Terrorism: Motivation and Theory

The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, Aug 2017

Abstract This paper attempts to determine motivations behind terrorism from the perspectives of Rational Choice Theory and Social Solidarity Theory. Understanding motivation for terrorist acts cannot be determined uni-dimensionally and different levels of terrorist organizations are best understood using different theories ­­– with individual suicide bombers’ motivations best explained by Social Solidarity Theory and sponsoring organizations’ motives best explained by Rational Choice Theory.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=jpps

Terrorism: Motivation and Theory

e Journal of Public and m : M otivatio n an d Theor y Wayne Korbl 0 Unversity of West Georgia 0 waynekaye 0 @gmail.com 0 0 The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology by an authorized editor of Recommended Citation - Terroris M Article 1 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps Terrorism: Motivation and Theor y Cover Page Footnote I would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback and Neema Noori, Ph.D. for inspiring me to pursue this research topic. This refereed article is available in The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/ vol9/iss2/1 TERRORISM: MOTIVATION AND THEORY Wayne Korbl University of West Georgia INTRODUCTION The following paper attempts to determine motivations behind terrorism from the perspectives of Rational Choice Theory and Social Solidarity Theory. It explains difficulties in agreeing on a common definition of terrorism among different scholars and reviews some of the possible demographic, psychological and social dynamic causes of terrorism, ultimately concluding that understanding motivation for terrorist acts cannot be determined uni-dimensionally and that different levels of terrorist organizations are best understood using different theories. Individual suicide bombers’ motivations can be best explained by Social Solidarity Theory, while sponsoring organizations’ motives are best explained by Rational Choice Theory. According to Olivier Roy (2006) , the original al-Qaida members were of predominantly Saudi Arabian and Egyptian origin. Thus, these countries are significantly represented in the paper, to the extent that the example of mechanical solidarity included below is based on Saudi Arabian history. The paper examines suicide terrorism, although it also explores other forms of terrorism. Although this paper examines a pre-Islamic State era of terrorism, some journalists report that the boundaries of the IS “caliphate” are diminishing and requiring it to u-turn into an insurgency and competitor to al-Qaida (Marcus, 2017) . Thus, these perspectives still contribute to the understanding of the motivations for past and contemporary terrorism. SUICIDE TERRORISM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY In reviewing the literature concerning terrorism and Rational Choice Theory, one finds that rational choice is much more accepted in the political science than sociological discipline, perhaps due in part to RCT’s origin in economic theory. Early classical theorists outlined sociology by differentiating it from economic theory. Currently, some theorists are still resistant to the “colonization” of sociology by RCT (which they call exchange theory [Scott, 2000]) , although this may be slowly changing (Hedström & Stern, 2008) . Since an individual characterized by one person as a terrorist will be characterized by another as a freedom fighter (Bates, 2011; Qirko, 2009; Shughart, 2011) , martyr, revolutionary, insurgent, or common criminal (Shughart, 2011) , no definition is unanimously recognized (Atran, 2003; Karoui, 2010; Post, et al, 2009) . However, definitions provided by many scholars (Atran, 2003; Karoui, 2010; Kydd & Walter, 2006; Pape, 2005; Post, et al, 2009) closely echoed the Office of the Coordinator, US Department of State definition of terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Shughart, 2011, p.127) . As seen below, the theories that these theorists provide support this definition with the exception that most imply the attempt to influence multiple audiences instead of just one audience. In Rational Choice Theory, individuals are seen to be active, rational agents that determine the best course of action given certain rewards and costs. Many theorists believe that terrorism can be explained through the lens of RCT. Shughart believes that terrorists calculate risks and make choices in order to gain the greatest benefit for the least cost in “money, munitions and manpower” (2011, p.127). They also shift tactics when states enact countermeasures against them. Atran (2003) states that the cost of outfitting a Palestinian suicide bomber is $150, of which transportation to the site is the most expensive item. This cost gains the sponsor organization increased public support and more prospective bombers. Bryan Caplan (2006) counters this assertion, also citing Rational Choice. He believes that the sponsoring organizations have a large motivation to overstate their influence and willingness to utilize suicide terrorism. and questions why there are not more bombings given the claims of plentiful recruits and money to outfit them. Caplan cites the example of two terrorist organizations engaged in a morbid rivalry in which they tried to outdo each other in the number and destructiveness of (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=jpps

Wayne Korbl. Terrorism: Motivation and Theory, The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 2017, Volume 9, Issue 2,