Magical Thinking as a Response to Terrorism (article)

When America is faced with tragedy, we will do anything to alleviate our fear, not the least of which is constructing irrational thoughts about ourselves and the external world. The attacks of September 11 seem to be producing some frantic proposals as “solutions” to terrorism. In the Oprah and Rosie O’Donnell culture, our first instinct is to make ourselves feel better rather than to find solutions that work.

After tragedies like Oklahoma City and Columbine—and now the destruction of the World Trade Center—we eagerly watch our leaders and politicians put in place new regulations that are supposed to keep us safe. For example, we are comforted by “zero tolerance” for knives—even dinner knives or plastic knives—aboard aircraft despite evidence that such precautions don’t help: terrorists typically do not follow the rules. After the World Trade Center tragedy, one United Airlines passenger seriously stated that she was glad the authorities were keeping lines long to check for coffee cups with sharp edges. “This makes me feel really safe,” she said. “I feel like they are doing something.” “Doing something” feels nice but it would be better to implement what is effective at preventing terrorism.

Unfortunately, these policies leave us with a false sense of security. At least until the next mass murder takes place and we are left shaking our heads, wondering why our symbolic solutions have done little to solve the problem. Of course, this is what this kind of symbolic solutions is all about—the appearance of doing something. Whether or not that something works to reduce random acts of violence is not even the question.

This is not surprising. From primitive times to the present, people have engaged in magical thinking in times of terror. Magical thinking is the practice of associating a particular action with a desired result even though there is no logical connection between the two. It’s like ancient priests sacrificing babies to prevent an earthquake or a modern student carrying a rabbit’s foot in the hopes of passing a test. Relocating or studying would be better but it’s also work.

Magical thinking is very similar to “logical errors.” An example of a logical error is to encourage a culture of passivity among civilians in times of crisis. If we see violence as always bad, we conclude that people who are passive and have no means of fighting back will not be harmed. This leads, for example, to a call for stricter gun-control laws after each tragic shooting. The evidence points to the contrary: people who live through a mass murder were active and aggressive. They either ran out of the dangerous area or, if cornered, they fight the perpetrator. One expert, J. Reid Meloy states:

People who are killed do not run or hide effectively: they usually choose obvious hiding places, like under a desk or table…. This behavior appears to be acutely regressive—like the child who hides in an obvious place, believing that if he closes his eyes and cannot see, he won’t be seen. (Violence Risk and Threat Assessment, 2000, p. 226)

Such approaches work with imaginary monsters but not with real ones.

Unlike the frightened child who hides under the covers, we cannot close our eyes to real solutions to terrorism. This includes tracking down the perpetrators who did the deed, arming the citizenry (at least psychologically) to fight terrorists, and encouraging a culture of action rather than one of passivity. These are real solutions, not magical ones. Some mindsets, involving self-reliance and active, not passive, responses are far more conducive to preventing and resisting terrorism than oth-

Page 205

ers, such as “feeling good” and “doing something.” Such mindsets are also less likely to encourage the adoption of panic-stricken anti-terrorism policies. It seems that our hope of keeping America the land of the free may depend on our willingness to keep it the home of the brave.

Page 206