Creating young martyrs: What leads young people to resort to violence?

By guest author Alice LoCicero

The accused Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, grew up in my home town of Cambridge and went to the high school my kids attended. They look like kids my children would have gone to school with, and their friends and family Creating Young Martyrsdescribe them in ways that make them seem normal and good.

How could young folks we might easily have known and loved act intentionally to create carnage, terror, and radical disruption of lives and psyches? As President Obama asked: What would lead them “to resort to violence”?

Dr. Samuel (Justin) Sinclair and I set out to answer an eerily similar question when we researched kids at risk of recruitment to the Tamil Tigers, a terrorist organization (now defeated) in Sri Lanka. We wrote about this research in our 2008 book, Creating young martyrs: Conditions that make dying in a terrorist attack seem like a good idea. Our findings help explain this apparent contradiction.

What we learned, both from reviewing others’ research and combing through our own findings, is that many kids who engage in terrorist actions, or who aspire to do so, think that their actions are going to bring attention to the grievances of their people, which they perceive–rightly or wrongly–as legitimate, and to begin to address a highly asymmetrical distribution of power, a distribution that disadvantages the group they identify with. The ultimate goal then, the “end” that for them justifies the means, is to help their peoples’ cause. Aware that they will die in the attack or soon thereafter, they see their actions as dutiful or, in Western terms, altruistic.

I realize that this idea–that young people who do things that result in killing, maiming, and disruption, do so with altruistic intent–is highly counter-intuitive, but it comes to my attention over and over again in our own and others’ data and in the words of family members of kids engaged in terrorism.

In the award-winning documentary film, “My Daughter the Terrorist,” in which filmmaker Morten Daae and director Beate Arnestad follow two Tamil girls, trained to be Black Tigers, who are prepared to blow themselves up in a terrorist action, the mother of one of the girls speaks about her daughter, saying, “She was different. She dreamt of becoming a nun.”

Alice Locicero is Past President and Co-Founder of the Society of Terrorism Research, as well as Chair of Social Sciences at Endicott College. She is a certified Clinical Psychologist, and has been a faculty member at the Center for Multicultural Training and Boston Medical Center, as well as at Suffolk University. In earlier roles, LoCicero served as Senior Psychologist working with families at Children’s Hospital, Boston, and as Clinical Instructor at Harvard Medical School. A member of the Massachusetts Behavioral Health Disaster Responders, she provides mental health services to family members of victims of terrorism and other man-made and natural disasters. She traveled to Sri Lanka in May and June of 2007 to learn about conditions that make terrorism an appealing idea to some youths.

(This post was originally published in the ABC-CLIO blog.)

The dangerous myth of American exceptionalism

Once upon a time, a new nation was born on this continent and came to view itself as exceptional—that is, as qualitatively different from other countries in its revolutionary origins and its national ideology (emphasizing values such as liberty and egalitarianism).

American exceptionalism soon became linked with “manifest destiny,” the idea that the United States was ordained by “Divine Providence” to spread its control across the American continent and its democracy around the world.

In a powerful essay, Howard Zinn debunked the myth of American exceptionalism and exposed its dangers. If you want to understand how American exceptionalism may put everyone increasingly at risk, be sure to read Zinn’s article.

Or see him in this video.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, American exceptionalism is once again raising its raucous voice, claiming that if Americans feel threatened, they are not subject to principles of international law or even their own Constitution.

Torture violates international law, yet Greg Ball, a New York State senator, showed no compunction in saying of  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the “second suspect” in the Marathon tragedy, “So, scum bag #2 in custody. Who wouldn’t use torture on this punk to save more lives?”

According to American law, suspects in a crime must be informed before interrogation of their Fifth Amendment (“Miranda”) rights to avoid self-incrimination, but U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted, “The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to ‘remain silent’.” The outcome? According to a Washington Times article, Tsarnaev was read his rights only after he confessed.

And Bill O’Reilly, on Fox News, had no difficulty in acting as judge and jury regarding an entire religion: “No matter how much good we do for these people, they don’t like us. Because we are infidels.”

Hating others and advocating violence are easy. Any three-year-old can have a tantrum. But suspending judgment while awaiting facts, respecting international principles of social justice, and living by an ethic of reciprocity require maturity and courage.

On the other hand, just listening to Mr. Rogers is not a bad idea.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Arresting the cycle of violence

As of this writing, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the “second suspect” in the Boston Marathon tragedy, is still alive. We should all pray that he recovers. We need to hear his story. He needs to tell his story.

Boston Marathon explosion
Photo by Aaron Tang. Used under CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

How does a young man who features Salaam alaikum (Peace be with you) on his Twitter page become involved with guns and bombs? Some people will manage to see threats hidden in his tweet, “There are people that know the truth but stay silent & there are people that speak the truth but we don’t hear them cuz they’re the minority,” but if that comment is labeled dangerous, we are all in trouble.

From Marathon Monday afternoon until the final capture of the bloodied Dzhokhar, the media entertained Americans with the kind of thrilling stories they love—starting with scenes of fires, bodies, panic, and heroism, and ending with firefights, helicopters, a bloody boat, and what seemed like an endless wait (will they let him bleed to death?) before Dzhokhar’s capture. The good guys triumph; the bad guys are vanquished. What could be more righteous?

Fueled by adrenaline, many Americans want to maintain the excitement, brandish their masculinity, prove that “ya better not mess with America.” Thus we see stupid and hateful messages like Fox News commentator Erik Rush’s tweet, “Yes, they’re evil. Let’s kill them all.” The statement itself promotes evil; it is inherently terroristic.

Far better to listen to the recordings of the Interfaith Healing Service in Boston.

The whole world expressed sympathy and support for the United States following the tragedies of 9-11. Yet the government’s subsequent use of those events to promote narrowly-conceived nationalistic interests with pitiless aggression and the slaughter of thousands cost us that support.

Right now we have seen again an outpouring of sympathy for the losses just suffered on Marathon Monday. Let’s not blow it again.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology