Originally posted by TacDavey
❌ What a stupid reason to pull a stunt like that. Not that there is any good reason to...
Laurence Wright will talk a lot about humiliation being a major factor in influencing this type of act, and through that perspective, you might be able to explain this man's motivations as though he were humiliated to see Muslims taking "Norwegian" jobs, humiliation by the lack of a social will to enforce his ideas of what his country should look like, etc.
I think the theory is much better suited for explaining Islamic terror, and then, only a small fraction of it. I think what might be a better answer is looking at perceptions of belonging in a meaningful way to society and one's own perception of how much control they have over their ability to belong.
So, if you have a low sense of belonging, but, you feel that it is under your control to integrate, there would be less reason to act violently (ie: the reasons you aren't part of society are the choices you have made). However, if you feel like you aren't part of society because of the actions of others, or that you are a victim of social change (ie: I am not part of Norwegian society because it has changed on me), I feel at least, this would motivate violent action.
just some caveats before I rant on this issue:
1) these are matters of individual perception, not of reality. Thus, someone could feel alienated from a society where, in fact, they are part of a majority ethnic, political, religious, etc, group, even though in reality they may, simply by belonging to such groups, be much better integrated into society than are individuals of marginal/minority groups
2) social alienation can occur because society changes on groups of people, and in reality, they can become victims of changing times, the most poignant example being civil rights in the states, where conservative members of society literally had their country change in fundamental ways they were not supportive of. Therefore, the perception that society has rejected you might not be inaccurate, what is more important is how one perceives their ability to do something about it (do they think "I should change" or "I need to change society"?) [the terms in psych are "locus of control" or "perceived control" iirc, but its not my field]
3) many people feel both alienated from society and a victim of social norms. In fact, it is probably something everyone feels from time to time. Therefore, there is something else that I don't think anyone who has theorized on terrorism or random violence has been able to pin down. Other theories, like Wright's or those that focus on emasculation, also fail to identify this variable, as there are far more people that feel humiliated by oppressive powers than there are those who are willing to do violence because of that humiliation.
so, what is it then? One of the things that is often overlooked in all this is the role of an accepting social group. I actually tend to believe that the same types of things that motivate people to join gangs and cults also motivates people to adopt personas sort of wrapped in terrible ideas. And this isn't to say that people must belong to a literal group of people, but rather, they adopt a persona defined by a specific group of people or modestly coherent ideology. So like, the columbine killers, they weren't part of a "group" of people, but they did identify with an ideology of this sort of anti-life, depressed hatred, or the Norwegian killer, came to identify with extremist racial and nationalist ideas as a defining point in who he was as a person.
so like, my "algorithm" for how someone gets to this point:
- a feeling of being isolated from or rejected from mainstream society.
- the sense that this isolation is a result of society rejecting you for a particular reason, or that the isolation is not something which you have the ability to control. This creates a sense of victimization in the individual, and a sense of confusion about why the world is as it is.
- the appropriation of an identity that fills 2 roles
1) it gives you a sense of belonging to "something" or at least defines you as an individual. (maybe the best example of this is how being depressed is such a cliche thing in modern culture. This might just reflect the fact that depressed people can cope in some way by defining themselves as depressed, thus giving some conclusive perception of "self"😉
2) confirms biases you have against mainstream society (if you think your government is too oppressive, aligning with a group that defines itself as an answer to that oppression will give you a greater sense of control). This is one of the major issues, because it is through this mechanism that one would begin to see the society they don't feel part of as literally evil. Rather than simply feeling rejected because you don't mesh with various social norms, you come to see those norms as evil. An overwhelming evil you have no power to stop that is out to destroy people like you. From an individual psychological perspective, this stance actually prevents issues like cognitive dissonance and other unpleasant cognitive states. It is entirely counter-productive to civil society, but to the person, identifying in such a way, and seeing the world in such clear evil vs good terms makes the world a much more understandable place.
- thinking something must be done to reverse this evil. and this is where violence becomes so hard to explain, because it is what motivates some members of the KKK to hold rallies and protest and others, who literally have the same social/political/etc background, to form lynch mobs. Clearly developmental factors will come into play, as various conditions in one's upbringing will play a role in their position toward violence. To me, this doesn't go far enough in explanation, because it would almost predict that there is a formula of development that produces specific behaviours. The best counter example to this type of thinking, aside from basic logic, is the fact that although many serial killers were abused as children, astoundingly few children who were beaten become serial killers, and in fact, many go on to reject that form of behaviour in their adult lives. Personally, I think the mediating factor (not in parental abuse, but in why some people become violent) is the idea of "tolerance of ambiguity". This is something that is thought to be at least partly genetic, and essentially is how willing you are to allow things to be ambiguous. So, even if you think that Mexican illegal immigration is an evil that is bound to sink America, or even worse, if you believe the conspiratorial ideas about Aztlan or whatever, with a high tolerance for ambiguity, you are unlikely to become violent about it, because you can accept a little bit of evil. You might still vote or rally against it, but you don't see it as so inherently terrible that you have to kill it. On the flip side, if you are a militant in Egypt, and you see Western influence as corrupting Muslim society, and you have a very low tolerance for ambiguity, you will start to see even the people who are not fighting with you as being the same evil that you wish to destroy.
I also accept that there is a bit of a contradiction between having an external locus of control (I am a victim of society) and being motivated to change it (I can change society). These two concepts probably balance in some way, likely mediated by tolerance for ambiguity. If you feel that you are the victim of society's evil, but also that the evil society represents must be destroyed, there is actually no real contradiction, except at a semantic level. And often the specific grievances a violent person has can be identified by the victims they choose. On 9-11, AQ attacked symbols of Western economic and military power, the Norwegian attacker targeted youth of a political organization that supports Norway as an open society, etc. wow, over 8000 characters... I should wrap it up here...
actually, just one thing because I'm pedantic. When I talk about what motivates people to join cults and gangs, I am certainly not saying it is all the same, or that these groups themselves have the same motivations to commit violence or anything like that. Just that these types of groups prey on people who are at these points in their life, where they are questioning their own identity, or lack the sense of belonging to a coherent social group, etc. gangs, cults, terrorist/extremist groups give that type of identity the person is seeking
lol, i know, tldr