In her recent book, Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia (Praeger, 2010), Anna Geifman, a professor at Boston and Bar-Ilan universities traces the universal patterns of twentieth- and early twenty-first century terrorist movements through a psychohistorical lens that yields some surprising conclusions. She begins by arguing, for instance, that Russia is the birthplace of modern terrorism.
Defining contemporary terrorism as a tactic marked by indiscriminate acts of violence perpetrated by non-state actors in the name of subversive ideologies, Geifman commences her survey at the dawn of the twentieth century. Just within its first decade, she notes, 17,000 Russians were butchered in acts of political violence. Extremists strapped on bombs and blew up cafes, train stations, and government offices; they attempted to drop explosives on the Winter Palace of Czar Nicholas II. Quotes from government officials, witnesses, and perpetrators show how the Russian subversives serve as the eerie forerunners to groups like al-Qaeda who threaten international security today.
Over time, terrorists’ “objectives mutated from punishment of high officials for specific deeds or policy to indiscriminate brutality carried out en masse.” The perpetrators called it “motiveless terror,” which required no justification. Russian extremism, serving as a blueprint, reveals the approach of terrorists across the globe throughout the next century.
Yet, in a development few scholars or policy makers foresaw, terrorists worldwide took violence to a new level after 9/11. The destruction of the World Trade Center was the apex of organized symbolic murder, where “terrorists strike for the sake of the devastating emotional effect on the eyewitnesses physically unaffected by bloodshed.” With the terrorist act still being “a means of communication with larger audiences, not a tactic to obtain a specific goal,” the perpetrators redefined their primary targets, to aim at the last absolute and unquestionable value in a postmodernist society—the inviolability of children. Not accidentally, the first major terrorist act after 9/11 was the massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia.
Why this upsurge in brutality? Geifman devotes significant attention to the reoccurring phenomenon psychiatrist Robert Lifton calls “historical dislocation.” The process entails a breakdown of traditions, values, and communal norms as a key precondition for the rise of modern terrorism. The book describes the psychological trauma experienced by individuals who suddenly find themselves uprooted and thrust into the periphery of an urban environment as a result of rapid modernization. The first victims of terrorism are the perpetrators themselves, who “suffered from an array of life-undermining symptoms, such as emptiness, angst, and hopelessness.” Recruiters then lured them from their confused, solitary paths to join a new subversive collective that would supply meaning to their lives. Like the Russian extremists of a century ago, their Muslim counterparts have lost the communal Islam of the countryside. But whereas the Russian radicals directed their grievances against the political system of their own country, the jihadists project their hatred onto the West.
Dark and unsettling, the latter part of the book brings the reader into the realm of “Death Culture,” the quasi-religion that worships death and offers human sacrifice as means of salvation from the life terrorists come to despise. Arab intellectuals admit, privately, that they “live in a culture of death,” while extremists in Gaza preach: “We desire death, as you desire life.” Death Orders depicts individuals who, having already contemplated taking their lives, have gratefully seized the opportunity to “camouflage” their suicide with political or religious martyrdom. It is true today as much as it has been for the Russian terrorist Lidia Sture, who “liked to repeat that if she had not been able to enter a terrorist group, she would have killed herself.” The modern cult of death-worship, or thanatophilia, and the hatred not only for the enemies but for life itself, lies at the core of what drives terrorists to perpetual, unmitigated destruction dressed up as sacrifice.
Economic inequality, imperialism, or nationalism do not provoke terrorism, Geifman argues. Terrorists are not seeking policy change, and their political platforms and religious slogans are merely superficial wrappings for their ambitions. Terrorists, from Russia to Lebanon, share a common psychology, and, whatever the specific ideology, come to embrace the same mindset that ignites their proclivity to kill: “militants are driven not by a final ideological aspiration but by the struggle itself.”
