Terrorists as the Other

Dear Editor,

Clearly the recent (December 2015) issue of Clio’s Psyche was timely in its discussion of the psychology of terrorism and especially relevant in light of the recent Paris attacks, the murderous rampage at the Colorado Planned Parenthood offices, and of course, the attack in San Bernardino. The political aftermath demonstrates that in the United States, terrorism is considered a manifestation of the “Other.” The psychology of terrorism in this country is essentially the psychology of the Other—the other race, religion, or government, the other group, and the other person. This psychology dominates the comments and stances of the majority of Republican presidential candidates who define terrorists by an Otherness that is easily recognizable; thus the Paris and San Bernardino attacks are terrorism, but the attack on the Planned Parenthood offices is not labeled as such. This psychology of the Other tends to be drawn along the lines of race, religion, and possibly culture as much as political ideology. It allows a convenient form of racism and bigotry by perceiving the Other as a threat, a potential “enemy combatant,” based simply on race and religion, even when no evidence of terrorism exists.

Terrorists seldom see themselves as terrorists, but rather as idealists driven by political or religious motivations, thus perceiving themselves as soldiers for the greater good, the right. From their perspective, they are serving a greater truth and are justified in their use of terror. The bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City was clearly an act of terror, but general perception and response were nothing like the perception and response toward Islamic people after the destruction of the Twin Towers. There was little or no backlash against white, anti-government fringe groups on the part of mainstream Americans after the Oklahoma City bombing. There were no demands from average citizens for rounding up the individuals and groups who encourage and implement such domestic terrorism. Law enforcement did not begin to profile and investigate these fringe elements with the high visibility and vigor that they later employed against Islamic groups and citizens, even those who were born in this country.

Individuals and groups who employ terroristic threats outside clinics by taunting patients, doctors, nurses, and staff, and those who employ rhetoric that incites such acts, do not perceive themselves as terrorists. Neither do those same individuals and groups perceive terrorists as those that share their ideology and bomb clinics or murder doctors. Their own perspective is from an ostensibly higher moral ground. In our society, those individuals and groups are generally perceived as Americans expressing their views; they are not perceived as terrorists. Those who

Page 334

have bombed and murdered are simply criminals, people who broke the law, not terrorists. They are not perceived or defined as terrorists because they are not recognizable as the Other. We need look no further than the current political rhetoric to see this in action and to see that it sets a dangerous precedent of continued divisiveness and hate. As Don Carveth stated in his letter in the December issue of Clio’s Psyche, “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.” It is up to people like the editors, contributors, and readers of journals such as Clio’s Psyche to combat this psychology of the Other.

Sincerely yours,

Tom Gibbs

Page 335