Joining Islamic State is about ‘sex and aggression,’ not religion

[cbayer]

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/16/joining-islamic-state-is-about-sex-and-aggression-not-religion/

By Arie W. Kruglanski October 16, 2014


A militant Islamist fighter waving a flag, cheers as he takes part in a military parade along the streets of Syria’s northern Raqqa province June 30, 2014. REUTERS/Stringer

It is easy to look to religion for an explanation of why young men — and some women — become radicalized. But it is psychology, not theology, that offers the best tools for understanding radicalization — and how best to undo it.

The appeal of Islamic State rests on individuals’ quest for what psychologists call “personal significance,” which the militant group’s extremist propaganda cleverly exploits. The quest for significance is the desire to matter, to be respected, to be somebody in one’s own eyes and in the eyes of others.

A person’s sense of significance may be lost for many reasons, such as a personal failure or a stigma that comes from transgressing the norms of one’s society. We are reminded of this when we examine the backgrounds of female suicide-bombers in Israel. The first female suicide-bomber in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was divorced by her husband after she was found to be infertile. Another would-be bomber had been disfigured by burns, believed to have been caused by her family, after she had an affair. These women suffered from personal stigma and went on to volunteer for suicidal missions against the Israelis.

Loss of significance can also be caused by hopeless economic conditions. It can grow out of a sense of disparagement and discrimination, a not uncommon experience of many immigrants. And it can come from a sense that one’s brethren in faith are being humiliated and disgraced around the world.

more at link

[Fumesucker]

1. And yet the stigma the two women mentioned suffered came from the religious beliefs of their culture

Both personal crises were to do with sex, something Islam seems absolutely obsessed with.

Even when you try to argue religion has nothing to do with it the examples given scream otherwise.

[cbayer]

3. I agree that it is complex and it doesn't make sense to

me to draw a clear line either way.

It is both about religious beliefs and about secular issues like power and masculinity.

In this case they are really feeding off each other.

[trotsky]

6. "It is both about religious beliefs and about secular issues"

That's not what the article you posted says. I am glad to see you take a much more reasonable position than the one which absolves religion from any role at all. I welcome this as a positive sign for future fruitful discussion.

[skepticscott]

8. Classic bait and switch

Very handy when you want to be able to argue the exact opposite of whatever the people you don't like are saying, and when you want to be able to claim whatever point of view is most expedient in a given situation.

[trotsky]

2. Maybe if you repeat it enough it will become true.

Good luck with that.

If the religion wasn't there to offer the ideas and concepts that appeal to and support extremists (and purport to present those ideas straight from gods), that would also help. But no, let's completely rule out ANY possibility of religion playing a role. That's the ticket.

[skepticscott]

4. That's the agenda

among the religionistas here. Defend religion and its crimes and abuses at any cost, deflect any criticism of religion by any means possible, and deny that religion bears any responsibility for harm and violence perpetrated in the world. Always blame something else, NEVER religion.

When all else fails, say "it's complex", and pretend that's an answer.

[trotsky]

5. You forgot one component.

Attack the straw man that we're saying it's 100% religion's fault and nothing else!

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Plus by criticising religious institutions we are attacking all believers.

For example: "the Roman Catholic Church advocates bigotry" becomes "all Catholics are bigots".

[pinto]

7. Good, short read. I've grown increasingly interested on the how and why of the choices some make.

Especially with the allure of jihad among young men and women - it's a glaring issue currently. I agree with the author to an extent. It's a multi-faceted choice and religion may likely be just one part of it. Religion is obviously the overriding context but why choose such an extremist take on that? The link to social, economic, sexual and personal contexts seems really worth a look in the big picture.

Some of the article is disjointed and I didn't quite get the conclusion -

For example, young men vulnerable to the appeal of extremist ideology might be persuaded to fight the desecration of their religion and promised a place in history by defeating the satanic evil that soils their faith. Social media may need to be turned abuzz with the glory of standing up to evil, encouraging the bravery needed to undertake personal risks for “breaking bad.” This message should not be presented in faint pastels but in bright, bold colors.

Measured arguments against Islamic State wouldn’t do the job. Countering it requires fiery, impassioned appeals.

I wish Mr. Kruglanski had elaborated on it in this piece.