How do Terrorists and Extremists Change their Minds?
This may be the wrong question... the factors leading into and out of extremism involve many more dimensions and in fact, we too may need to change.
Perceptions of terrorists and extremists often range from ‘crazy’ to ‘possessed.’ Rarely do discussions of perpetrators and ideological supporters of terrorist violence account for the humanity of the individuals involved. Human beings are complex, multi-faceted creatures with hopes and desires, traumatic experiences, grievances, trauma, loves and histories. Research has shown that terrorists and extremists are by and large rational, normal human beings. In fact, we are all susceptible to the forces at play.
The question I’ve posed ‘how do terrorists and extremists change their minds?’ is perhaps not quite the right one. The question assumes that the ‘mind’ is what needs changing. Since the enlightenment, the West has been fascinated and perhaps too reliant on facts, evidence, rationality and thinking as the basis of reality. Humans are much more complex, we are ‘desiring creatures’ as James KA Smith indicates1. Often these desires are functioning right below the surface, sometimes even inaccessible to our conscious, rational thought. Our loves and desires are curated and developed through habits, liturgies (secular or religious), environments and relationships.
When our kids were young, my wife used to ask them in the middle of a temper-tantrum or moment of ‘attitude’ ‘what do you want right now that you are not getting?’ What a prescient question for us all. Often the simple answer was ‘I’m tired’ or ‘I’m hungry.’ Thinking had little to do with the reasons behind bad behavior.
Are we asking the right question? Is it really ‘thinking’ that needs to change or belonging and desires?
Another reason this question is perhaps misguided is that it assumes it is primarily (and perhaps only) the extremist that needs to change. It does not take their grievances and perspectives about society or social or political problems seriously. Often well before someone reverts to violence, they express legitimate concerns about injustice. Ayman Zawahiri was upset regarding the torture and treatment of prisoners in Egypt, Yasser Arafat (before he renounced violence and signed the Oslo Peace Accords) was passionate about restoring houses and land taken from the Palestinian people. I am not suggesting all grievances are legitimate, nor that all blame for terrorism falls on society in general, but what if part of what needs questioning is ‘us’… ‘our’ society, our complicity in injustices?
Many journey on a radicalization pathway and some eventually engage in terrorism for complex reasons. Grievances play a significant role along with not being ‘heard’. Resentment, frustration and the strong emotion of shame, experienced individually or collectively is often present. This results from discrimination or perceived injustice as a common motivator along with the persecution of a group, desire for revenge and violations of honor. Second generation Muslims in Europe for example or converts to Islam are more susceptible to radicalization, perhaps because they don’t feel they fit in either their host culture or their family culture. These are strong identity questions and normal human desires for belonging.
But simpler reasons abound as well. There is wide agreement that terrorists and extremists are normal, with few if any psychological abnormalities. They seek to solve problems and grievances through channels they deem most efficient and efficacious. Often jihadists are motivated by the allure of adventure, promise of authority or reward and thrill seeking. Sometimes love or brotherhood is a compelling reason, peer groups especially influence younger men. In the US context, right-wing terrorists often follow similar patterns, perceiving the government is persecuting them or their in-group and finding belonging in a militia or ethnocentric group cultivating honor and defense against perceived enemy out-groups.
Timothy McVeigh who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, grew up as a shy kid and was bullied by peers. He became obsessed with guns, the 2nd amendment and survivalism. He was influenced by KKK rhetoric and ‘white power’ and after his honorable discharge and service in Iraq, his grievances centered around taxes, government regulation and gun rights. He found belonging and ‘his people’ in the gun show circuit, traveling all over the US to speak and investigate conspiracy theories. After Waco and Ruby Ridge, he and former army friends who were like minded, learned explosives and plotted action2.
There is wide agreement that terrorists and extremists are normal, with few, if any, psychological abnormalities.
One of the most statistically accurate ways to predict if someone will become a terrorist is if they are involved in a friend group with other terrorists. Gang activity or drug culture is often underlying much of the recruitment into terrorist groups, with a veneer of religion. There are hundreds of motivators like this, with no singular pathway into extremism. It is important to keep in view that interpersonal factors, along with sociological, psychological, religious, theological, emotional and geopolitical can all play a role.
Many extremists have been shown to have a very low grasp of basic religious teaching, though they are often thought to be primarily motivated by religion. Olivier Roy says, in his study about jihadist recruitment to the Syrian war from France that the recruits “don’t give a dam[sic] about theology.3
So what about leaving terrorism and extremism? How do people change their minds?
In several studies, deradicalization pathways and desistance from violence follow similar complex realities. In my own interviews with former extremists in the Levant factors included the experience of precarity, violence, kidnapping and torture. They were displaced, experiencing social status reduction and desperate need. They experienced surprising kindness from non-profits and churches thought to be enemies through medical care, food and education and were invited into social groups that offered them family and belonging.
In other analyses like John Horgan’s work, the exit from extremism is a sophisticated, complex process of push and pull factors, similar to the process of initial involvement4. He says there is “a sense of gradual socialization” into a group and in leaving terrorism behind that involve myriad psychological, ideological, practical and social factors. Disillusionment with the group, interpersonal conflict, living conditions, or inability to achieve stated aims are sometimes reasons all experienced as a process.
Thus, people do change, but the mind, that is, rational, intellectual or higher-order thought is often secondary. For terrorists, doctrine or theology often has far less to do with extremism or terrorism than is portrayed. A change in belief or of ‘the mind’ comes later, after other desires like safety, love, honor and belonging.
What if part of what needs changing is ‘us’… ‘our’ society, our complicity in injustices?
So how do we work to change an extremists’ mind? Well, perhaps we don’t. While theological, religious and ideological conversations are important (eventually), starting there may backfire. Rather, creating healthy places for people to belong, new relationships, healthy pathways to express and resolve grievances and other avenues for adventure, camaraderie and shared goals are better tactics.
Smith, James K. A. You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit. Illustrated edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
Olivier Roy, “What Is the Driving Force behind Jihadist Terrorism? - A Scientific Perspective on the Causes/Circumstances of Joining the Scene,” 11.
Horgan, John. “Disengaging from Terrorism.” In The Faces of Terrorism: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by David Canter. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2009. https://onesearch.nihlibrary.ors.nih.gov/discovery/fulldisplay/alma991001219393804686/01NIH_INST:NIH.