The picture that emerges is of largely intelligent people finding direction in the networks of associates they keep.
"The work on pathways into terrorism indicates that it comes out of a social process; it comes out of a series of contacts that terrorists have with other individuals," Professor Canter told BBC News.
"At the broader level, everything has to be done to undermine the idea that individuals think of themselves solely in terms of any particular group of sub-group - be that fundamental Muslims or supporters of a football club . Once people only think of themselves in those terms, then that sets the seeds for conflict."
Re-read that last paragraph above.
Any group that isolates itself, by just focusing on itself, sows the seeds of conflict with the rest of society. Groups isolated from the rest of society are not automatically terrorists [look at the Amish], but they are places where confirmation [what we all think is correct] and conformation [you must not think differently than us] are oppressive forces acting on group members.
We confirm, you conform are the unspoken rules in any isolated group, whether they be criminals, terrorists, religious zealots or those overly fanatical about their political party or sports team.
Below are some of the close internal ties of the 9/11 hijackers. Included in their group were others who had already carried out acts of terror -- setting an example of behavior for the rest.
Posts
1 comments:
This is one problem Cass Sunstein also reports in the book Republic.com (see below)
A friend of mine was provocatively suggesting the constitution should contain an article stating every citizen must confront herself with people with different opinions regularly (once a week?). A provocation, but a needed one as more and more we enter in our own echo chambers!!!
As I wrote at http://www.gnuband.org/2007/06/09/reputation_is_in_the_eye_of_the_beholder_on_subjectivity_and_objectivity_of_trust_statements/
This risk is called “echo chamber” or “daily me” [16]. Sunstein, in the book Republic.com [16], notes how “technology has greatly increased people’s ability to “filter” what they want to read, see, and hear”. He warns how in this way everyone has the ability to just listen and watch what she wants to hear and see, to encounter only opinions of like minded people and never again be confronted with people with different ideas and opinions. In this way there is a risk of segmentation of society in micro groups who tend to extremize their views, develop their own culture and not being able to communicate with people outside their group anymore. He argues that, in order to avoid these risks, “people should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance. Unplanned, unanticipated encounters are central to democracy itself” and that “many or most citizens should have a range of common experiences. Without shared experiences, (…) people may even find it hard to understand one another” [16], .
Post a Comment