The Social Underpinnings Of Terrorism

The Social Underpinnings of Terrorism

What drives terrorists to the extremes that they go to in order to fulfill their goals? How are terrorist made, and can they be profiled? These are questions that have challenged sociologists, criminologists, and average people alike for as long as terrorism has existed. In Terrorism and Homeland Security by Jonathan R. White, many details about the social underpinnings of terrorism are given. Their motivation, their backgrounds, their uniqueness, and how to approach all of these aspects from different criminological standpoints - all of this is explained thoroughly. Through analyzing the excerpt from this book, the reader will learn that terrorism is not as simple as average crime, nor is the topic as easy to approach.

In this piece, the author goes into detail about many aspects about the social underpinnings of terrorism, or simply put, the basic social ideas about terrorism. For instance, the author states that terrorism in a social process, and thus has two different potential frameworks to it. The "meaning framework" is a framework taken by sociologists to analyze the meaning behind the things that terrorists do. Group and individual behavior is studied from a perspective that believes that the way the world is interpreted motivates the actions that people (or terrorists, in this case) take. Terrorists are unhappy with the world, and so they take action to change it. The other framework, the "structural framework," states that groups (in this case, terrorist organizations) form because their society has a dire need, or because a group of people is being wronged. This approach looks at the way organizations function due to this - it is thus called the structural framework.

Terrorism as a religious process is also an aspect that is examined in this piece. Marxist theory states that as modernity in science increases, religion will decline. But religion has proven to last, and some may claim that religion is a stronger driving force in people's lives than ever. Now, does this affect terrorism? Some would argue that it does, while some would disagree. There is no denying, though, that religion is partially a religious process. Many acts of terrorism are driven by fundamentalist ideas that are either bastardizations of religion, or skewed beliefs that are not even religious but "claim religion." White says that religion often serves as the basis for many acts of terrorism because religion (a set of traditions and beliefs) acts as a deterrence from confusion from choices in life. If this is basis - this comfort - is ever threatened by another set of beliefs, this will often result in violence, and this is what leads to religious terrorism. Furthermore, religion often spawns mindsets in terrorists that are not present in secular terrorists. An example of this is the "lone wolf complex." This simply means that a person needs an excuse for their actions and ideology, and religion, which provides this rather easily, becomes their driving force. As well as this, religious terrorism typically provides terrorists with the idea that they have much to gain, and not much to lose. In this, religious terrorism is many times more dangerous (and more lethal) than secular terrorism.

The excerpt focuses on types of criminology, as well, namely practical criminology. Oftentimes, classic criminology (Beccaria's criminology) is what is typically associated with terrorism. Classic criminology uses the most modern theories of individual and group behavior. But the other branch of criminology, practical criminology, can also be heavily associated with terrorism. This branch of criminology focuses on the common actions of people who break laws. Now, it is apparent that this is a very valid means of approaching the sociology of terrorism. But the problem that is often found with this is that terrorists behave very differently. They behave differently from each other (their actions are very sporadic), and they behave very differently from other criminals. Terrorists are much more focused because they are a part of something much greater.

This leads to one of the main questions that White presents in this article. Can the terrorist personality be profiled? Many sociologists and criminologists have different thoughts on this. The typical profile of a terrorist (young, unmarried, middle class, etc.) proved to be sorely flawed, as the profile applied mainly to people who weren't terrorists. But psychologists do believe that certain types of people are drawn to terrorist groups. People who feel left out, rejected, or alienated. But in the end, these assumptions are rather broad, as not all people who have those mental qualities will be terrorists, and vice versa. In the end, many people (and I, myself) agree that terrorists cannot truly be profiled. And even if they could be, if terrorist groups learned that they were being profiled, they would simply select operatives who did not match the profile. In the end, what matters is not profiling terrorists, but preventing people who are likely to become terrorists from going over the edge and doing so. And White even presents the speculation that if a person becomes "radicalized," (becomes a terrorist due to ideals that have gone far) that they can be "deradicalized," as well. In the end, prevention from terrorism and neutralizing terrorist ideals are what can stop terrorism, simply because terrorists are so ambiguous and various.

It is apparent that the author of this book agrees that terrorism is no simple matter to deal with. Many different approaches can be taken to try and "figure out" terrorism, and some may prove to be more effective than others. However, it seems that the author stressed throughout the entire piece that sociologists and criminologists should not focus so much on trying to identify terrorism (because terrorism is so ambiguous, various, and susceptible to change), but should rather try to prevent minds from succumbing to thoughts of terrorism, and the like. This, according to White, seems to be the most effective way to approach Terrorism from a sociological standpoint. Terrorists can come from all different backgrounds, they can have religious or secular motives, and they can be in groups or by themselves. But terrorists cannot fit a specific mold.

Future literature on this subject may not be very various, unless very dramatic breakthroughs in sociological thought pertaining to terrorism are made. The matter stands that terrorism has been, at its roots, the same for as long as it has existed. To elaborate, terrorism has always been subject to change, it has always been very difficult to identify and define, and it has always been dubious. In this, it is apparent that a writing on this, whether it were written one hundred years in the past or one hundred years in the future, would have the same content and take on the topic, if seen from the same perspective. With this, it seems, whether due to the needs of people, or by order of some mad religious influence, terrorism will never fade away. Until terrorism can be more effectively prevented and identified, it will always be a part of society.