Terrorism and lethal moralism in the United States and United Kingdom, 1970–2017

Abstract

The current paper examines terrorism as a special form of moralistic violence, with several key features that distinguish such behaviour from other types of violence. The theory of lethal moralism highlights the importance of social polarization, characterized by vast differences in social space and inequality between adversaries as crucial to explaining deadly terrorist attacks. Where the differences are more permanent or chronic – and the groups in question define and justify their existence specifically in contradistinction to ‘other’ groups – then the polarization intensifies and attacks tend to be more lethal. In contrast, groups that appeal to broader audiences or the general public as potential allies more often use non‐lethal terrorism to their strategic advantage. The study examines the United States and the United Kingdom to classify each of more than 8,000 attacks between 1970 and 2017 in terms of their ideological orientations. The evidence highlights the arc of terrorism in relation to different types of groups, as well as confirms the more lethal nature of terrorism linked especially to radical Islam, right‐wing religious extremists, hate groups, ethno‐nationalist sectarian violence, and anti‐government anarchists. Yet apart from the extensive use of terrorism associated with ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland, the majority of terrorist attacks in the US and the UK have not produced deaths. Most terrorism instead has been perpetrated by groups aiming to rally support for a general cause and has been far less deadly on balance. The implications of these findings are discussed with a view toward developing more powerful explanatory models that focus on the socio‐cultural contexts and justification frameworks that inspire extremism and the use of lethal moralism to settle disputes.

Stress and depression as pathways between violent conflict exposure and moral beliefs: Why people sometimes condone “bad” things.

“…Studies also find that terrorism-related trauma increases the support for political violence in Israel (Hobfoll et al, 2006; Johnson et al, 2009). Focusing on terrorist attacks, Michalski (2019) also points to the idea of moralistic violence in various contexts and notes that certain groups can justify their existence or behavior as the opposition to other groups. Furthermore, focusing on the 2014 Gaza War, Zipris et al (2019) underscore the role of emotions as potential links between war and support for militancy.…”

“Ethnic paradox of modernity” and the liberal civil nation in the horizon of globalization: “challenge” and “response”

“…The way to transform an ethnic nation into a civil one is to change the idea of national identity; R. Brubaker's constructivist theory describes the process ("downscaling", "depoliticization" of representation through "private interests") [31] of such a transformation, -existing nations are "ranked" according to the criterion of their ability to make such transformations; programs are being put forward designed as for European ones (for example, W. Altermat [5]), and on the "peripheral" areas of "activation of nationalism". One of the ways to remove the national conflict is considered to transfer it to the "ethical plane" (B. Yak [24]) with the subsequent moral disqualification of "national fundamentalism", which also entails "legal consequences" [32]. "Objective obstacles" on the way to the formation of a civil nation are not completely ignored either; for example, K. Huebner [33] asserts about civic loyalty as a motive for national self-identification: "The idea of the philosophers of the modern Enlightenment, according to which, in the final analysis, it is the state system of their country that is the source of loyalty to it (constitutional patriotism) is absolutely alien to reality" [33]; national identity shall be based on "feeling" [34].…”

Einschüchtern und Vertreiben, Bestrafen und Eskalieren. Instrumentelle Zielsetzungen rechtsterroristischen Handelns

“…Rechtsterroristische Akteur:innen rechtfertigen die Gewalt mit einer Erzählung von Notwehr und subjektivem Leiden sowie der zur Rettung von Volk, Nation und ,Rasse' als unausweichlich behaupteten Konfrontation. Diese ,moralistic violence' (Michalski 2019) behauptet Normverletzungen im Sinne der Verletzung von ,Reinheitsnormen', die in der Benachteiligung der Eigengruppe sowie der Nichtbeachtung angeblich naturgegebener Hierarchien und Superioritätsansprüche wirksam würden (Fischer 2014, S. 188;VandenBerg 2021). Das Narrativ von der Verteidigung der ,weißen Rasse' wird dabei ebenso als Legitimation aufgerufen wie die Beschwörung der Gefahren eines ,Kultur-Marxismus' (Busbridge et al 2020).…”