Psychobiography definition of terrorism

Volume 22 - Number 3 - December 2015, Pages: 123 - 223
Section: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor,

I think it’s a quite basic scholarly practice to begin by carefully defining the key concepts and terms central to the argument to be advanced. This is especially necessary when a value-loaded term like “terrorism” is at stake, a term that I think is very difficult, if not impossible, to define objectively. Yet often people, even social scientists and psychohistorians, appear untroubled by this issue. They appear to think they know what “terrorism” is: Namely, a morally repugnant tactic sometimes resorted to by “the enemy.” The problem, of course, is that who counts as the enemy and, therefore, what counts as terrorism, depends on one’s point of view and politics.

In various parts of the world today many consider the current occupant of the White House, with his program of drone assassinations (among other measures), a major agent of world terrorism. I think in 1945 most Japanese were pretty clear, in light of the atom bombs exploded over Hiroshima, then again over Nagasaki, who the terrorists were.

It amazes me to see social “scientists” writing about “cults” while ignoring the fact that a “cult” is simply a religion someone dislikes. Roman Catholicism, for example, is a religion large and powerful enough as well as sufficiently liked by social scientists that, despite possessing many of the characteristics usually attributed to “cults,” it often manages to avoid being analyzed as one.

Similarly, America and its Western allies are sufficiently powerful and liked well enough by Western journalists, social sci-

Page 219

entists, and psychohistorians that the terrorism they practice can often avoid being seen and analyzed as such. While the indoctrination and manipulation of vulnerable young people into being willing to kill and be killed is considered outrageous on the part of the “terrorist” enemy. Yet very similar practices of recruitment and indoctrination are seen as normal and unproblematic when practiced by “us” and not “them.” If social science is to have any credibility as science distinct from ideology and propaganda, it must rigorously attend to the issue of conflicting value perspectives, instead of unthinkingly adopting one and proceeding to pathologize or demonize others.

Sincerely yours,

Don Carveth

Page 220