Insanity, Terrorism, & Callous Endangerment

Does it make sense to divide people who are disposed to cause callous endangerment to others, into the distinct categories of ‘insane’ and ‘terrorist’?  We are talking about people who are prepared to end other people’s lives regardless of the arguments that go against such a course of action.  They simply shut out any objective information which shows that those they endanger ought not to be so treated.  Their empathy and reasoning have been short-circuited.

 

There is a significant overlap between the those who threaten others as a result of their coming to imagine that the murder of certain innocent people is desirable, and those who threaten others as a result of their embracing some doctrine that declares that the murder of certain innocent people is desirable?  Why should we classify a person as insane if he insists that he must kill because a voice in his head tells him to, but classify a person as a terrorist if he insists that he must kill because his God commands him to? There is no coherent basis for regarding the motive to sacrifice others for the glory of a mighty deity as a terrorist ideology, but the motive to sacrifice others for the sake of appeasing a merciless devil as a mentally disturbing fantasy.  In both cases – unless one accepts the absurd premise as a rational one – any person acting on it has to be considered as dangerously deranged.

 

Subjective intent is not relevant either.  A person acting out some deadly fantasy may think he is saving people from a corrupt world by locking them in a burning building.  Another person may think he is following the teachings of a holy figure by ending the mortal lives of a group of people he has recruited so that they can attain eternal joy more swiftly.  It is the objective harm such people can bring that must be anticipated and prevented. 

 

What about the ‘lone wolf’/‘loyal soldier’ distinction?  If the issue is the scale of operation needed to tackle the threat, then an individual acting on his own with no connection to any wider network might be easier to stop than an organisation with many members involved in multiple plots.  But depending on the weapons and the targets of attacks, one individual could in some situation pose a greater threat than a group of people.  It should also be noted that ideas that feed callous endangerment do not necessarily follow direct command structures.  Ideas that promote blind hatred and remorseless violence can encourage individuals with no formal links to organisations propagating these ideas, to vent their anger and hurt others.

 

The insanity/terrorism demarcation seems to imply that while the former is an illness that should be dealt with through psychiatric treatment, the latter is carried out on the basis of a rational commitment.  In other words, if someone commits an apparent terrorist act because of his insanity, then he is not really a terrorist.  But we understand that many who are manipulated into carrying out terrorist acts are radicalised into embracing notions that they would otherwise have rejected. Indeed, there cannot be many simpler tests of a mind’s soundness than to check its readiness to terminate the lives of innocent people [Note 1].  The extent to which the propensity for callously endangering others can be cured (deradicalised, or de-cultified) will vary in different cases.  What is needed is a unified system to identify, assess, counter, contain, and treat (if that is an option) anyone who exhibits such propensity.

 

--

Note 1: One can legitimately debate if, for example, shutting off one section of a submarine knowing that would lead to ten people being trapped behind and drowning, when it is necessary to save the whole boat from sinking and killing the entire crew of sixty on board.  However, the losing lives/saving lives issue does not apply when the ‘benefit’ invoked to justify the loss of lives only exists in the mind of the killer.

The Basis for Developing Communities

Community development has a key role to play in bringing about more inclusive and cooperative communities.  However, it is often overlooked and underfunded.  One underlying problem is that commentators, policy makers, and the general public do not readily see what basis there is for changing societal structures and relations in line with community development practice.  This can be rectified through four strands of activity: 

Making the Argument

Political discussions cover many views about what communities should be like.  At one end of the spectrum there is the individualistic conception of community as a loose collection of people who look to their own interests, and rely primarily on the market and charities to deal with unmet needs. At the other end there is the hierarchical model wherein dominant groups will determine the ‘traditional’ rules and customs everyone else should have to follow.  In between these conceptions, the case for what community development aims to achieve needs to be made.  Cogent arguments should be put forward for nurturing social relations in the direction of mutual respect and thoughtful cooperation.  

(For example, see: Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship ; and The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas )

 

Raising Awareness 

By its very nature, community development requires people to play an informed role in shaping their communities, and this will not happen if people think it is some marginal process that has little to do with them. All too often, people have insufficient understanding of how wider policies and practices may impact upon them, or worse, they are misled into supporting what are in fact damaging for them. We should raise public awareness through a variety of means - lifelong learning, satirical literature, social marketing, imaginative campaigns – to stimulate interest in questioning prevailing societal arrangements, and exploring alternatives for bringing about more satisfactory outcomes in terms of fairness, contentment, progress and sustainability.

(For example, see: The Anti-Con Novels;  

‘Kuan’s Wonderland: a novel exploration of inequality’ ; and the group learning resource, What Should Citizens Believe )

 

Improving Community Engagement

The degree to which members of any community can influence the key activities affecting that community is down to the effectiveness of engagement arrangements put in place.  Large groups of people, with diverse ideas and concerns, constrained by the time and resources they have, are unlikely to be able to deliberate and arrive at informed views about what is to be done for their common good – unless they are supported by the most appropriate community engagement practices in resolving their differences and exploring shared objectives.  We should ensure lessons from what works (and what does not) in the design and implementation of community engagement are taken on board in giving people a meaningful say about collective decisions that affect them.

(For example, see: ‘Together We Can: a resource guide’ ; ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society' ; and Tomorrow’s Communities: lessons for community-based transformation in the age of global crises )

 

Tackling Inequalities

Inequalities have a major impact on how individual citizens can participate in exerting collective influence.  Those with more power in terms of wealth, status, and connections can push their preferences with no regard for what others might think, while many others, as a result of their socio-economic, physical, and/or cultural predicament, possess little power to make their concerns count.  It is essential to curtail the concentration of power in those who can increasingly dictate terms to others without being held to account, and to improve the conditions for those who are held back by the disadvantages they have had to endure.

(For example, see: Against Power Inequalities ; and Time to Save Democracy )