceful protests and no goals were reached, came forth and formed separate groups, whose leading principle was that only violence can awake the masses. These groups became the grounds for the violent revolutionary groups such as Red Army Faction, known as Baader- Meinhof group in Germany, the Japanese Red Army, the Red Brigades in Italy, Direct Action in France, the Combatant Communist Cells in Belgium, Dev Sol in Turkey, First of October Anti-Fascist Groups in Spain, Popular Forces 25 April in Portugal, and Revolutionary Organization of 17 November in Greece.

All these groups found their ideological guidance in Marxism-Leninism and were faithful to similar ideologies, identified by terrorist scholar Dennis Pluchinsky, which included believes as capitalism being “the root cause of all the problems of the proletariat”; that capitalism “can only be displaced by force”; that “traditional communist parties have forfeited their right to represent the proletariat”, and “the fighting communist organisations are forced to fill the revolutionary void left by the traditional communist parties” (Post, 2005; 104-105). There also is an indisputable instruction for their fight:

The revolutionary armed struggle consists of two phases. The first phase would be the armed propaganda phase, with three components: a revolutionary strategy, a fighting communist organization, and initiation of armed combat. The second and final phase is the revolutionary civil war. The “armed propaganda” phase reflects the anarchist “propaganda by the deed” concept (Post, 2007; 103).

All these social revolutionary terrorist organisations had mutual characteristics: they were operating in secrecy; they were willing to carry out lethal attacks; they were committed to Marxist-Leninist ideology; they had an urban operating environment; they had “cellular, compartmentalized organizational structure and democratic centralism in decision making” (Post, 2007; 103). They all idealised Latin American guerrilla armies and transformed their tactics into urban environment. Another interesting stand point for the European fighting communist organizations is that, though high in their ideologies, they were lacking “intellectual justification and had an increasing recruitment of work-class members and criminals over the generations” (Post, 2007; 103).

The Red Army Faction (RAF)

In the late 1960s a New Left movement emerged in Germany, believing that the current government was fascist, corrupt and needed to be replaced by Marxist- Leninist communism. Parallel to that was the rise of the student movement, born from the loath of many young Germans towards the Nazism and its sins in the past, for some of the Nazi ideals were still present in the older generation, which even then had position in political, economic and social environment. There is an interesting point of view represented by Jillian Becker (co-founder of the Institute for the Study of Terrorism) in her book Hitler’s Children. The hyperinflation that wrecked the German economy in 1923, lead to the rise of Hitler’s leadership and the power of the Nazis. The generation, who after World War I either grew up without their fathers or they were incapable of providing for their families, “was attracted to the promised strength of Hitler’s leadership and became the Hitler youth cadre” (Post, 2007; 121). What Becker suggests is that a generation later,

73 their children were disgusted by their fathers who were leaders or members of the Nazi movement and were “rebelling against the generation of their parents that was loyal to the regime” (Post, 2007; 121).

At the center of the students’ protest was, first of all, the emergency law imposed and enforced exclusively by the Great Coalition, the still unassimilated Nazi past, the abuses arising from life in a consumer society, the concentration of the press, the hierarchical-authoritarian structure of the universities and, last but not least, the American involvement in Vietnam.50

Until 1967 it was all about peaceful demonstrations but that changed when the Iranian Shah visited West Berlin on 2nd June 1967. Many protests took place, leading to a riot on that evening at the Berlin Opera House. This evening is marked as the start of the radicalized movement in Germany. According to Post, it is not clear who exactly gave the initiative for use of force. “But the police did charge, stones and other things were hurled, staves were wielded, batons were swung, arrests were made. Many tried to escape, but there were the police blocking them off, using a prepared and rehearsed ‘liver-sausage’ tactic—seal both ends and attack them as they burst out of the center.”51Aust, however, reports a different story:

The demonstrators slowly retreated, planning to disperse to nearby bars and reassemble at 10 p.m. to see the Shah off after the end of the opera. Suddenly a number of ambulances drove up, fourteen in all. The police officers who had stationed themselves in a line in front of the demonstrators took out their truncheons. Some onlookers tried to get away over the barriers, but were driven back. Then the police attacked, wielding their truncheons without giving the usual warning first. Many demonstrators collapsed, covered with blood. A young house-wife fell full length in the road under the blows, was carried out of the hurly- burly by policemen, and found her picture in the paper next day, with a caption to the effect that brave police officers had saved her from a shower

50 Wasmund, Klaus, »The Political Socialization of West German Terrorists«, in Political Violence and Terror, ed. Peter Merkl (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986), p. 194, quoted in Post, 2007, p. 122. 51 Becker, Jillian, Hitler’s Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Terrorist Gang (New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1977), p. 39, quoted in Post, 2007, p.122.

of stones flung by inhuman demonstrators. Within a few minutes ambulances were full. Demonstrators ran away in panic – if the police would let them (Aust, 2008; 26)

This event took the first life; unarmed, running away from the police was a 26- year-old student Benno Ohnesorg, married and with a child on the way. It was his first political demonstration and he was shot in the back of his head by a police sergeant, Karl-Heinz Kurras. According to Aust’s gathered eyewitness information, the shooting was unnecessary, it seemed rather intent. The fact that Kurras was later found not guilty on the charges further stirred the already shocked student culture. Ohnesorg became a martyr as the first victim of a political murder. The combination of his murder, flagrant police behaviour, that failure of the state and judicial system to bring justice to the cause and protect its citizens led the radicalized generation to a belief that “the only way to fight violence was with violence” (Post, 2007; 122). They dehumanized the enemy in order to free themselves from any restraints. “Peter Merkl, a leading U.S. expert on West German politics and terrorism, states that the ‘sociopathic streak that dehumanizes all law-enforcement and military personnel as well as targeted politicians and bureaucrats, perceiving them as creatures that deserve to be killed, is also common to the sympathizer literature’”(Post, 2007; 123). An as Ulrike Meinhof declared, “We say the guy in uniform is a pig, he is not a human being, and we have to tackle him from his point of view. ... It is wrong to talk to these people at all and of course the use of guns is allowed.”52 The second event which radicalized the youth population nearly a year later, April 11th 1968, was the assassination attempt on the SDS leader Rudi Dutschke. This was no longer an imagined hurt since the system struck them directly and it was time to strike back. In their publication Build Up the Red Army, the student movement declared itself as the “bearers of the contemporary conscience”.53 The third event which led even more participants to join the RAF was the hunger strike death of Holger Meins in 1974, one of the RAF’s principal leaders. Avenging his death, members of the 2nd of June Movement, which was only loosely tied to the RAF, “murdered the

52 Wasmund, “Political Socialization of West German Terrorists,” p. 215, quoted in Post, p. 123. 53“Build up the Red Army! Manifesto for Armed Action” Berlin 1970, http://home.att.net/~rw.rynerson/rafgrund.htm, quoted in Post, p. 128.

75 president of German’s Superior Court, Gunter von Drenkmann, who had never tried any of the Baader-Meinhof Gang” (Post, 2007; 128).

The ideological foundation for the Red Army Faction was set by the Baader- Meinhof Gang, the name assigned by the media, which grew out of the left-wing student movement. They strongly opposed the system, capitalism and saw the only possible way to destroy the system in violence. The principal leaders and founders of the group were Andreas Baader, Gudrun Ensslin, Ulrike Meinhof and Jan-Carl Raspe. For better understanding of the group, the background and personality profile of the founding members is important.

Andreas Baader was brought up entirely by women, completely missing a male role model in his life. “Andreas did poorly in school, yet his mother and other female relatives doted on him” (Post, 2007; 125). A valuable clue depicting the mother-child relationship (signs of Oedipal complex, psychodynamic account basis) is the fact she decided to blame schools and educational system being unable to provide a sufficient environment to develop her son’s hidden intellectual potential. “He was a bully who liked to use his fists. He wanted to be a gang leader, and if a boy did not wish to follow Andy, he could expect a bloody nose.“54 He was a spoilt child, with no reference to consequences of the wrongdoings of his actions, a narcissist with a grand ego. He never finished high school which made him one of the few RAF members who never attended university. The genuineness of his revolutionary ideals can be questioned due to the fact, that his rebel stems from what resembles little boy sulking over toys others have. His perception of the society was based on him being unemployed with no money while observing others “less worthy [were] driving around in big, fast, expensive cars (which he too would later do). It sickened him; the rat race, the consumer society, the social injustice” (Post, 2007; 125). He lacked intellect and any perspective on Marxist-Leninist ideology, however what he “did have in excess was allure and charm” which made him desirable by the female companions; on the other hand, the combination of his personality traits seemed perfect to meet Ulrike Meinhof’s emotional void (Post, 2007; 125). It is

54 Becker, Jillian, Hitler’s Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Terrorist Gang (New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1977), p. 39, quoted in Post, 2007, p.125.

76 interesting how the PFLP members (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) had profiled him during the RAF’s training in Jordan in June 1970. He was seen as “a coward who is performing the whole revolt to cover up his cowardice. We wouldn’t even take him on a patrol.”55

Ulrike Meinhof was born to a substantial and intellectual family. Her father, coming from a bourgeois religious family and “later earned a doctorate”, died of cancer when Ulrike was only 6 years old. Her mother was born to “a mildly socialist, nonreligious family and also earned a doctorate later in life”; she also died of cancer when Ulrike was just 14 (Post, 2007; 126). Ulrike and her sister were orphaned; however, a close family friend, Renate Riemeck, had stepped in when her father perished and took the girls in care. Renate and Ingmar, Ulrike’s mother, became friends at university, “sharing a mutual dislike of Hitler” (Post, 2007; 126). Marked by the loss of both parents, Meinhof was seeking out groups in order to substitute the emotional void for belonging and being important. She was considered intelligent and kind; however she was lacking her own opinion, her own standpoint, very likely resulting early parental loss. She was perceptive to adopting other adults’ opinions, especially those whom “she was emotionally dependent”, she “never truly learned the art of independent critical thinking” (Post, 2007; 126). With Renate’s words, “She always needed someone stronger than herself to back her up. She was an intelligent child, and her character was good, but she always reflected her environment” (Post, 2007;126).

At university she paid hardly any attention to politics, did not participate in any political movements and her stands were “general acceptance of vague leftist sympathies, tinged with sentimental preference for Eastern Europe with its austerity, idealism, and suffering, and a particular opposition to the atom bomb” (Post, 2007; 126). This changed when she met her future husband, Klaus Rohl, in 1957 – she found somebody to reflect. The passion she felt for him was equal to the passion she felt for communism. Earlier in the year her twin daughters were born (1962) she was protesting against the atom bomb and German’s rearmament and her ideals were still pacifistic: “One does not change the world by shooting,”

55 Becker, Jillian, Hitler’s Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Terrorist Gang (New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1977),p. 180, quoted in Post, p. 128.

77 she wrote. “One destroys it. One accomplishes more by negotiating, avoiding destruction” (Post, 2007; 127). In five years’ time, when she left her husband, her tone had drastically changed which can be considered as a consequence of spending more time with the radical left. She openly praised lawbreaking for its own sake and saw the solution for “society’s troubles in ‘rebellion, resistance, overthrow, breakup, and violence’” (Post, 2007; 127).

Jan-Carl Jaspe was, like Baader, brought up by women after losing his father just before being born. He was described as a gentle child, who loved animals, struggled communication and detested violence –complete opposite to Baader. He lived in the eastern sector of Berlin but attended school in western sector. The night before the Berlin wall was raised, he was staying at his uncle's house in the western sector. For reasons unknown, he chose not to return home. His emotional involvement with student actions began in the late 1960s. Benno Ohnesorg’s death was a “plain murder” to him and after the incident he became politically active (Post, 2007; 127).

The only real fighter in the groups of the four founding members seems to be Gudrun Ensslin. She grew up in a politically aware family, where broadmindedness in social, political and international affairs was desired and encouraged, especially by her father. “He was against unquestioned obedience to authority, against German rearmament, and for reunification with East Germany. Politics were always discussed in the household, so Ensslin grew up with a keen awareness of world issues.” (Post, 2007; 124) She studied in the USA when she was 18 and was appalled by the political naivety. After returning to Germany, she continued her studies as an excellent student. There she met her future husband, Bernward Vesper, who introduced her to political activity. Vesper’s reasons for political activity support Becker’s theory of post-Nazi children, i.e. children fighting against their parents who supported the system. Together, Ensslin and Vesper started a small publishing house and became involved in antinuclear demonstrations. In 1967 they got married and had a son, who they used to bring to the demonstrations in a baby carriage. Ensslin too was deeply upset with the Benno Ohnesorg’s killing. It “fundamentally altered her perspective on the world.

‘Now that I have experienced reality, I cannot be a pacifist any longer.’” Therefore, it represented the turning point (Post, 2007; 125). The more involved she became, the higher was the need for violence and her motherhood was holding her back so a year after having her child, in January 1986, she decided to leave her baby and husband. She became fully immersed with the RAF and started collaborating with Baader who she met in summer 1967 and became romantically involved with.

