One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter
Why Perspective Matters.
Throughout history there has been conflict. When conflicts arise, several things can happen. If the adversaries are outwardly equal in power, some form of contest may determine the dominant party and consequently the outcome of the dispute. In many cases, however, there is a dominant party already established. Efforts to quell the discord can be made by simply overpowering the adversary. The weaker of the parties may have to devise a strategy or tactic to try to outsmart or surprise their opponent. They are motivated to attack, or rebel, because their current condition is not providing the security necessary to carry out day-to-day life. Colonialism, for example and how it affected native tribes, is demonstrative of how one group or individual can up-set the security of another. As long as there’s a shred of truth in the expression, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” the subjectivity of assessing the “truth”, is going to remain elusive. But how could terrorism be in the eye of the beholder? Surely something as egregious as terrorism must be black and white when it comes to whether it is right or wrong. At this point, it is important to assess the definition of terrorism and how it relates to oppression, ontological security and existential anxiety.
Terrorism is a reaction, usually to some kind of threat. Evolution has provided two options when responding to a threat: fight or flight. Flight is removing your self from the threat in an effort to regain security. Fight, on the other hand, is the attempt to affect change by removing the threat. Depending on the magnitude of the threat and the faculties available to affect change, the response will vary. The key is that fight or flight is always an attempt to regain security.
Catarina Kinnvall discusses the necessity of security in her article Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity, and the Search for Ontological Security. An individual’s ontological security is anchored in their sense of self, or identity within their community and their community’s place in the greater scheme of things. Contentment comes with the familiarity of consistent and reliable patterns, whether cultural traditions or the mere ease of navigating one’s own domicile. Kinnvall cites Erikson’s work stating, “Identity is seen as an anxiety-controlling mechanism reinforcing a sense of trust, predictability, and control in reaction to disruptive change by reestablishing a previous identity or formulating a new one.”
What does this have to do with terrorism? Understanding what lies beneath the passion of terroristic acts could help shed light on alternative approaches to managing discord. Looking at the core of a retaliatory response and the source may open opportunities to identify common purpose among disputing parties. Often times terrorist acts are high profile, drawing international media attention. What isn’t typically obvious is the catalyst or triggers. Understanding that these acts are rarely unprovoked, at least in the eye of those committing them, is important perspective to have if you’re looking to develop a strategy to stop them. Considering the actions, reactions, thoughts and passions behind aggression apply to all of mankind to varying degrees blurs the lines that separate ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Most people want to believe that are different from the common terrorist. Perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to analyze our similarities more thoroughly in order to gain understanding and develop solutions.
