Terrorists do not differ psychologically from the general public. This is the assertion of Psychology Professor Scott Plous in a new article published in the Sept. 10 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education.
The article, “How Social Science Can Reduce Terrorism,” co-authored with Stanford Professor Emeritus of Psychology Philip G. Zimbardo, is a prescriptive meditation on the U.S. approach to the war on terror. Zimbardo, current President of the American Psychological Association and Plous’ former instructor at Stanford, first gained national notoriety for his famous 1971 six-day “prison experiment,” a groundbreaking study in power dynamics and role assumption.
Plous and Zimbardo’s article knits together a broad array of research across several disciplines to offer a novel psychological perspective on the continuing conflict in Iraq and anti-terror policies under the Bush administration.
“There was a valuable body of social science that had been overlooked,” Plous said. “[The article addresses what] many reports seem to suggest about the effectiveness of responses to terrorism.”
Moving from the U.S. response in the first days after 9/11 up to the present state of affairs in Iraq, the article argues that there is no noticeable psychological difference between terrorists and those who are not violent, beyond a proclivity for anger and an often self-righteous sense of injustice. As a result, the article argues, “large-scale military responses to terrorism tend to be ineffective or temporarily increase terrorist activity.”
“How Social Science Can Reduce Terrorism” has already begun to influence debate across the Wesleyan campus. Vice President for Academic Affairs Judith Brown opened last Thursday’s academic forum on the repercussions of 9/11 by reading a passage from the article.
The article points to the increasingly violent insurgency in Iraq as evidence that the United States’ military efforts in the Middle East are working to create a culture that encourages terrorism, rather than reduces it.
“In the words of Wesley Clark, these groups are being ‘supercharged’,” Plous said.
Although the article is critical of the current administration’s anti-terrorism strategy, Professor Plous remains sympathetic to the political climate that has fostered such actions.
“When you have a tragedy as immense as 9/11, the pressure on political leaders to act decisively, to do something, is almost inescapable,” he said.
Citing an overlooked 1999 social science report that warned that terrorists might use planes as weapons, the article also makes a case for greater attention to academic research among policy-makers.
Moving the lens away from Capitol Hill, Professor Plous is also interested in dispelling some of the more general misconceptions about terrorist culture and the social movements that spawn them. As he points out, the religion most closely associated with suicide bombings has long been Hinduism, not Islam. For groups like the Indian separatists Liberation Tamil Tigers Eelam, both male and female suicide bombers were an important political tool long before it became a prominent tactic in the Middle East.
Looking towards a solution, the article recommends efforts to reduce inter-group conflict by allaying economic inequalities, increasing U.S. foreign aid to developing nations and pursuing an international commitment to phase out educational materials that condone violence and intolerance.
The product of a year’s worth of background research and e-mail correspondence, the bulk of the article was drafted over the summer. Plous’ last meeting with Zimbardo took place during the APA’s annual convention in late July.
“He and I both had very similar views on the U.S. war on terror, on the U.S. response to 9/11, [and] on the war in Iraq,” Plous said. “[I’m the] father of a two-year-old. I want there to be a non-violent future for her. I want people to live in harmony.”
A link to “How Social Science Can Reduce Terrorism” can be found at http://www.socialpsychology.org/peace.html.
Leave a Reply