This
paper is a critique of Jessica Stern’s book, Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. In the
book, Stern claims people resort to terrorism because they perceive they are
unable to have their grievances met any other way except by violence. She
further claims while their grievances may be over several issues, they can be
broken down into five relatively simple ideas: Alienation, Humiliation,
Demographics, History, and Territory. To prove her point, she uses a travelog
of interviews with individuals from several Muslim terror networks.[1]
On the surface, it seems she made her point, but when read critically, several
inconsistencies began to emerge. Perhaps Stern took her cues from Huntington’s
famous Clash of Civilization. His
book also began with a reasonable idea that ultimately failed under close
scrutiny.
Huntington
wrote, “Nation states will remain the
most powerful actors in world affairs,...the principal conflicts of global
politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.”[2]
In other words, he claimed that instead of States fighting one another, future
wars would most likely be between States and non-state entities. These
entities, groups that exist outside internationally accepted or recognized
governments, are now often considered terrorist groups. Examining headlines of
any daily newspaper of the last decade tends to confirm that hypothesis.
However, since Clash of Civilizations was
written, it seems every political scientist has weighed in on the issue of
States fighting non-state actors. Attempting to explain why the non-state
actors now use terror tactics in their fights against States when they never
did before, is now the major question to answer.
One
such political scientist, Anthony W. Marx, claims the exclusionary principles
used by states to create nationalism may be to blame.[3] Exclusionary
principles are used by States to manage diversity to promote nationalism. Exclusion manipulates and reinforces
those differences between people. Marx claims this form of exclusion also
causes important consequences that have not yet been explained. However,
Jessica Stern believes otherwise.
In
her 2003 book, Terror in the Name of God,
Stern claims one of the most important consequences of exclusion is terrorism.
According to Stern, in the most extreme cases, being socially, economically,
and politically excluded causes those groups of people to become enraged,
sometimes leading some individual members to become extremist. However, even
Stern is a bit unsure of that argument because she also admits that, “The same
variables...that seem to have caused one person to become a terrorist might
cause another to be a saint.” So do exclusionary policies by themselves cause
rage leading to terrorist blowing themselves up in the “Name of God,” as Stern
seems to suggest, or is it something else? Stern would say yes, exclusionary
principals are to blame, but it is only one aspect to the problem.[4]
In
Stern’s world, there are five areas of grievances that lead to militant
terrorist activities. Of these grievances, the first is alienation. As Marx
claims, and Stern agrees, States use perceived and actual differences to
reinforce a feeling of nationalism. This nationalism is important for several
reasons. Perhaps the most import is security. By having a population willing to
give up their rights to form a State, some of those people must also be willing
to give up their lives, or be willing to pay vast amounts for others to give up
their lives for the state. Either way, the State benefits by encouraging
nationalism. However, by encouraging differences and alienating people by using
governmental sanction exclusionary principles, it also leads to humiliating
people. Who the state excludes and for what reason often depends on
demographics. However, no matter the reason behind the exclusions, over time
the policies become commonplace and accepted by everyone except possibly the
ones being excluded. Often time, the original problems change or are forgotten.
Instead, the issue becomes where the people live within the State. For example,
should the State excluded individuals be allowed to live in the same areas as
included individuals? Nationalism is supposed to be a good thing, and for the
vast majority of people within any State, it tends to be. However, for
minorities forced to endure the exclusions, it is not. Stern claims the
exclusion principles and laws can lead some of the excluded into organized
violence, especially if religion is part of the reason for being excluded.
While
Stern’s argument looks good on paper, Stern’s position begins to unravel at the
interview stages of the book. For example, while she does manage to interview a
few people who attempted or succeeded in producing real violence, those
individuals were only recently imprisoned, and continued to promise violence if
they were ever released. Consequently, getting any kind of reasonable
information about why they tried to blow themselves up, or to kill others, when
they remain so angry at both themselves and the authorities for being stopped,
proves problematic. Therefore, Stern was forced to change tactics and traveled
to interview the leadership of the terror organizations whenever possible. It
was during those interviews that Stern’s argument ultimately fails. For
example, Stern’s thesis is that the people involved in the violence tend to be
excluded from the State. If so, how does she explain the background of Dr.
Abdul Aziz Rantissi, cofounder, spokesperson for, and the new leader of Hamas
during April, 2004? Not very well, as it turns out. Instead of giving a
reasonable background of the tremendously well respected Dr. Rantissi at the
pinnacle of his career somehow becoming disillusioned, and helping to create
the organization of Hamas in 1987, Stern states, “Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantissi, the
spokesperson for Hamas in Gaza. He is a pediatrician and known” within a circle
of friends of the person Stern was staying with at the time in Palestine.[5]
Stern
not only found Rantissi intimidating and unfriendly, but her description of Dr.
Rantissi also downgraded his importance to Hamas. Furthermore, it conveniently
allowed Stern not to address one of her own major flaws about who commits
terror and why. For example, when reviewing Dr. Rantissi on-line biography,
provided by the Jewish Virtual Library, it discloses that Rantissi received his
medical education in Egypt and specialized in pediatrics. Soon after in 1976,
Rantissi became a member of the Muslim Brotherhood while completing his studies
in Egypt. After his physician residency in the main medical center of Nasser Hospital,
Rantissi occupied several public works posts and eventually became involved in
the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, where he eventually became one of its
administrative board members. Soon after, he joined the Faulty of Science at
the Islamic University of Gaza and became the Chief Pediatrician in the
Government Hospital in Khan Yunis.[6]
Unfortunately, Stern fails to mention any of this impressive resume in her
biography of him. That lack of reporting leads directly to the major problem
with Stern’s main argument about grievances and humiliation leading people to
commit violence and terrorism. It does not explain why the once impressive
physician and humanitarian at the apex of his career fell from grace, even
though he was neither being humiliated or excluded from helping others in
peaceful ways. It would seem,
according to Stern, humiliation must be to blame, but she never addresses the
issue with Dr. Rantissi.
Instead,
Stern states humiliation begins first by alienating people, and then excluding
them from government policies and possible help. When this happens, the
excluded people become enraged. If the people try acting on that rage, they are
overwhelmed and beat down by State forces. That leads to a feeling of lower
self worth and finally to an overwhelming sense of personal and group
humiliation. Stern claims this sense of humiliation, when combined with a
feelings that there are no other solutions, often helps to push some people
into violence. However, Dr. Rantissi’s case proves while this may be a
reasonable argument for some individuals who turn to violence, it is not always
the case. Another problem is that there have always been poor people and
minorities excluded from government. Stern’s argument fails to disclose why is
it only in more recent years that these groups have turned to violence and
terror as a way to vent their grievances. If this pattern was always the case,
why has terrorism only been a more recent phenomenon?
Demographics
is another important factor according to Stern. She says rapid changes in
socioeconomically effect all people of any given region. There are always
people who benefit from the changes, and others who gain little or nothing from
such changes. There are also people who lose a great deal from those changes.
Consequently the third group, the potential losers, tend to work the hardest to
keep the status quo alive for as long as they can. Others, not surprisingly,
will sometimes fight for change, and it then sometimes erupts into violence.
However,
if that demographic is also a religious community, the people in charge may
invoke religion as a way to gain power, support, and legitimacy from its
people, all while either encouraging or discouraging violence from taking
place. Stern used Indonesia as her example of ongoing rapid socioeconomic
change that led to violence.[7]
The problem was that Stern failed to explain why poverty and rapid
socioeconomic changes did not always cause violence when poverty has been a
problem throughout history. Consequently, her example fails to dispel the
historical record. Even so, Stern then does correctly claim any region’s
history is important to its people fighting for rights.
As
part of overall grievance, the historical context and territorial claims are
especially important. For example, suggestions concerning the Palestinian
question is how land be divided between the Jewish and Palestinian State. One
solution is to decide who was there first, however the problem becomes a
slippery slope because both groups have legitimate claims, depending how far
back in history the claim is made. Even if one group could prove or validate
their claim better than the other, it seems the other will refuse to accept or
recognize the claim. Stern uses the Temple Mount to illustrate this point. Even
so, Stern again fails to demonstrate how historical disagreements in themselves
can lead to violence. Instead, she states the historical references are
sometime necessary to provide a framework to entice others to rally around
them, just as leaders will also use religion to rally support if they can.
Of
Stern’s arguments, this one may be most valid. Her example using the Temple
Mount and Jerusalem as a continued hotbed of controversy within Jewish, Muslim
and Christian groups is correct because it shows how the historical record is
often manipulated to support opposing views. Therefore it would seem setting
the historical record straight should settle the claims. However it does not
because no matter how much evidence is presented, the most radical groups will
not accept the new information as valid to settle territorial disputes.
As
Stern would have us believe, five simple ideas tend to explain ethnic violence.
Unchecked grievances lead to alienation and humiliation. When combined with
ethnic strife, peaceful ethnic groups first use demographics, history, and
territorial claims to plead their cases. However, when their governments refuse
to listen, the overwhelmed people then sometimes turn to violence because they
believe they have no other choice.
While
she makes valid points for specific examples, the problem with Stern’s work is
that her solution fails to provide a complete answer to the problem of the
origins of ethic violence. Sure, her view may be correct in specific instances,
but as we saw in Dr. Rantissi’s case, her pattern of grievance as the root
cause, does not hold up in all cases. So while Dr. Rantissi was only one
example, Stern’s other interviews did not fit Stern’s thesis either. So in
conclusion, while Jessica Stern’s book does provide insight into why ethnic
violence sometimes occurs, even she is at a loss to explain why in many other
such cases, similar people choose more peaceful methods and means to settle
their disputes. Consequently, Stern’s analysis of the problem remains incomplete.
Bibliography:
Huntington, Samuel P, “Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations, Inc.
2004, Summer,
1993.
Jewish Virtual Library, A Division of The
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Rantissi.html,
accessed March 19, 2012.
Marx, Anthony W, “The Nation-State and Its
Exclusions,” Political Science Quarterly,
Vol. 117, No.
1, Spring, 2002.
Stern, Jessica, Terror In the Name of God: Why
Religious Militants Kill, New York, Harper-Collins.
Additional information from lectures:
Foss, Andrew, Political Science 386, Global
Terrorism, Northern Illinois University, Spring 2012.
Hamayotsu, Kikue, Phd, Political Science 376,
Political Violence, Northern Illinois University, Spring
2012.
[1]
Jessica Stern, Terror In the Name of God:
Why Religious Militants Kill (New
York, Harper-Collins, 2003), pp. 1-137.
[2]
Samuel P. Huntington, “Clash of Civilizations?,” Foreign Affairs (Foreign Relations, Inc. 2004, Summer, 1993), pp.
22-49.
[3]
Anthony W. Marx, “The Nation-State and Its Exclusions,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp.
103-126.
[6]
Jewish Virtual Library, A Division of The American-Israeli Cooperative
Enterprise, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Rantissi.html,
accessed March 19, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment