Jung
proposed that we all have a ‘shadow’, the dark side of ourselves. It is the
hidden self that drives much of human behaviour, out of our conscious
attention. He suggested that the more unacceptable our thoughts and feelings to
our conscious, the deeper they are hidden. More positive parts of the shadow
are more easily accessed. The evil tendencies that we all have are hidden deepest
of all. Modern observations of the human brain now point to primitive centres
that can drive behaviour if unchecked by parts of our cerebral cortex: the
civilised self that is learned. Other psychological research has long exposed
the uncomfortable truth that we are all capable of the greatest evil and,
indeed, the greatest good. Yes, given the right circumstances, even you.
For
relatively unreconstructed Darwinists like me, there is a functionality to the
dark side that worked for us when we were still living in the swamp: unconscionable
brutality was essential for survival purposes. But, this was not so long ago
and the social controls of civilisation are a thin veneer.
Which
brings us nicely to the mind of the terrorist. There’s been a lot of commentary
about terrorists since the attacks in Paris. Some of it has been informed, such
as Walled Ali’s brilliant treatment of the issue. Much has been unfortunate in
misunderstanding the motives behind terrorist behaviour and, necessarily, who
becomes a terrorist. Research on the terrorist mind has had some difficulty in
coming up with a common profile. So, it’s unlikely that we’ll see a diagnosis
of terrorism in the manual of psychiatric disorders any time soon. However, one
of the common themes has been linking the attacks with religion.
Religion
has got nothing to do with the motivation to become a terrorist. It is a
rationalisation, yes, but not the motivation. The moral outrage that these
terrorists might claim is more a projection of their own insecurity, their own
uncertainty about the meaning of life. Rather, the underlying factor
underpinning terrorism such as this largely about power: religion is the shroud
in which it is wrapped. It was the same in the Crusades in the twelfth-century,
the Spanish Inquisition and in any of dozens of religious wars conducted before
and since.
The more
extreme terrorist act that lacks complete concern for human life, the brutal
act will be relatively easy for angry thugs and psychopaths. For them, it is
all about power and control, even over naïve recruits ands others that join the
‘cause’ as well as their victims. The radicalised are usually the disaffected
and marginalised, and deeply angry about their situation, or helpless in their
despair. Becoming part of a terrorist group, a cause, gives them a personal
power that gives meaning and, of course, the critical human needs of
affiliation and recognition.
No doubt
there are those who, in Byronesque fashion, see themselves as fighting for a
cause, a rebellion or a revolution: freedom fighters. Boredom, naïve idealism,
lack of purpose, and the need for adventure drives these to recruit themselves.
It is reported that there is a large proportion of people who become
ex-terrorists and disassociate themselves. I suspect that these would be people
who do not have the psychopathic capacity to carry out atrocities. In any case,
these people too are seeking power and the need to influence events.
For only a
small minority will joining a terrorist group be about religion. And if it is
then given the teachings of most religious texts, apart from some of the Old Testament,
it is misguided. Religion is just an excuse for being a terrorist, not the
cause. Brutality comes from a deeper part of ourselves.