Suicide Bombers: Who's Next About the Author Reviews Content Excerpt Copyrights 

Suicide Bombers: Who's Next
by Dr. Violeta Matovic

Theoretical considerations of suicide terrorism

            Social deviation studies in sociology lie on general social theories that explain the nature and samples of social aspects in different way. Special theories have been emerging from the framework of these theories, as well as methods and studies of social aspects that are considered deviant. Depending on scientific cognition and theoretical-philosophical understanding, theories were developed which included certain social processes and aspects, and explained deviant behavior using them.
            Suicide terrorism, as a phenomenon spread in some parts of global society, inflicted the need for new and serious studies of the nature of this phenomenon, as well as causes of its origin in the light of existing scientific knowledge on deviant behavior and in modifying previous thoughts.
            Every sociological deviance theory is an attempt to explain deviation with social causes. Suicide terrorism, the way it’s executed, its dynamics, auto-destructive and destructive character cannot be described in the frame of one existing theory. Suicide terrorism also has formal and material elements which categorize it in crime, so it belongs in crime theories. But, all sociological crime theories are based on general deviance cause that represents individual’s tendency in creating better conditions for personal life and life for the group it belongs to, in a socially unacceptable way. Considering that the natural instinct for survival in humans is more dominant than any other wish, thereby also preserving other peoples’ lives, the suicide terrorism etiology is studied through suicide theories.
            Today, we can barely state several influential suicide theories. All theories formulated in the 20th century refer to the postulates older than 100 years, Emile Durkheim’s suicide theories.
            French sociologist Emile Durkheim’s theory is based on classical “suicide study” from 1897[1], a model that frequently conceptualizes suicide terrorism. According to Durkheim, there are four suicide types: egoistic, altruistic, anomic, and fatalistic. Egoistic suicides, following the form of decreased integration, are individuals who become separated from the society and come to believe that their existence is pointless. In defining altruistic suicide type, the most important factor is social integration. Society influences an individual through the value system up to the point where his personal needs are neglected completely. Society also inflicts death as eulogy category accepted by an individual due to overwhelming assimilation. So, egoistic suicide is a consequence of overly highlighted individualization, while altruistic suicide, on the other hand, is a result of insufficient individualization (where there is a glimpse of suicide terrorists’ commitment to social aspects). Anomic suicides, as a form of lesser control, usually emerge from sudden disruptions in social hierarchy or norms. These can be economic or political crisis or disruptions in personal normal life. Fatalist suicide individuals perceive circumstances that surround them as unbearable, and that dying is the only way of salvation. This group emerges from the society with overwhelmingly normative limitation of individual’s behavior.[2]
            Studies that were previously conducted in the scope of this theory have found evidence that supports the claim that suicide terrorists belong to the egoistic suicide type, but it was also found that they can belong to the altruistic suicide type[3], and in recent research Ami Pedazhur and Arie Perliger highlight: “Unlike most studies in these fields, which focus on egoistic and anomic suicide, we will focus on Durkheim’s less explored categories, specifically, altruistic and fatalistic suicide”.[4] Authors explain that altruistic and fatalistic theories category can be applied mostly to traditional societies going through political, social and economic transitions, such as the Palestinian society, whereas, the categories of egoistic and anomic suicide are applicable mostly to post-industrial societies. Pedahzur and Perliger find support for their hypothesis inside the data, which states that suicide bombers belong to these two groups. As we can see,  in previous studies it was found that an individual, who decides to commit suicide attack, can belong to any category.
            It means that one same society, from which suicide bombers emerge, like Palestine, has a character of anomic society, and also a society with overwhelming normative limitations. It also means that individuals from Palestine, who committed suicide attacks, decide to do it because they isolated themselves from the society or they assimilated too much into it. If we are to understand previous research results like this, than we don’t get a logical explanation of suicide terrorism. If we describe different character of the same society, we can eventually speak of micro-societies inside society, and than about individuals who are isolated or too much assimilated. However, altruistic society, according to Durkheim, implies that it inflicted an obligation to the individual of committing his life to mutual interests, apropos, to sacrifice himself for it. If we regard Muslim society in general, on national or supranational level, than we could categorize suicide terrorism here. If we regard individual level of suicide terrorism, such as previous researches had shown, we find evidences that individuals who commit suicide attacks belong to the rest of suicide types. There is a question of how egoistic, anomic, and fatalistic suicides become altruistic in the end.
            Our problem in phenomenon conceptualization lies in theoretical problems that exist for the last hundred years. Firstly, the limitations in Durkheim’s theory were the subject of many critics, and than there were attempts to formulate new theories by these corrections. One of the theories, considered mostly developed after Durkheim’s, is a theory of status integration, Jack Gibbs and Walter Martin, in 1964.