DISINHIBITION AND TERRORISM A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science in the University of Canterbury by Amanda V. Cliff University of Canterbury 2006 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Tanya Ogilvie-White for her enthusiasm, support and vision in overseeing the production of this work. Her supervision in writing this thesis provided me with the necessary amount of motivation and self-belief to finish. I would also like to thank Dr. Matt Hirshberg, who supervised the first year of this thesis, for his encouragement, support and valuable advice in the areas of theoretical analysis and academic writing. In addition, I would also like to very much thank Dr. Richard Farmer, my second supervisor, whose interest, comments, and perspective on this thesis allowed me to gain an enormous amount of insight into the topic and helped me to address different angles of the problem I was researching. As many other political science postgraduate students have acknowledged, it is Jill Dolby who really keeps the department in order, and without her help, patience, and kindness, it would have been much more difficult for me to have completed my research. Thank you, Jill, for all of your help and advice. Big thanks must also go out to my friends, whose belief in me, help, and friendship has really helped to keep me sane! From the political science department, I would like to thank my office mates Dave, Dan, and Gus, as well as Vanessa, Bridget, Claire, Tim, Nic, Richard, George, and Searle. To all my other friends also: Jane, Paula, Julia, Ian, Anna, Ben, Kylie and Sarah – thank you for your encouragement and interest in my research. Also, to Hamish, who has made my life so much more enjoyable, and whose patience, understanding, and ability to make me laugh I will always appreciate. Last, but of course not least, I would like to thank my family, without whose continual support and encouragement I probably would not be submitting this thesis. So thank you Mum, Dad and Rob for your unwavering belief in me, your constant encouragement, and your ability to put up with the many bouts of stress I may have taken out on you over the past couple of years! Your support will always be remembered and cherished. Thank you for everything. iii CONTENTS Titles Acknowledgements ii Contents iii Figures v Abstract vi • Chapter One: INTRODUCTION 1 - Introduction 1 Conceptual Clarifications: Defining Terrorism and Disinhibition 2 - Methodology 6 - Rationale 8 - Literature Review of the Psychology of Terrorism 9 - Backgrounds of Illustrative Cases: The IRA 13 Palestinian Suicide Bombers 14 - Thesis Outline 16 • Chapter Two: THE CONCEPT OF DISINHIBITION 19 - Literature Review 20 - Connecting Disinhibition with Terrorism 27 - Controlling Disinhibitory Processes 29 - Conclusion 33 • Chapter Three: EMPATHY, THE CREATION OF HATE, AND DEHUMANIZATION 34 - Empathy and Compassion 35 - The Creation of Hate 41 - Dehumanization 45 Euphemistic Language 49 - Conclusion 51 • Chapter Four: CULTURE AND BELIEF SYSTEM 52 - Socialization: The Family and Social Group 53 -Socialization: The Education Process 58 - Historical Cultural Myths and Cultural Ideologies 65 - Conclusion 73 iv • Chapter Five: RELIGION 75 - The Prominence of Religion in Terrorism 76 - Culture and Religion 78 - The Psychology of Religion 80 - Conclusion 92 • Chapter Six: THE TERRORIST GROUP: PROCESSES AND DYNAMICS 94 - Group Dynamics 95 - Deindividuation 101 - Obedience to Authority 104 - Conclusion 112 • Chapter Seven: CONCLUSION 113 - Bandura’s Theoretical Model 114 - A New Model for Examining Disinhibition in Terrorism 116 - Concluding Remarks: Implications of the Thesis and Avenues for Further Research 124 References 128 v FIGURES Figure 1: Bandura’s Self-Regulation Process 28 (and 114) Figure 2: The Disinhibition Process 117 vi ABSTRACT The problem of understanding how terrorists are psychologically enabled to undertake violence against other human beings is one that has not been adequately examined in past research on terrorism. Indeed, while much has been researched on discovering motivations for such acts, an examination and analysis of the loss of inhibitions as a significant factor in the overall process of becoming a terrorist has been somewhat overlooked. This thesis is an attempt to remedy this shortcoming in the literature, and therefore represents an inquiry into how the process of disinhibition relates to the overall process of terrorism. By examining a number of different factors theoretically and applying them to two contemporary cases of terrorism, this thesis aims to show that there are numerous disinhibitors in relation to acts of terrorism, and that, in some situations, these disinhibitors can relatively easily come into play. 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Introduction: In early May of 2004, an Israeli woman and her four young daughters were suddenly attacked, shot and killed by two Palestinian militants while travelling in their car near the Gaza Strip (www.haaretz.com, May 2, 2004). The woman was eight months pregnant at the time and her daughters were aged eleven, nine, seven and two (Reuters UK, May 2, 2004). After reading or hearing about such a tragic, terrifying and seemingly incomprehensible act as this one, one immediate question comes to mind – how, psychologically, is a person able to attack and kill other human beings, be they men, women, old or young? This question needs to be seriously examined if the phenomenon of terrorism is to be sufficiently explained, understood, and appropriately countered. This thesis aims to explain what psychological mechanisms allow a person to feel justified in undertaking violent acts against other people. In other words, it looks at what mechanisms enable people to remove or lower their inhibitions in order to act violently; and as such, a political psychology approach to analyse this problem will be the most appropriate and helpful. The structure of this thesis will take the form of 2 theory-based chapters, where included in each is an application of the particular theories to two illustrative cases of terrorism. An in-depth thesis outline explaining this further is articulated in the last section of this chapter. The findings of the thesis will be able to add a significant amount to the existing knowledge in the field of the psychology of terrorism because of the different perspective that a comprehensive understanding of disinhibition can offer. This is in turn due to the fact that the thesis focuses on investigating the role that inhibitions against violence play rather than analysing motivations for terrorism, which much of the literature tends to do currently. The terrorism case mentioned at the beginning of this chapter points to two of the most frightening and confusing aspects of terrorism which are of relevance to this thesis: its indiscriminate as well as unpredictable nature. Seemingly, anyone can be targeted, and at any time. In reference to one of the two cases that are to be used as illustrations in this thesis, the IRA exemplify this in their infamous bombing campaign against Britain in 1939, when they were able to detonate a bomb in the middle of a busy street in Coventry that killed five people and injured approximately fifty others (Coogan, 1995, p.127). These factors, amongst others, raise many psychological questions about the terrorists themselves and terrorism as a phenomenon; for example, how do terrorists justify their violent actions? Are people who undertake these acts really ‘deranged’, mentally ill, or simply ‘evil’? This question has often been asked of suicide bombers; however, studies have shown that these kind of bombers as well as terrorists in general, despite being understood by some as “crazed cowards” (Atran, 2003a), display no abnormal psychology, and are not “crazed, cowardly, apathetic or asocial” (Atran, 2003b). In light of such evidence, this thesis considers its arguments largely from a situational standpoint on terrorism rather than from a purely personality-oriented approach. Conceptual Clarifications: Defining Terrorism and Disinhibition What an act of terrorism is and therefore how it is to be defined is a central issue that has created much debate over at least the past two decades (Laqueur, 1987); indeed, the cliché “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” has been one of the most hotly contested phrases in the study of terrorism (Laqueur, 1987, p.7; Ganor, 3 1998, Marsella, 2004). Due to the concept of terrorism having become so subjective, a definition of it is extremely difficult to create and defend. Because of this, many definitions are either too vague, or far too subjective, to mean anything. An example of this definitional problem can be seen in the United States Department of State’s characterization of terrorism, which defines the phenomenon as “politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents” (www.fpc.state.gov/, 2001). Although admitted as too broad by the State Department itself, this definition runs into many other problems; for instance, the use of the word “non-combatant”. Through the use of this term, attacks upon such targets as military personnel, and the USS Cole bombing in 2000, may not be strictly defined as terrorism due to the fact that these targets are essentially classed as combatant (Ganor, 1998; www.fpc.state.gov/, 2001). One other reason that terrorism is so hard to define is because it gives rise to so many questions; for example, can terrorism ever be a legitimate method of achieving an end? Linked to this, what differentiates terrorism from ‘revolutionary violence’ or a ‘struggle for national liberation’, or even guerrilla warfare? Terrorism needs to be defined because of such questions, as well as many others. Indeed, as Ganor (1998) points out, “without a definition of terrorism, it is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism”.