“What we would expect…” – terrorism and poverty

From a PDF shared with me last night via Twitter – a 2006 paper, “Rooted in Poverty?” by political scientist James A Piazza:

terrorism rates

Though Piazza acknowledges “complexity” in this matter – as would any reasonable person attempting to answer the question with which he begins – he does maintain as a point of argument an absurd reading or set of readings of the table above.

Consider the position of the U.S. on the list, clearly as a result of the 9/11 attacks, which occurred near the end of the study period. Piazza’s argument or claim about unexpected results implies, in short, that the US is too wealthy for 9/11 to have any relationship to poverty (or to economic deprivation or grievance). This form of reasoning would be close to arguing that bank-robbing must be unrelated to economic motivation, since most banks hold lots of money and are often located in nice buildings. Likewise, murder has no apparent origin in lethal enmity since it turns out that many or most murder victims do not possess any. The inclusion of “Israel/Palestine” on the list embodies a similar absurdity: The wealth of Israelis disqualifies deprivation as a motivating factor among Palestinians! A little bit of thought will reveal similar problems with the inclusion of several other countries in the table.

When we discuss modern terrorism, we are usually setting aside so-called “state terror,” and tend to focus on two types of terrorists who can broadly be defined as “revolutionary terrorists.” In the case of revolutionary leftwing terrorists, that they claim the cause of “the wretched of the Earth” is definitional. That they themselves will not tend to be “wretched” ought to go without saying. In discussion with the individual who supplied me with the Piazza link, I was also asked simply to accept that “religious terrorism” is “divorced” from social and economic deprivation – as though Osama Bin Laden operated from the same separation of church and state or private and public that characterizes the liberal order he wanted to destroy, and as though the present-day misery and weakness of the future subjects of the glorious restored Caliphate had nothing to do with his “religious” motivation. Islamism or radical Islamism is in many senses a direct successor to revolutionary leftism as cause pursued on behalf of, but not typically by “the wretched” or the most wretched or, to make the point clearly since it seems to be necessary to underline the obvious in these discussions, the perceived relatively deprived or oppressed.

To pursue the assumption that the terrorist will or ought to be the main victim of grievance is to suggest that the attacks on New York and the Pentagon could not have had anything to do with Operation Enduring Freedom, since the vast majority of American soldiers and operatives were not in New York or at the Pentagon: Very few (as in none) of them died on 9/11, deaths on 9/11 were not a significant motivating factor. The reasoning embedded in that chart and the initial interpretation or declared expectation really is that absurd. To avoid the obvious appearance of absurdity, Piazza relies on terminological slippage already evident in the sentence directly below the table, mis-characterizing and in effect straw-manning the alternative hypothesis in that vague “related”-ness of “terrorism rates” and “poverty and inequality.”

The more sensible view, and the one with which I began the Twitter discussion I referred to, is that the factors that enable or inspire an individual to adopt as his or her own a terrorist’s cause – the grievance and the objective – are not, and generally cannot be, the same factors that create the cause itself. The grievance must always be felt to some extent vicariously. Dead children do no terrorism; exhausted and malnourished wage slaves do not organize grand acts of political violence on behalf or supposedly on behalf of exhausted and malnourished wage slaves; the unemployed and impoverished cannot afford airfare. One might even entertain the (Kojevian-Hegelian) world-revolutionary thought that if everyone was in a position to perform international terrorism – mobile, with luxury to inform themselves on and reflect upon the state of the world, well-connected, well enough-financed, etc. – there would be no “need” for terrorism.

Or, without entering into some neo-Aristotelian typology of causes, we can simply observe that what causes me, personally, to sit down and write this blog post, now, today, or makes me the kind of person who would write it, may have nothing directly to do with the subject and purpose of the blog post. The “root causes” of this blog post are twofold: obscure personal purposes and a type of jaw-droppingly inane scholarly argument. Without jaw-droppingly inane scholarly argumentation, I would have to find some other way to serve those obscure personal purposes.

As absurd as insisting that individual terrorists must personally embody the grievances which they seek or claim to address would be the notion that poverty under some rough common-sense definition is always and exclusively at the “root” of terrorism or always explains all terrorism, though in  absolute terms the idea that every positive act, even every thought, responds to a dissatisfaction of some type, which can always be considered a type of “perceived relative deprivation” – or poverty in some sense – is consistently arguable.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

8 comments on ““What we would expect…” – terrorism and poverty

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Interesting argument about the division between the grievances and the ones responding to them. Would you say that applies beyond violent measures too? That’d appear to have difficult implications for virtually any viewpoint claiming to be born from struggle if so…

    The world of well enough spread connection, abundance, and leisure to render using it for harm pointless is an appealing thought. If only we could pursue it.

    • If I understand you correctly, then, yes, without question. One of the reasons I find this argument on the poverty-terrorism link so annoying is that the reasoning is so common both in bad social science and in cheap ad hominem polemics, while the general rule, that being able to act or speak in relation to a major grievance implies some degree of insulation from it, is inescapable. It was analyzed to death and life-after-death in relation to revolutionary Marxism, though, on the other side, the accommodation to the fact that the vanguard and especially the leadership could not generally consist of proletarians, did reflect or re-produce real problems for leftism and left anarchism, both practically and theoretically.

        • that may be a problem for anarchism, since anarchism is propagated – taught, exemplified, argued, etc. – by individuals who of necessity set themselves apart, and who form a vanguard whether they wish to do so or not, and who always to some extent come to their denial of privilege via privilege: Prince Kropotkin would be the canonical example.

    • They usually have to add a hyphen, and become anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-communists or something, giving a get-out-of-anarcho-jail-free card to the particular mode of state or state-like organization or government that doesn’t fit their definition of state (or arkhe).

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins