PROCEEDINGS
The psychology of the terrorist J POTTER University of Exeter, Centre for Police and Criminal Justice Studies, BrookJield Annexe, New North Road, Exeter, United Kingdom EX4 4JY
A paper read at the Autumn Meeting of the Forensic Science Society at Durham, 1-2 November 1991. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1992; 32: 249-255 Received 5 November 1991
Introduction In this paper, I propose to examine some of the basic issues involved in terrorist behaviour. In order to achieve this aim, I want to set about answering five basic questions. Firstly, are terrorists mad? That is, are they suffering from a clinically diagnosable condition? Secondly, if they are not mad, then how can we understand the terrorist mind more fully? Thirdly, how can the psychologist's understanding of the terrorist mind help us to learn to manage terrorism more effectively? Fourthly, how can we identify trends in terrorist behaviour in order to be more effectively prepared, and fifthly, how can we move towards reducing and eventually eradicating terrorist activity in general terms? Let me start off by saying that there is no simple answer to any of these questions. If such answers existed, then we probably would not be talking about this subject at this conference. However, it is my firm belief that a basic understanding of the psychology of the terrorist has an important role to play in working towards a situation where we see a major reduction, if not complete extinction, of terrorist incidents. The very nature of Man as a complex animal, with a multitude of political and religious belief systems, means that it is unlikely that we will ever completely remove terrorism from the world scene. There will always be a disadvantaged group somewhere who, through sheer frustration, will attempt to bring attention to their cause by the use of armed propaganda. What I believe we can do, however, is to curtail dramatically the operation of the widespread, highly-organised, terrorist community which is mutually supportive in terms of resources and training.
Terrorist behaviour In order to set about answering my five questions about terrorism, I would like to examine some issues, firstly at the macro level, in terms of social psychology of why people engage in terrorist behaviour, and secondly, at the micro level, considering the behaviour of individuals. JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
249
Taking first the macro level, it is important to understand that societies have engaged in this type of behaviour for as long as the activities of Man have been documented. There are references to hostage-taking in the Bible, and we must not forget the advice of the Chinese military philosopher, Sun Tzu, that if you "kill one, you frighten ten thousand". Perhaps in this age of satellite communications, instant electronic news gathering and multiple television news channels, the terrorist has updated Sun Tzu's advice to "kill one, frighten ten thousand and fascinate four hundred million". And this aspect of the media brings me to the point of why terrorism is now such an important facet of the modern world. The growth of international terrorist activity has been in parallel with our ability to communicate. Since the late 1960s, the technological revolution in the communications industry worldwide has meant that we can now communicate much more effectively for business and social reasons. But it has also meant that a tool has been created which helps the less altruistic members of society to gain coverage of their grievances and causes, and subsequent leverage to achieve specific aims and objectives. So what is terrorism and how can we define it? I am not convinced that it is easy to produce a slick text book definition, but some of the features of terroristic activity involve violence, or more commonly the threat of violence, against both targeted and indiscriminate victims, the more innocent the better. The basic idea seems to be to produce a media impact and an emotional effect on the population at large which is cumulative and which seeks to undermine confidence in the present social order in terms of the ability of the authorities to provide a safe environment for the general public. Two of the most significant outcomes, to my mind, of the communications revolution are that the image of the freedom fighter has now firmly planted itself in the minds of the public, and there has developed within society in general a "hostage consciousness". Thus any disadvantaged individual, or one who finds himself in serious conflict with authority, is more likely to try to exert power, in a violent way, as a result of these media-created role models. A crime which goes wrong can move into the realms of terroristic behaviour. And that is the important point which I would like to make at this stage. Terroristic behaviour is not only carried out by extreme political activists. I now believe that all sorts of individuals, including criminals caught in the act, or mentally disturbed individuals, or protest groups, or indeed anybody who finds themselves very frustrated, are more likely to engage in what I call terroristic behaviour than ever before. Terroristic behaviour is that sort of behaviour where an individual, or a group of individuals, exerts pressure on one group of people whilst threatening another, in order to give substance to their threats. And this is where I believe the behaviour of the terrorist differs in basic terms from that of the 250
JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