[5] This theory is built on social integration theory, whose indirect exertion is status integration, with the assumption that suicide rates vary inversely with status integration degree in that population. Status integration rate depends on the scope in which individuals take inappropriate statuses, and that further influences on role conflict scope and alignment degree with social and sanctioned demands and expectations. This theory is inappropriate to describe the phenomenon we are dealing here with, because it points to the blind forces in creating unstable social relations, and by that also a blind character of suicide rate. Suicide terrorism, by no means should be regarded as a standalone type phenomenon. It didn’t emerge as uncontrolled force capable of warping social contents, but it matured in politically provoked social destruction, with strong propaganda initiation. Besides, discontent with answers that sociological suicide theories provide emerges from questions related to individual cases. Why did a person A commit suicide, while a person B didn’t, although they were both in identical social situation? Sociological model of analysis is moving in the framework of S-R formula, where S stands for state (society), and R stands for suicide rates.[6] In this model, relation between S-L, in which L represents a personality factor, remains unknown. That is why, in scientific tendency towards knowledge, and in this research, it is more appropriate to seek descriptions in concepts that include social and individual aspects. In 1954, Andrew Henry and James Short[7] formulated a suicide theory, where Durkheim’s information integrated with psychoanalytic conceptions of frustration and aggression. Suicide and homicide are described as aggression acts, but suicide is a product of aggression against the personality itself, where the cause of frustration lies inside the personality. Authors begin with one of the main frustrations that evocates aggression, failing to keep gained or to achieve higher position in status hierarchy. Although this theory made progress in suicide research, it couldn’t provide the answer why, under the same conditions, person A commits suicide, and person B does not. All later theories had the same problem that Thomas Joiner is trying to solve using his theory of suicide from 2005.
            In order to display the assumption we were led to, we need to say a few words about the mentioned psychological theory of suicide. The basic starting point of this theory is the presence necessity of three psychological elements in order for any individual to commit suicide. Accomplished capability to commit deadly self-injury, the sense of separation from other people and feeling inefficient up to the degree where they see themselves as a burden to others. According to Joiner, accomplished capability to commit deadly self-injury is conclusive. People are not born with the developed capacity to seriously injure themselves. They are born with the opposite – the knee-jerk tendency to avoid pain, injury, and death. That is, people have strong tendencies toward self-preservation, evolution has seen to that. Some people develop the ability to beat back this pressing urge toward self-preservation. Once they do, they are at high risk for suicide, but only if certain other conditions apply. The main roads for achieving capability to commit deadly self-injury are the previous suicide attempt, substances misuse (whenever during lifetime, even when misuse period is long complete) or other causes that also imply passing through long-term and repetitive painful and provocative experiences. These are the ways to kill survival instinct. This capability can’t be achieved quickly, as opposed to feeling alienated from others and feeling inefficient.[8]
            Direction of our thinking connects individuals’ crisis with his contact with forms that glorify suicide attack. Reaching status that enables martyrdom concept, in Muslim world, provides him with motive sublimation. Frustration is a result of not fulfilling the needs. It doesn’t need to be the cause of some psychological disease, but it is often the cause of feeling inefficient and alienated. As one type of compensation, sublimation is when unreachable motive is replaced by a reachable and socially valued.[9] New martyrdom concept is reachable and extremely valued motive.[10] Emile Durkheim theory, with all its lacks, is the only one left as explanation of social influence to suicide. In martyrdom context, suicide attack is altruistic suicide, but empirical data show that suicide bombers can be categorized in all other three remaining types. The reason is probably that previous researches of suicide terrorism, in the framework of Emile Durkheim, neglected the influence of martyrdom indoctrination as stimulus for altruistic suicide, and acknowledged social factors that influence the emergence of other three suicide types. In those cases where social factors were visible, there remained evidences of egoistic, anomic, and fatalistic suicide. In cases without the signs of three suicide types, altruism was visible on its own. Our attention is to explain martyrdom indoctrination influence as social factor and channel for specific individual’s motive redirection, by which all three, separated, suicide types is formulating into altruistic.
            There is no assertion that the potential suicide bombers are only persons who would commit suicide anyway, but the voluntarism originates from feeling alienated and inefficient that is neutralized with the opinion to commit socially valued act. Paradox scenario in respecting illegal behavior usually can be found in societies with destroyed value systems. Poor social-economic life conditions, social, cultural, and sub-cultural conflicts, social anomy, social isolation (individual’s separation from social groups), social support (during increased scope of poor social contacts), are some of the factors that influence creation of micro-societies. Formed micro-societies try to inflict their goals, ways and means, directly or using propaganda. Individual with the feeling of alienation and inefficiency sees his chance in the offered activities, and approaches primary group that brings new rules, which in this case is terrorist organization. Problem with persons without developed capability to self-inflict deadly wounds begins when they understand that completing the mission means a point of no return. In terrorist organization, education process for committing acts (sometimes it represents a more complex training, and sometimes only instructions for detonating explosives), they create commitment ambience among members, and later the pressure for public commitment (recording farewell videos, etc). So, persons who are not capable of committing suicide try to find a way out from the newly created situation. Some of them succeed, some don’t. Other types of individuals are those that don’t even have to have these two mentioned feelings. Learning process in primary group is the same, but they have a tendency to accomplish appointed goal – suicide attack. “According to most of the suicidologists, suicidal behavior is always anti-anomic, which means that future suicide wants death, and to live at the same time, but under different circumstances”[11].

Home   Books   Services   Submit Your Article/Comment   Terrorist Groups   About us   Contact

Webmaster: support@n-c-t-c.com