Geifman's theory is validated by the fact that terrorist organizations with diverging ideologies will nevertheless form alliances based on a common destructive goal (for example, the Japanese Red Army and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who together executed the Lod Airport massacre in 1972). Terrorists, once in power, build on what they did to get there to establish a terror-based state. Terrorists do not seek to build a new order, or even to give new regimentation to life, but rather nihilistically seek to destroy the current one.
It is unfortunate that Death Orders does not address specifically the issue of how an effective counterterrorism strategy might be formulated in light of its central thesis, however Geifman does offer a striking prediction about the terrorists we currently face. By its very nature, she claims, contemporary terrorism is unsustainable: “all past death cults have been destroyed or self-destroyed.” When they are no longer able to propel death outside, they are “claimed and consumed by their own venomous inner void.”
Ariella Charny is a student at Tufts University.
RESOURCES
Anna Geifman, Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Yes, but in asking what can we do about this ultimate rebellion against God (for death-as-ideal is a goal of return to the nothingness from which we were created, and in that negation becoming who we really are in non-substance, non-being (ultimate relief from the burdens of life for the essentially non-believer, and thus its existential attraction), we are left solely with countering the milieu that births this nihilism, i.e., countering economic inequality, imperialism and a nationalism that becomes imperialistic in any of a variety of manifestations when we set our selfish goals in opposition to the subsistent life of Third World peoples, as, for example, in the installation of tyrants that oppress their people with us turning a blind eye as long as it is insured that we will benefit economically/politically in our greedy oppositional self interest (oppositional nationalism with all its pride and vainglory).
This seems terrible, Gil, because we are both on the same side, but I also have to disagree with your views on tyrants. I feel we will end up with something far worse than Saddam and Qadafi in Iraq and Libya respectively. Unfortunately many societies are in such a state of political development that only a tyrant could control them. Democracy isn't simple.
_Liberty, then, when forced on a people unfit for it, would, instead of a blessing, be a curse; as it would, in its reaction, lead directly to anarchy,—the greatest of all curses. No people, indeed, can long enjoy more liberty than that to which their situation and advanced intelligence and morals fairly entitle them. If more than this be allowed, they must soon fall into confusion and disorder,—to be followed, if not by anarchy and despotism, by a change to a form of government more simple and absolute; and, therefore, better suited to their condition. And hence, although it may be true, that a people may not have as much liberty as they are fairly entitled to, and are capable of enjoying,—yet the reverse is unquestionably true,—that no people can long possess more than they are fairly entitled to._
Cultures that produce terrorism seem, in general, to be the kinds of cultures to which Calhoun refers. When has there not been some sort of brutal authoritarianism in Russia? As for the Middle East, just watch any evening news broadcast to see Calhoun's principle embodied.
My concern as a lay Christian at this late date stems from my Lord's command that we as Christians love one another, and that is the only way that others, including our enemies (whom we also must love) will know us, the only legitimate way of creating conditions for fruitful dialogue; and the second way of others knowing us grows out of the first, works of love and mercy. For example, supporting political and economic interests that will help a nation become politically and economically independent, and not punishing them when we disagree with how they go about it in their own way, or installing a dictator that we believe will best fulfill their future happiness, imagining that our dictator will be a better one, when in fact there is no way to predict this, and anyway, this of course would involve the ends justifying the means, which Christians must reject.
I know you and Fred conceptualize on political concerns from a true compassion that has its origin in a desire to love. But Christians must go deeper, to a place where these words from Fred become frightening: "No people, indeed, can long enjoy more liberty than that to which their situation and advanced intelligence and morals fairly entitle them." How do we analyze a culture and decide what they are entitled to? Keep in mind the rampant moral relativism that our nation is caught up in before presuming our vast superiority in the dynamics of “advanced intelligence” and morals.
This is my concern, that we in our vainglory as a nation that has been blessed with the greatest political system in all of history have arrived at a place where we believe we know what's best for Third World nations in their unique historical development, including a rabid imposition of the ideals of our sexual revolution, denying them life-sustaining support if they don’t accept these impositions. And together with this, there is much we could learn from those cultures, especially family dynamics, that would improve our own culture.
Our involvement in Vietnam began in 1956, and we from the beginning not only undermined free elections, but supported a dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem, who was dedicated to not ever holding free elections. He knew that Ho Chi Minh's popularity was so great that he couldn't be defeated in a free election, and Minh’s main concerns was to unite a country that was divided by foreign interests, much as Lincoln's main concern was not to free slaves, but to have a united country. And keep in mind that The Geneva accords in 1956, calling for the reunification of Vietnam, provided a protected national free election, but it was rejected by Ngo Dinh Diem and the United States. Minh's second concern was to free Vietnam once and for all from all forms of foreign domination for economic and political interests. To view an incredibly beautiful and agonizing representation of this, see Francis Ford Coppola's French dinner party in "Apocalypse Now Redux". A Christian would never say, "Because I abhor your political system, I will do all I can to stop it...in your best interest, of course.” And the death toll in Vietnam was 3,000,000. 58,000 of those deaths Americans. For what Christian principle?
Nation states with oppositional self-imaging has existed for about 200 years, and it is time for it to go, which does not mean the death of nations, just the death of a violent attitude of superiority and entitlement at the expense of Third World peoples.
Mike, my concern for the extensive damage done after Kant solidified the most devastating of Enlightenment principles, the dictatorship of reason, goes as deep as yours. And I would argue that this worship of reason is what ends in supporting dictatorships. Reason can travel where you will it, and that’s the problem with worshiping it. It has its place, a grand place, but just a place, not a throne.
I agree that we Christians must engage our enemies in love, and why diplomacy in foreign affairs is all important. But the moment we Christians support any dictator to keep the oil flowing, to insure the safety of industries we have imported for cheap labor and a host of other selfish interests that end in supporting the oppression of peoples, we have abandoned our Lord’s command to love.
Though I agree with much of what you say, I also feel uneasy with some of the sentiments expressed in your line of argumentation. There seem to be two things working together - a monolithic view of specific cultures, and the erroneous conclusion that for some of them authoritarianism is a legitimate means of keeping anarchy at bay.
Experience shows that on closer examination, there are often several discernible currents in any given culture. Recent events in Russia, and in many countries in the Middle East, prove that there is a substantial number of people there who desire peace, and freedom from fear and subservience. It would be an insult to their aspirations to counsel them that they are not ready, as a culture, to "possess more than they are fairly entitled to". To be honest, any such counsel could legitimately be viewed by them as an expression of soft imperialism, chauvinism, or both.
The perennial problem seems to be that such people are usually not well organised, and are in need of some supporting structures to channel their desire for freedom in an effective way. If it's true that it is better to light one candle than curse the darkness, then we too, at the very least, can speak up for freedom in solidarity with them.
Perhaps I've made my point too strongly - mea culpa.
I too share your apprehensions regarding the Arab Spring. It does seem to be the case that those who would impose a militant theocracy are better organized than those who would rather build a civil society, at peace with itself and its neighbours, most notably, Israel. But I would argue that it is way too early to throw in the towel.
The historical parallel here is not exact, but if you recall, similar arguments were made before the fall of the Soviet empire. Many of those on the left, with the nativists on the right, argued that the Soviet rule is preferable to the "inevitable" chaos, anarchy, and wars that will erupt in Eastern Europe if the communist grip is ever relaxed or eliminated. The reason for this given then, is the same as now - Eastern Europeans (and Arabs today) do not posses the level of culture necessary to sustain an advanced and sophisticated Western democracy. These lesser peoples are destined to slide down to their natural level of backwardness and mutual antagonisms.
It took men of greater vision, such as president Ronald Reagan and pope John Paul II, to chart a course out of this mental fog then. This greater vision is needed now - what's necessary are ties among like minded people, and mutual support. The rest, I believe, God will provide.
This was very clearly illustrated in the Banlieu riots of 5 or 6 years ago and by the riots in London and other English cities last summer. "This whole series of nocturnal vandalisms and anonymous attacks, this wordless destruction...this was an assault that made no demands, a threat without a message..."
I must admit my first concern is not to figure out a way to stop what can arguably be perceived as a high probability of anarchy in the Middle East leading to installations of various forms of oppressive theocracies. My first concern is that we Christians as representatives of the Christian communion establish the Christian way in the matrix of political and economic concerns. And an essential part of this way is to not support dictatorships for any reason, but the voices of those committed to freedom and peace, with a willingness in prudence, patience and kindness to remain in dialogue with those dictators that do come to power, with an emphasis on rejuvenating the original idea of a United Nations. For I am convinced that as the world's most powerful nation, we can have great, even miraculous, influence in that effort if we just abide in Christ. The notion that politicians and diplomats cannot be holy, cannot participate in the communion of saints, is one of Satan's many powerful lies. And to embrace that particular lie would be a Christian surrender to Satan.
Fred, I disagree with this estimation of yours: "It doesn't take a whole lot of analysis to see that Middle Eastern cultures are backward, corrupt, brutal, and violent." In fact these cultures have a rich heritage that has made great contributions to Western cultures, and although often suppressed by tyrants, they will not die. Think of how when our country made an alliance with Stalin, and how many intellectuals here and in Europe (including Sartre and company) decided to turn a deaf ear towards Russian activist scientists and artists who were fighting to keep their culture alive. We espoused support of what we considered a lesser of all the evils lurking in Russia’s shadows. And the persecution of scientists and artists escalated, many ending up in mental institutions, receiving shock treatment and other tortures of the mind, or ending up in one of the gulags. They cried out to us for help, to at least acknowledge their cries, and we ignored them, supporting the dictator we believed was the lesser of all evils, and he, with Hitler, turned out to be the worst in all of human history (and think of a particular Russian Christian voice we refused to listen to during the persecutions, and learned to hate him for being too Christian when he lived in America: Solzhenitsyn). Like I wrote earlier, it is not only dangerous to make those kinds of predictions; it is un-Christian to support an evil means toward an envisioned good end. Keep in mind that Ronald Reagan went against all his advisors when he said boldly, in love and respect, "Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
However, the roots of Russian terrorism were brilliantly portrayed just as they were occurring by the profound Russian novelist, Fyodor Dostoevsky. His novel, Demons (sometimes translated as The Possessed) coherently exposes the causes and consequences of terrorism. Child abuse and attempted seizure of political power are at the core of Dostoevsky's book.
It is very clear from Dostoevsky's novel that alienation from God and consequent alienation from self and others is the root of terrorism. Politically oriented counter terrorism strategies will never succeed because the cause of the problem is not political. Instead the root is a spiritual malaise that leads to an idolatory of politically motivated violence.
The Russian terrorists may have blown up schoolchildren, but they have come very late to the party. A central and inviolable plank in the ideological platform of the Democrat/MSM complex, and of liberalism in general, has been the targeting of the unborn, for decades now, for the sole purpose of destroying womanhood as such. And now, coming as no surprise, is the impulse to dehumanize the elderly so as to make them disposable as well, just like the Kulaks, Jews, citizens of Nanking, and, once upon a time, God himself.
What must burn itself out, therefore, is not just the impulsive nihilism of a few alienated terrorists but the thanatophilia of 25% of Americans and probably 50% or more of Europeans. This reversion to pre-Christian scapegoating and human sacrifice, so obvious during the "great" wars of the early 20th century, is actually gaining steam again, virtually unnoticed and with the assistance of millions of "useful idiots," to use Stalin's phrase.
Barring a miracle, which looks to me to be wholly undeserved, many, many more will be martyred before this current spasm is over.