more conventional criminal or, indeed, enemy. There is a triangle involved and this inherently leads towards producing more stress in the situation. An example is a kidnap where the real or primary victim is a government who is under pressure to release political prisoners. Hostages are taken in order to coerce the government into releasing those prisoners. The basic problem, of course, for the government, is whether to produce the optimum outcome for the present and secure the release of the hostages at any cost, so creating a rod for their own backs in the future, or whether to ignore the fate of the current hostages and to resist the pressure, on the basis that this will result in less hostage-taking in the future. Such difficult situations lead to stress on all the parties concerned: the terrorists, the government and the hostages themselves. Understanding the psychology of the terrorist is inherently linked with understanding the behaviour of human beings under stress. So let me turn to my first question. In general terms I would have to say that terrorists are not usually what we would clinically diagnose as mad. It is true, of course, that individuals who are suffering from personality disorders are attracted to terrorist or "freedom fighter" behaviour, but the knowledge and skill levels required of the modern hi-tech terrorist would preclude all but the intellectually bright. My own interpretation of the terrorist mind set is that the individuals are frequently acting more like individuals who are severely frustrated and operating under stress, due to an inability to come to terms with the political and social systems in which they find themselves.
Political terrorism Let us now focus on the political terrorist and think about some basic ideas to see if we can develop a terrorist mind set. Let us begin by thinking of some of the characteristics of the political terrorist. Basically, they are what in social psychological terms we would call sociopathic. They can commit quite horrendous acts against humanity without feeling any sense of guilt because they can justify such acts as vital to the Cause. In terms of a general terrorist profile, I do not think one exists. The psychological profile of the terrorist operating in Northern Ireland is different from that operating in, say, the Lebanon, or in India. Having said that, I believe that there are some characteristics which different terrorist groups have in common and it is always useful to develop a profile of the particular terrorist group with which you are dealing. What is vital, in my belief, is not to underestimate the terrorist or his or her abilities. Frequently they are obsessed with the Cause and this permits them to commit acts which otherwise would be outside the realms of possibility. Their prime aim, in my view, is to promote public fear and undermine the confidence of the public in the government's ability to govern and maintain the political and social status quo. JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
251
In specific psychological terms, political terrorists tend to externalize and blame everyone else for the state of the world. They often tend to project their own shortcomings on to others and are operating out of frustration. Often they are individuals with considerable internal conflicts. On one hand, they are basically loners who find it difficult to establish sound emotional relationships with other people whilst, at the same time, they have a need to belong. They tend, therefore, to be drawn towards others of the same type, to band together against what they see as the common enemy, the social and political status quo. Thus they can create a fantasy which is then fuelled by the efforts of society to repress them. The more you attack members of a terrorist group from the outside, the more it binds them together and fuels their fantasy that they are in opposition to the world. As their frustration level increases so does their desire and propensity for violence.
Model of Man Let us now look at what I call my Generalized Model of Man (Figure 1) which has, I believe, some interesting aspects in relation to the terrorist. We can represent the human being as a set of concentric rings with a logical interaction index increasing as the centre of the circle is approached. By this, I mean that the items nearer the centre of the circle always have an effect on those nearer the outer circles, but the outer circles do not necessarily affect the inner dimensions. If we translate this to the terrorist mind, we can see that at the centre of the terrorists' existence is their self-concept-who they think they are. This has a logical impact on their beliefs and values and hence on their capabilities, their behaviour and subsequently their environment. If, however, you simply try to change the terrorist mind by controlling the environment and addressing behaviour, you are fighting a losing battle. It is only by getting at self-concept and beliefs that you will ever make any significant change in the terrorist mind set. The differences between male and female terrorists are interesting. Far from being the weaker sex, female terrorists are often more dedicated and prone to violence than their male counterparts and there are many examples that lend weight to this idea. The recent book by Eileen MacDonald called Shoot the Women First gives graphic accounts of many females who have demonstrated that women are very capable of committing the most violent of acts. The roles played by individuals within terrorist groups are also interesting. In the commercial world, there is much work being carried out into the composition of effective work teams. Team roles such as co-ordinator, resource investigator and so on, have been clearly identified and also individual aptitudes for carrying out specific team functional roles. If we 252
JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
ENVIRONMENT FIGURE 1 Generalized Model of Man.
transfer these ideas to the terrorist group, we can produce a simplified structure which suggests basic roles relating to leadership, specific operational expertise and operational support-the leader, the opportunist and the idealist. Leaders are often very intelligent and will try to convert their captors or interrogators if they are arrested. Opportunists are basically individuals with specific skills, often recruited from the criminal world. These individuals can be converted from the cause and are useful during the interrogation process if they begin to feel that their interests on a personal level are going to be best served by co-operating with the forces of law and order. The third type of terrorist role is the idealist who is simply drawn to the cause by ideology and often lacks specific operational skills. These individuals carry out mundane duties of minor criminal support or surveillance tasks and know very little, if captured and interrogated. Frequently they can be rehabilitated and learn to live normal lives. So in summing up my response to the first question "Are terrorists mad?", JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
253
my own opinion is that frequently they are not mad, although the stress of operational involvement may push them in that direction. Secondly, we can develop some idea of a terrorist mind set but it needs to be tailored to the specific operational environment.
Role for the psychologist My third question relates to how the psychologist can contribute to the management and reduction of terrorist and terroristic behaviour in society. I think that there are three basic areas where we can help. Firstly, prior to any incident I believe that there is an educational and training role for the psychologist. Individuals at risk from kidnapping or hostage-taking do benefit from guidance on how to behave in captivity and how to manage the stress of the situation. In addition, forces of law and order benefit from increased sensitivity to the nature of the terrorist mind and to the effects of what amounts to psychological warfare on all parties concerned. During hostage incidents, I believe that there is a role for the specialist psychologist who has studied negotiation strategy in depth. So often during an operation, individuals are too busy with their own tasks to detect the subtle changes which can occur during negotiations with terrorists. The effects on the hostages need to be considered, with a sound knowledge of the hostage response phases, so that any attempt by the hostages to rescue themselves may be detected in advance and handled appropriately. After a terrorist incident, there is a most important role for the psychologist in dealing with the psychological victims of the incident and in trying to find out more about the motivational set of the terrorists themselves. Fourthly, to identify trends in terrorist behaviour we have political scientists, social scientists, psychologists, sociologists and so on, all keen to apply their tools and techniques to real problems. There are still all too few PhDs on terrorist and antisocial behaviour. We should be able to harness the tremendous analytical power of our universities and academic institutions to help in the process of undermining the power of the terrorist organizations. So we come to the fifth and most important question. How can we eradicate terrorism? There is no simple answer. We have to harness the power of the media to cause the general public to reject terrorism rather than be fascinated by it. We must not allow terrorist role models to be seen in a glamorous light, as often they appear to be seen by the media. We must deal with terrorist acts as crimes against humanity rather than political crimes. Most important of all, however, we must convince terrorists and would-be terrorists that the techniques of armed propaganda just do not pay dividends. We have to make the use of terrorist tactics unproductive so 254
JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
that the groups revert to more socially acceptable means to bring attention to their causes. The fundamental issue is, however, related to my Generalized Model of Man. We cannot hope to eradicate terrorism by controlling the environment or attempting to control behaviour. We have to work at the core level of the self-concept of the terrorist, that is at the highest logical level. Individuals who are tempted to engage in terroristic behaviour must form their own conclusion that such behaviour is not appropriate and that it does not bring results. In order for them to arrive at this conclusion, we need to be even more effective than we currently are at predicting terrorist events, managing hostage situations in process, and in bringing the perpetrators to task after such events. Forensic science has, in my view, an important role to play in all three of these stages.
JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
The psychology of the terrorist J POTTER University of Exeter, Centre for Police and Criminal Justice Studies, BrookJield Annexe, New North Road, Exeter, United Kingdom EX4 4JY
A paper read at the Autumn Meeting of the Forensic Science Society at Durham, 1-2 November 1991. Journal of the Forensic Science Society 1992; 32: 249-255 Received 5 November 1991
Introduction In this paper, I propose to examine some of the basic issues involved in terrorist behaviour. In order to achieve this aim, I want to set about answering five basic questions. Firstly, are terrorists mad? That is, are they suffering from a clinically diagnosable condition? Secondly, if they are not mad, then how can we understand the terrorist mind more fully? Thirdly, how can the psychologist's understanding of the terrorist mind help us to learn to manage terrorism more effectively? Fourthly, how can we identify trends in terrorist behaviour in order to be more effectively prepared, and fifthly, how can we move towards reducing and eventually eradicating terrorist activity in general terms? Let me start off by saying that there is no simple answer to any of these questions. If such answers existed, then we probably would not be talking about this subject at this conference. However, it is my firm belief that a basic understanding of the psychology of the terrorist has an important role to play in working towards a situation where we see a major reduction, if not complete extinction, of terrorist incidents. The very nature of Man as a complex animal, with a multitude of political and religious belief systems, means that it is unlikely that we will ever completely remove terrorism from the world scene. There will always be a disadvantaged group somewhere who, through sheer frustration, will attempt to bring attention to their cause by the use of armed propaganda. What I believe we can do, however, is to curtail dramatically the operation of the widespread, highly-organised, terrorist community which is mutually supportive in terms of resources and training.
Terrorist behaviour In order to set about answering my five questions about terrorism, I would like to examine some issues, firstly at the macro level, in terms of social psychology of why people engage in terrorist behaviour, and secondly, at the micro level, considering the behaviour of individuals. JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
249
Taking first the macro level, it is important to understand that societies have engaged in this type of behaviour for as long as the activities of Man have been documented. There are references to hostage-taking in the Bible, and we must not forget the advice of the Chinese military philosopher, Sun Tzu, that if you "kill one, you frighten ten thousand". Perhaps in this age of satellite communications, instant electronic news gathering and multiple television news channels, the terrorist has updated Sun Tzu's advice to "kill one, frighten ten thousand and fascinate four hundred million". And this aspect of the media brings me to the point of why terrorism is now such an important facet of the modern world. The growth of international terrorist activity has been in parallel with our ability to communicate. Since the late 1960s, the technological revolution in the communications industry worldwide has meant that we can now communicate much more effectively for business and social reasons. But it has also meant that a tool has been created which helps the less altruistic members of society to gain coverage of their grievances and causes, and subsequent leverage to achieve specific aims and objectives. So what is terrorism and how can we define it? I am not convinced that it is easy to produce a slick text book definition, but some of the features of terroristic activity involve violence, or more commonly the threat of violence, against both targeted and indiscriminate victims, the more innocent the better. The basic idea seems to be to produce a media impact and an emotional effect on the population at large which is cumulative and which seeks to undermine confidence in the present social order in terms of the ability of the authorities to provide a safe environment for the general public. Two of the most significant outcomes, to my mind, of the communications revolution are that the image of the freedom fighter has now firmly planted itself in the minds of the public, and there has developed within society in general a "hostage consciousness". Thus any disadvantaged individual, or one who finds himself in serious conflict with authority, is more likely to try to exert power, in a violent way, as a result of these media-created role models. A crime which goes wrong can move into the realms of terroristic behaviour. And that is the important point which I would like to make at this stage. Terroristic behaviour is not only carried out by extreme political activists. I now believe that all sorts of individuals, including criminals caught in the act, or mentally disturbed individuals, or protest groups, or indeed anybody who finds themselves very frustrated, are more likely to engage in what I call terroristic behaviour than ever before. Terroristic behaviour is that sort of behaviour where an individual, or a group of individuals, exerts pressure on one group of people whilst threatening another, in order to give substance to their threats. And this is where I believe the behaviour of the terrorist differs in basic terms from that of the 250
JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
more conventional criminal or, indeed, enemy. There is a triangle involved and this inherently leads towards producing more stress in the situation. An example is a kidnap where the real or primary victim is a government who is under pressure to release political prisoners. Hostages are taken in order to coerce the government into releasing those prisoners. The basic problem, of course, for the government, is whether to produce the optimum outcome for the present and secure the release of the hostages at any cost, so creating a rod for their own backs in the future, or whether to ignore the fate of the current hostages and to resist the pressure, on the basis that this will result in less hostage-taking in the future. Such difficult situations lead to stress on all the parties concerned: the terrorists, the government and the hostages themselves. Understanding the psychology of the terrorist is inherently linked with understanding the behaviour of human beings under stress. So let me turn to my first question. In general terms I would have to say that terrorists are not usually what we would clinically diagnose as mad. It is true, of course, that individuals who are suffering from personality disorders are attracted to terrorist or "freedom fighter" behaviour, but the knowledge and skill levels required of the modern hi-tech terrorist would preclude all but the intellectually bright. My own interpretation of the terrorist mind set is that the individuals are frequently acting more like individuals who are severely frustrated and operating under stress, due to an inability to come to terms with the political and social systems in which they find themselves.
Political terrorism Let us now focus on the political terrorist and think about some basic ideas to see if we can develop a terrorist mind set. Let us begin by thinking of some of the characteristics of the political terrorist. Basically, they are what in social psychological terms we would call sociopathic. They can commit quite horrendous acts against humanity without feeling any sense of guilt because they can justify such acts as vital to the Cause. In terms of a general terrorist profile, I do not think one exists. The psychological profile of the terrorist operating in Northern Ireland is different from that operating in, say, the Lebanon, or in India. Having said that, I believe that there are some characteristics which different terrorist groups have in common and it is always useful to develop a profile of the particular terrorist group with which you are dealing. What is vital, in my belief, is not to underestimate the terrorist or his or her abilities. Frequently they are obsessed with the Cause and this permits them to commit acts which otherwise would be outside the realms of possibility. Their prime aim, in my view, is to promote public fear and undermine the confidence of the public in the government's ability to govern and maintain the political and social status quo. JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
251
In specific psychological terms, political terrorists tend to externalize and blame everyone else for the state of the world. They often tend to project their own shortcomings on to others and are operating out of frustration. Often they are individuals with considerable internal conflicts. On one hand, they are basically loners who find it difficult to establish sound emotional relationships with other people whilst, at the same time, they have a need to belong. They tend, therefore, to be drawn towards others of the same type, to band together against what they see as the common enemy, the social and political status quo. Thus they can create a fantasy which is then fuelled by the efforts of society to repress them. The more you attack members of a terrorist group from the outside, the more it binds them together and fuels their fantasy that they are in opposition to the world. As their frustration level increases so does their desire and propensity for violence.
Model of Man Let us now look at what I call my Generalized Model of Man (Figure 1) which has, I believe, some interesting aspects in relation to the terrorist. We can represent the human being as a set of concentric rings with a logical interaction index increasing as the centre of the circle is approached. By this, I mean that the items nearer the centre of the circle always have an effect on those nearer the outer circles, but the outer circles do not necessarily affect the inner dimensions. If we translate this to the terrorist mind, we can see that at the centre of the terrorists' existence is their self-concept-who they think they are. This has a logical impact on their beliefs and values and hence on their capabilities, their behaviour and subsequently their environment. If, however, you simply try to change the terrorist mind by controlling the environment and addressing behaviour, you are fighting a losing battle. It is only by getting at self-concept and beliefs that you will ever make any significant change in the terrorist mind set. The differences between male and female terrorists are interesting. Far from being the weaker sex, female terrorists are often more dedicated and prone to violence than their male counterparts and there are many examples that lend weight to this idea. The recent book by Eileen MacDonald called Shoot the Women First gives graphic accounts of many females who have demonstrated that women are very capable of committing the most violent of acts. The roles played by individuals within terrorist groups are also interesting. In the commercial world, there is much work being carried out into the composition of effective work teams. Team roles such as co-ordinator, resource investigator and so on, have been clearly identified and also individual aptitudes for carrying out specific team functional roles. If we 252
JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
ENVIRONMENT FIGURE 1 Generalized Model of Man.
transfer these ideas to the terrorist group, we can produce a simplified structure which suggests basic roles relating to leadership, specific operational expertise and operational support-the leader, the opportunist and the idealist. Leaders are often very intelligent and will try to convert their captors or interrogators if they are arrested. Opportunists are basically individuals with specific skills, often recruited from the criminal world. These individuals can be converted from the cause and are useful during the interrogation process if they begin to feel that their interests on a personal level are going to be best served by co-operating with the forces of law and order. The third type of terrorist role is the idealist who is simply drawn to the cause by ideology and often lacks specific operational skills. These individuals carry out mundane duties of minor criminal support or surveillance tasks and know very little, if captured and interrogated. Frequently they can be rehabilitated and learn to live normal lives. So in summing up my response to the first question "Are terrorists mad?", JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
253
my own opinion is that frequently they are not mad, although the stress of operational involvement may push them in that direction. Secondly, we can develop some idea of a terrorist mind set but it needs to be tailored to the specific operational environment.
Role for the psychologist My third question relates to how the psychologist can contribute to the management and reduction of terrorist and terroristic behaviour in society. I think that there are three basic areas where we can help. Firstly, prior to any incident I believe that there is an educational and training role for the psychologist. Individuals at risk from kidnapping or hostage-taking do benefit from guidance on how to behave in captivity and how to manage the stress of the situation. In addition, forces of law and order benefit from increased sensitivity to the nature of the terrorist mind and to the effects of what amounts to psychological warfare on all parties concerned. During hostage incidents, I believe that there is a role for the specialist psychologist who has studied negotiation strategy in depth. So often during an operation, individuals are too busy with their own tasks to detect the subtle changes which can occur during negotiations with terrorists. The effects on the hostages need to be considered, with a sound knowledge of the hostage response phases, so that any attempt by the hostages to rescue themselves may be detected in advance and handled appropriately. After a terrorist incident, there is a most important role for the psychologist in dealing with the psychological victims of the incident and in trying to find out more about the motivational set of the terrorists themselves. Fourthly, to identify trends in terrorist behaviour we have political scientists, social scientists, psychologists, sociologists and so on, all keen to apply their tools and techniques to real problems. There are still all too few PhDs on terrorist and antisocial behaviour. We should be able to harness the tremendous analytical power of our universities and academic institutions to help in the process of undermining the power of the terrorist organizations. So we come to the fifth and most important question. How can we eradicate terrorism? There is no simple answer. We have to harness the power of the media to cause the general public to reject terrorism rather than be fascinated by it. We must not allow terrorist role models to be seen in a glamorous light, as often they appear to be seen by the media. We must deal with terrorist acts as crimes against humanity rather than political crimes. Most important of all, however, we must convince terrorists and would-be terrorists that the techniques of armed propaganda just do not pay dividends. We have to make the use of terrorist tactics unproductive so 254
JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
that the groups revert to more socially acceptable means to bring attention to their causes. The fundamental issue is, however, related to my Generalized Model of Man. We cannot hope to eradicate terrorism by controlling the environment or attempting to control behaviour. We have to work at the core level of the self-concept of the terrorist, that is at the highest logical level. Individuals who are tempted to engage in terroristic behaviour must form their own conclusion that such behaviour is not appropriate and that it does not bring results. In order for them to arrive at this conclusion, we need to be even more effective than we currently are at predicting terrorist events, managing hostage situations in process, and in bringing the perpetrators to task after such events. Forensic science has, in my view, an important role to play in all three of these stages.
JFSS 1992; 32(3): 249-255
