Talking about ‘terrorism’: A group analytic approach? Commentary on Geller and Shadach’s ‘Terrorist organizations: Group-analytic and psychoanalytic perspectives’

Blackwell, Dick

doi:10.1177/0533316419888718

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The labelling of such groups as 'terrorists' contributes much to this social construction of reality, and sets them up as objects for the projection of all our own unreasonableness, violence, sadism and deafness. As I have argued elsewhere, (Blackwell, 2003(Blackwell, , 2012(Blackwell, , 2020 such constructions serve not only to demonize the 'other' but also to obfuscate the contributions to oppression and indeed to terrorism made by our own western governments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

In search of peace? Review essay of ‘The Fog of Peace: The Human Face of Conflict Resolution’ by Gabrielle Rifkind and Giandomenico Picco. LB Taurus and Co Ltd, 2014

Blackwell¹

2021

Group Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Book review essay94 Group Analysis 55(1) be seen as following that tradition. Her work too is, as she points out, not without risk, especially when going to meet political leaders from some organizations who might be victims of targeted assassinations, particularly by the Israeli state. This book's breadth, value and importance may have contributed something to the extra-ordinary length of time it has taken this reviewer to put together his attempt to grapple with it and to do it justice. The complexities of Middle-East politics and the attempts to promote 'peace' are not easily summarized. So, my apologies to my book reviews editor and to readers for having to wait so long.The book takes us on a tour of many of the world's 'trouble spots' and succeeds in highlighting the psychological dimensions of these conflicts without ever losing sight of the political background. Unlike so many psychological approaches that too easily reduce complex political situations involving long and tangled histories to simplistic individual or group psychodynamics, it recognizes those histories and the complex and conflicting interests of the various parties involved.Importantly, it challenges two or three myths frequently circulated about many political conflicts, and particularly about those groups that are popularly depicted as unreasonable or crazy, or even psychotic, with whom it is allegedly impossible to talk or negotiate. These myths serve to promote war, because once negotiations become regarded as an impossibility, then military solutions readily become the only alternative. Intelligent generals tend to recognize that political conflicts ultimately require political solutions, and that the most the military can hope to achieve is to create time and space for politicians to negotiate. However, many politicians and media commentators subscribe too readily to the idea that military interventions can solve the problem. I personally recall a late night discussion at an international conference on 'Trauma' in 1988, in which my suggestion that talking to and negotiating with the IRA was the only possible way forward in Northern Ireland, was dismissed out of hand by two British journalists-one from the Times, one from the Telegraph. They insisted that I was being totally naive and unrealistic, and that talking to the IRA was completely impossible!We now know the answer to that argument. But it is sobering to contemplate the way in which we can be assured in the most authoritative way by our media, our politicians and indeed by some so called experts, of certain alleged 'facts', which turn out to be no more than speculation powerfully driven by ideological preconceptions and

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%