Fantasy ideology, but not the fun kind

[nancylebov]

Essay about people who are driven by wanting to be a certain kind of person rather than real-world political goals. This is about mostly about Islamist terrorists, but includes some other people as well. For example, there are people who do destructive actions at demonstrations because they want to think of themselves as people who do dramatic resistance, and the Italian invasion of Ethopia during WW2.

This is in contrast with practical politics-- trying to achieve practical goals by plausible means.

The idea of fantasy ideology makes excellent sense to me-- I'm inclined to think that Islamist terrorism is mostly a Muslim vs. Muslim fight, with attacks on the west almost being collateral damage.

Something that's not as narcisstic but still in the same range is having a primary goal of making the other side angry.

This fits in with my idea that it doesn't make sense to describe terrorists as cowards, though I admit I've been seeing less of that in recent years. It might make sense to hammer on their lack of empathy, which I haven't seen enough of. There's a lot of emphasis on the bad effects of what they do, but less than I'd like to see of "If you're considering terrorism, you, yes, you personally, need to wake up to what you're considering doing to people." I'm not saying that this is the whole solution, just something that might help. There are people who pull back from terrorism.

Comments

[boxofdelights]

Did you see the interview Rachel Maddow did with a young man who calls himself as a de-radicalized Islamic extremist? It supports your theory that lack of empathy is a necessary precondition to terrorism, and that it can be changed.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/how-an-islamic-extremist-found-a-new-path-708008515745

[nancylebov]

Thank you very much-- I heard that interview, or one very like it, and I've been trying to track it down.

[heron61]

That article was interesting, but seriously and deliberately flawed. The bits about denying both any US/Western blame for the various attacks and of the supposed uselessness of working to improve conditions in the Middle East seemed both based far more on supporting conservative talking points than the theory, and provably incorrect. It's not like the Nazis came about in a vacuum. Sure, some or perhaps most of the founders of these various ideas may be well educated intellectuals (although Hitler certainly wasn't), but these movements don't catch on in nations where the populace is hopeful and unstressed.

Instead, we see people following fantasy ideology when their nations are in ruins (Iraq, Syria, 1930s Germany), or people who are subject to serious stresses due to prejudice in their own nation and awareness of vast injustices by their nation against the nation their (often) parents emigrated from (as seems to be the case of the various "home grown" terrorists of the EU and now the US). It seems to be that the Troubles in Ireland were to some extent another example of fantasy ideology (on both sides) and while diplomacy ended them, what kept the Troubles from coming back was an concerted effort to improve the economy of both Northern Ireland and Éire.

That said, I'm entirely with you about one of the most serious issues involved being the failure/absence of empathy, but it's also true that when humans are sufficiently stressed, that's an early casualty.

[redbird]

I've been poking, again, at the idea that some people are motivated more by thinking of themselves as already being a certain kind of person: not just "what I am doing must be good, because I am one of the Good Guys" [which often maps to religious beliefs/affiliations). Not so much "I am a Christian and believe that charity and patience or virtues, therefore I will give money to charity and not complain about hearing the bell-ringer for the 792nd time" but "I am a Christian, therefore I am charitable" leading to mis-remembering themselves as having been more generous than they are and/or taking for granted that, however much or little they are giving to charity, non-Christians are obviously donating less.

The problem, imho, isn't the line of reasoning that goes from "my religion teaches this virtue, therefore I should be seen to be setting a good example," it's "my religion teaches this virtue, and everyone knows I am a sincere believer, therefore they know I have this virtue and I don't have to actually do anything to support that." Or "and therefore anyone who urges me to be more charitable/patient/just/forgiving/etc. isn't criticizing my actual behavior, they are insulting me and questioning my identity by saying I'm not a good X."