Moving away from the individuals, let us take an insight into the group psychology of the RAF. According to the data gathered by a research project in 1979, which was supported by the Federal Ministry of Domestic Affairs and analysed 227 lives of leftist terrorists, the majority came from the upper-middle class and their educational background was above average. However, only 35% of them had a full-time-job when they joined the group. This probably influenced and supported the belief in social inequality and failure of domestic politics in order to provide its citizens, the generation of the future with a decent living. The second mutual characteristic was the domestic background. The majority came from broken homes or they had troubled and “unloving relationships with their fathers” (Post, 2007; 129). Before joining the group, the members broke all personal ties, which also happened with Ensslin and Meinhof, who both abandoned their husbands and children. Abandoning one’s parents is understandable, especially in the rebellious adolescent years. But a mother abandoning her child, being able to cut this strong emotional and psychological tie, for the sake of a group makes one wonder what was it that provided equal satisfaction to fill the void or even surpass the primal instinct (most) mothers share? The group provided “solidarity and security”, something this youth apparently lacked it their own homes.

My first political group made as many demands on me as I made demands on it. I ... was treated there like a comrade among comrades and I felt like that. Every time I was addressed as comrade I was mighty proud of that. ... It was the pride of being acknowledged and accepted as one of many. Of equal value. ...solidarity, of sticking together, love and respect without

competition and its anxieties. Help... even for the weakest member of the group. ... That really was a fantastic experience for me.56

The group was the substitute for the family they never had or they wanted to have. In this case we must understand that these were emotionally damaged, love and recognition hungry individuals who finally got the chance to be. Their existence was acknowledged, their opinion appreciated, they were somebody valued. Nevertheless, the cost of all came at a high price. Besides the obvious consequences of illegal actions there was also “the problem of pressure from within the group”. (Post, 13) Explained with the words of a member of the later generations:

Of course, the pressure of permanent persecution influences the group. All the relationships of the people in the group are eclipsed by this pressure which finally becomes the only connecting link that holds the group together. They call it the ‘dialectics of persecution’ and believe that it strengthens the unity of the group. ... But in reality an extreme tension develops, which erupts in quarrels, the forming of cliques, and sneering remarks to one another.57

By choosing the life underground, one completely isolates himself from the world. By immersing oneself with the group, one becomes what one believes is a vital part of the group, therefore one loses one’s own identity, which is “compensated for by the demonstration of the collective strength. The political socialization of terrorists—as a process of permanent self-indoctrination by the group—finally leads to a total loss of reality and a complete miscalculation of the political and social environment.”58

There is, however, a contradiction: though one of their main ideologies was fighting against authority, the RAF leadership was extremely authoritarian. The ideology was simple: either you are with us or you are against us. There are only two classes of people: those who are against the system and are fighting for a

56 Wasmund, “Political Socialization of West German Terrorists,” p.205, quoted in Post, p.130. 57 Wasmund, p. 218, quoted in Post, p.130. 58 Wasmund, p. 214, quoted in Post, p.130.

80 greater cause. i.e. the RAF members; and those who support the current system, the capitalist consumers and they are the enemy and deserve to die. Simple as that, black and white.

6 CONCLUSION

What has become clear is that there are no exceptional psychological traits, no signs of any psychopathology in terrorist behaviour. What is certain, we are dealing with damaged individuals. There is no psychological profile of a terrorist because, under the right circumstances, it could have been anyone of us. “The outstanding common characteristic of terrorists is their normality”59, says Crenshaw; they are just ordinary people who, perhaps like their victims, happen to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time, under the wrong leader or wrong regime. Although the reasons and backgrounds of terrorism are different, the lack of basic needs for typical mental development seems to cause similar effects.

However, though they appear ‘normal’ and despite belonging to various terrorist groups fighting for various reasons, they do seem to share some mutual characteristics. They all show signs of narcissistic behaviour which has been connected to high stress tolerance. There are only rare exceptions, but the majority had experienced childhood trauma. Living on the verge of survival must leave some consequences on human mentality. The trauma also supports most widely acknowledged frustration-aggression hypothesis and could perhaps explain why only certain individuals in the same situation choose to become terrorists. Being exposed to FAH, also known as ‘fight or flight’ situation, some individuals choose former, the other latter. Psychodynamic hypothesis suggests the loss of identity and leads to seeking for a substitute. Apart from childhood trauma connected to violence, deprivation or neglect, there is also a fact of one or both missing parents, and also influences individual’s identity. In most cases this has been done by joining a group, which overtakes the missing parental role together with a powerful leader, and starts to play a major role in their lives. Another mutual characteristic is that they were politically active; joining the group might be the next step in their mission. The question occurs: are terrorists (before becoming

59 Crenshaw, M., “The Cause of Terrorism”, quoted in Post, 2007, p. 3.

82 one) seriously hurt and damaged individuals on a rampage for any group that would accept them, made them feel accepted and important, needed and appreciated?

Through literature we are able to view a subjective perspective of an individual pushed through the limit of what we believe is morally unjustifiable. An emotional effect is passed through also by biographical stories of some terrorists, their family members or supporters. These may awake our empathy and bring more understanding. However, in order to judge and differentiate between right from wrong, our perspective needs to be objective. Suppose we allow the idea of rationalizing certain circumstances which would justify the use of violence? How can we define them? What would be the scale for their severity and when would material damage stop to suffice and the price of human life would overtake? How could we justify killing, if at all?

It is hypocritical to judge terrorists when violence is tolerated in everyday life. There are extreme inhumane ways allowed in animal treatment; it is used in domestic environment against women and children; it is used in wars and combats. We are exposed to media reporting good fighting evil, but they seem to forget to reflect both sides of the story. In most cases the ‘evil’ side is using the only means left to protect and preserve itself. We must take into account media bias. Terrorists genuinely believe that their fight is justified. We witness the change in realisation of situation with Henry and the inner change of principles when he realises the outcome of the war:

“There was no pretending now. Everything I’ve done, every bullet and assassination, all the blood and brains, prison, the torture, the last four years and everything in them, everything had been done for Ivan and the other Ivans, the boys whose time had come. That was Irish freedom since Connolly had been shot – and if the British hadn’t shot him, one of the Ivans would have; Connolly would have been safely dead long before now, one of the martyrs, dangerous alive, more useful washed and dead” (Doyle, 2005;317-318).

Taking all the perspectives into account, it could suggest that terrorists have their own moral perception and from the subjective perspective, in their world their deeds are justified. They are convinced in the wrongdoing of the oppressor and in righteousness of their actions. The moment Henry realises how the situation in Ireland has changed and the cause of fighting for freedom has changed for the sake of personal interest, he sees no sense in continuing. He expresses clear remorse for all things he has done.

As Kellen and Taylor note, the process of gradual radicalization together with increasing involvement plays a crucial role in becoming a terrorist. Judging act or character separately seems difficult since they seem to go hand in hand. Act itself cannot be conducted without proper character and vice versa; it takes specific character traits to be able to conduct violent acts. Formosa has argued, persuasively, that there are situations which induce evil deeds and therefore their acts seem completely justified to terrorists. Though it has been shown that there are certain personality and character pre-dispositions, which are more likely to take the path of terrorism, there is no clear profile, no list of characteristics we could check out while profiling an individual in order to tag him or her as a future potential risk for the society. Though there are situations, ranging from individual’s psychology to social psychology and society, which very likely set ground for that something to switch off in a person to decide to take a step further, again there is no list to be ticked off in order to help us find and prevent acts of terror.

WORKS CITED

BOOKS

[1] Aust, Stefan, The Baader-Meinhof Complex, The Bodley Head, London 2008. [2] Doyle, Roddy, A Star Called Henry, Vintage, London 2005. [3] Hoppen, K. Theodore, Ireland since 1800, Conflict and Conformity. Addison Wesley Longman Inc., New York 1989. [4] Horgan, John, The Psychology of Terrorism, Routledge and imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, 2005. [5] Hudson, Rex A., The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Washington D.C. 1999. [6] Lessing, Doris, The Good Terrorist, HarperCollins Publishers, London 2013. [7] Nussbaum, Martha (1990). Love’s Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press [8] Stout, Chris, Psychology of Terrorism, Praeger Publishers, Westport 2004. [9] Post, Jerrold M., The Mind of the Terrorist, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2007. [10] Primoratz, Igor (Ed.), Terrorism, The Philosophical Issues, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

ARTICLES

[1] Coady, Tony (2004). Defining terrorism. In: Primoratz (ed.)(2004); 3-14. [2] Formosa, Paul (2007), Understanding Evil Acts, Human Studies, 30/2; 57-77. [3] Hutton, Will, Thatcher’s Half-Revolution, The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol.11, No. 4 (Autumn, 1987), p 123-134. [4] Primoratz, Igor (2004). What is terrorism? In: Primoratz (ed.)(2004); 15-30. [5] Simpson, Peter (2004). Violence and Terrorism in Northern Ireland. In: Primoratz (ed.) (2004); 161-174.

LINKS

[1] Cumann na mBan (n.d.). Acquired 18.2.2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/easterrising/profiles/po13.shtml [2] Fine, M. (25.9.2009): Interview: Stefan Aust on the ‘Baader-Meinhof Complex’. Huffpost Entertainment. Acquired 07.04.2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marshall-fine/interview-stefan-aust- on_b_267944.html [3] Governor: drug cartel faction killed new mayor to protest Mexican police plan. Acquired 23.3.2016, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/04/mexico-new-mayor-killed- drug-group-rojos-morelos [4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral