Commonly, terrorists are seen as psychopathic or having a religious or political cause. Yet, if we look at the individual players, we may see personal motives verses motives of principle. A common assumption is that terrorists use force or threat of force instrumentally in a conscious and premeditated fashion because they misguidedly think that it will enhance their probability of achieving a certain political or religious goal or set of goals. Psychologists may tend to see political or religious goals as an arena in which emotions originating elsewhere are stimulated and played out. So, the psychologist may ask - What nonpolitical frustrations or drives are at the base of the behavior? Berkowitz (1969) points out two basic variations on this theme. First is the situation in which an individual is suffering from the effects of very unpleasant present or past conditions (e.g. painful events or frustrations). This will give rise to a “fairly specific internal inclination to be aggressive,” which can be triggered by some political situation or event. Berkowitz’s second variation (1975) is that a person may merely be excited or aroused. This general, initially non aggressive arousal can - under appropriate conditions - be channeled into political violence. The classic example is that of a large group of people that suddenly turns into an angry, violent mob.
Posted on: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:46:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015