1
Staub, E. (2012). Uncertainty, and the roots and prevention of genocide and terrorism. In Hogg, M.A. and Blaylock, D. (eds.). Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty. Oxford: Blackwell publishing
Extremism, as expressed in beliefs and behavior, often violent behavior, is the result of a combination of influences. In this chapter I will focus on two of the violent outcomes of these influences, genocide and terrorism, and on the psychological and social processes that lead to them. The chapter describes the origins and to a lesser extent the prevention of extreme violence. It is based on my research on genocide and mass killing, as well as terrorism,together with work in East Africa and elsewhere on prevention and reconciliation (see Staub, 1989, 1999a,b, 2003a,b,2011, in press; Staub et. al., 2005, 2010),together with the work of others. Itextends this work by considering the role of uncertainty in mass violence (but see also Staub, 2011).
Starting points for mass violence
Certain conditions in societies, which I have called difficult life conditions, are starting points for or instigators of violence by groups against other groups. They include deterioration in the economic conditions of a country, political disorganization with persistent and unresolved political competition between groups, and great social/cultural changes. All of them create intense uncertainty—unpredictability of the course of events, confusion and chaos about how to fulfill basic material or psychological needs and important goals. Their psychological effects can lead groups to turn against others groups and initiate an evolution of increasing antagonism and violence (Staub, 1989; 2011).
Conflict between groups is another starting point or instigator of extreme violence, especially if it persists and becomes intractable and violent. Intractable, violent conflict can lead to mass killing, genocide or terrorism. Conflict can be over “real,” material issues, such as land or power, or over psychological issues, such as identity, dignity, and rights (Coleman, 2006; Staub, 2011).
When there is conflict in societies between more or less powerful groups, there is a convergence of material issues, such as differences in access to power, in rights and privilege, and psychological issues such as the meaning of these differences for identity, dignity, and human connections. In addition, in the course of conflict, even if it starts as a material conflict, usually powerful psychological orientations develop that contribute to or maintain conflict, such as seeing one’s group as right and good, and the other as blameworthy and immoral (Bar-Tal, 2000; Kelman & Fisher, 2003; Staub, 2011; Staub and Bar-Tal, 2003).
War can be also be an instigator (Fein, 1993; Straus, 2006), or can provide a context for mass killing or genocide. The former means that sometimes fighting between groups evolves into mass killing by one party of the other. The latter means that since war represents an evolution to extreme violence, it makes new violence easier. It provides a context in which a history of antagonism and a destructive ideology can lead to extreme violence against a group that is not involved in the war (Staub, 2011).
Genocide can start with difficult life conditions. There was no actual conflict between Hitler and the Nazis, and the Jews and other people “racially inferior” in their eyes. But it often does start with actual conflict, as it did in Rwanda and in Cambodia. Even in Turkey there was conflict between the Turks, who have long ruled over the Armenians, and the Armenians who wanted more autonomy and rights (Staub, 1989).
A sequence of psychological reactions to difficult life conditions and conflict
Difficult life conditions, persistent conflict, war and dislocation frustrate, or at least threaten the fulfillment of universal psychological needs, what I have called basic human needs (Staub, 1989; 1999b; 2003a, 2010a), in whole groups of people. These include needs for security (to be able to fulfill material needs and not have harm come to me or people I care about), for a positive identity (wanting to feel good about who I am and to be able to develop as a person), for feelings of effectiveness and control over important events, for positive connection to other people and/or groups, for autonomy (the ability to make choices for oneself), and for a comprehension of reality and of one’s own place in the scheme of things.
In contrast to Maslow (1971) I see these needs as not hierarchical, but all present and exerting various degrees of influence from birth on (Staub, 2003a). Justice is also a profound need. It may be a basic psychological need, but could also be an outgrowth of the combination of the needs for identity, effectiveness, and connection, all of which are frustrated by injustice. I regard transcendence, going beyond a focus on the self, engaging with the need of others and/or to spirituality, as another profound need, but it is unclear to what extent it is as basic as the others, or whether it is a second order need that arises when other basic needs have been satisfied.
While a few scholars/practitioners studying intergroup violence have considered the role of human needs (Burton, 1990; Kelman, 1990; Montville, 1993), most have not considered either basic psychological needs or uncertainty. In their theorizing about intergroup relations social psychologists have focused on social identity, and the shift to social identity as a source of self-esteem in response to threat. As part of this shift belonging to an ingroup becomes more important, and sharper lines are drawn between “us” and “them.” (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Psychologists have also focused on threat and fear (Bar-Tal, 2000; Pettigrew, 2003), existential anxiety related to our mortality (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004), and humiliation (Lifton, 2003; Lindner, 2006). The exploration of the role of uncertainty in group relations has begun relatively recently (see Hogg, 2007).
In my perspective, people experiencing threat, fear and existential anxiety, and their identity shifting to a social identity, all have to do with uncertainty about and the frustration of their ability to fulfill basic needs. The instigating conditions I described, which are usually the starting points for the evolution of group violence, usually threaten not only identity, but the fulfillment or frustration ofall basic psychological needs. They threaten who one is by calling into question whether one will be able to maintain security, to act effectively, to fulfill one’s responsibilities in relation to family and oneself, toreach essential goals (see also Hogg, 2007).
Uncertainty that arises from difficult life conditions obviously threatens or frustrates the need for security. One does not know whether one will be physically safe, will have food and shelter for one’s family, or will be degraded and humiliated by the conditions of life or by other people. It also threatens and frustrates effectiveness and control, as events are unpredictable, and people’s ability to take effective action that will protect them and accomplish important goals is questionable. It threatens and frustrates the needs for comprehension of reality, since one’s old understanding and worldview and of one’s place in the world are challenged by change, chaos and unpredictability.
Not all uncertainty has negative consequences. A great deal of psychological research has focused on the appeal to people of novelty and complexity, and the potential to satisfy intrinsic motivation by exploration, through engagement with novelty and complexity. Moderate levels of uncertainty can thus be appealing. However, it also matters what people are uncertain about. While we may not like the uncertainty that is part of falling in love, most of us are more than willing to tolerate it. But even mild uncertainty about the ability to have food and shelter, about whether one will be attacked or not, about having connection to a community, about one’s ability to take effective action in realms related to survival are likely to be aversive to most people.
Very great social changes are challenging even to people who regard them as positive. Even people who advocated and welcomed equality in civil rights had uncertainty about how to relate to each other across group lines. In addition to level and domain of uncertainty, there are individual differences. Some people may enjoy uncertainty and unpredictability, but probably more so if they themselves have sought it out, and have the ability to leave uncertain situations. Others may have great difficulty and feel threatened and fearful in the face of relatively modest uncertainty. People with authoritarian personalities, who have been expected to obey rules and learned to be guided by firm rules, have come to prefer structures and hierarchies in which their position is clear (Suedfeld & Schaller, 2002). They are more likely to be impacted by difficult life conditions and uncertainty.
Basic needs can be fulfilled constructively or destructively. Constructive actions address the conditions that frustrate the need and provide satisfaction for the need. Destructive fulfillment reduces uncertainty and satisfies some needs but usually interferes with the fulfillment of other needs. It also potentially or directly harms other people, and creates reactions by others that harm the self (Staub, 2003a; 2011). For example, aggression can give people an at least temporary sense of security, make a person or members of a group feel effective, can strengthen identity by elevating people over others and also by clarifying a person’s identity in place of the uncertainty and confusion of inaction. It can create connection among those who aggress together, and help develop an understanding of the world as one in which aggression can be and needs to be used to achieve important ends. Aggressive actions by groups clarify relationships both within the group—create a sense of unity-- and between groups—establishing who is powerful and dominant. However, aggression creates disconnection from those who are harmed, it is harmful to the victims, it often leads to retaliation, if not by the victims, by the rest of the world, and it often does not address the difficult social conditions that have frustrated material and psychological needs.
Common initial group reactions to instigating conditions
In response to difficult life conditions, group conflict, or war, members of groups tend to have a number of psychological reactions and social processes that arise from them.
- They turn to a group for identity. The identity of individuals shifts from an individual to a collective identity. They can turn to their already existing group, which strengthens the group, or create new groups, usually ideological movements. Shifting to a collective identity has important psychological consequences. It can lead people to give greater weight to what happens to the group than to what happens to themselves individually. People can accept sacrifice in behalf of the group, and even sacrifice themselves for the group. Those outside the group, especially those belonging to a group designated as a scapegoat or ideological enemy, including neighbors and former associates, are increasingly seen as group members rather than individuals.
Varied psychological theories offer varied explanation for this. Social identity theory suggests that by turning to a group, and elevating their group, people maintain or enhance their self-esteem. (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel Turner, 1979). Terror management theory suggests that as people embrace the cultural beliefs and values of their group, which helps them maintain their self-esteem, they protect themselves from the existential anxiety created by awareness of their mortality (Pyszczynski, et al., 2004). Uncertainty-identity theory suggests that identification with a group reduces uncertainty (Hogg, 2007).
In my view, all these theories are correct. In my perspective, the reason for the shift in difficult times, and for its power, is that most if not all basic psychological needs can be fulfilled by membership in a group. As group members people will feel more secure. In difficult times and in the face of conflict the group is potentially more effective in protecting them and in fulfilling goals than they are as individuals. An identity that is threatened and has become burdensome (by the inability to protect self and loved ones, by ineffectiveness, and so on) can be relinquished and strengthened. Discrimination in the face of which an individual is helpless can be addressed more as part of a group. The feelings of separateness as people compete for scarce resources or as they are isolated in a changing world is replaced by feelings of connection. The values, beliefs and ideology of the group reaffirm or provide new comprehension of reality.
One need that can potentially be frustrated by group membership is the need for autonomy. On the one hand, the importance of particular needs may be increased or diminished by the conditions of life. On the other hand, while needs are universal, they develop differently and can be fulfilled in different ways in particular cultures and in particular individuals. The people most likely to turn to groups and ideological movement may have less need for autonomy, at least in difficult times, or possibly group actions in relation to other groups fulfill this need for them.
- Members of a group join in scapegoating another group for life problems—or blaming the other group for their conflict. The scapegoating is usually led by a vanguard (Staub, 2011), but progressively others in the group join.
- Ideologies—beliefs about or visions of ideal social arrangements--visions of a better future for the group, or for all humanity, are created and adopted, or existing ideologies gain in importance. These ideologies are often destructive, in that they identify some group that stands in the way of the ideology’s fulfillment, so that this group has to be “dealt with” in order to fulfill the ideology.
Research by Ian McGregor and his associates ( McGregor, 2006; McGregor et al, 2007; McGregor et al., 2008) has shown that people turn to abstract ideals and become more extreme in their views when they experience uncertainty and the threat that entails. These researchers have created uncertainty about academic studies (should I stay in engineering or major in art?) or relationships (shall I stay with or leave a boyfriend). This led people to express more extreme attitudes, for example, about abortion, terrorists, and support for the war in Iraq. Their religious commitment increased. These effects were stronger with people who had high self-esteem who, in the researchers’ view, tend to move toward things. These findings are consistent with the notion that in response to the frustration of basic needs people turn to ideologies that offer them hope, but also identify enemies.
These group psychological/social processes help fulfill basic needs. They diminish the feelings of one’s own or one’s group’s responsibility for life problems or group conflict, and thereby enhance identity. They increase feelings of effectiveness as people join in turning against the scapegoat or ideological enemy. They fulfill the need for comprehension by identifying a cause of the problem, and a positive vision for the future. Membership in the group provides connection. Unfortunately, they begin a destructive evolution, discrimination against or persecution of the scapegoat or ideological enemy.
Ideology is especially important in leading to extreme actions and group violence. It is likely to have a powerful role in reducing uncertainty, as people develop strong commitment to the ideology, and gain clarity and certainty about what the world ought to be like and belief in what it will be like.
The evolution of harmdoing and violence: psychological and societal change
In summary, when difficult life conditions lead individuals to turn to their group, or an ideological movement, for security, identity, effectiveness, connection and a meaningful understanding of the world. The leaders and members of such groups frequently scapegoat some previously devalued group, and create what is for them a hopeful vision of societal arrangements (an ideology), but identifies enemies who stand in the way of fulfilling the ideological vision. Creating an inclusive vision of all subgroups of society working together for a better future, what I have called a constructive ideology (Staub, 2003a, 2011) makes violence less likely.
Individuals and groups change as a result of their actions. Once harmful actions toward another group begin, a psychological, social and behavioral evolution may unfold,with increasingly harmful and violent actions (Staub, 1989, 2011). Scapegoating, destructive ideologies, and this evolution are more likely in societies with certain characteristics (see below). One important characteristic is the absence of pluralism--monolithic values and limited freedom of expression—which make speaking out against destructive policies and practices especially difficult. In such a society, witnesses or bystanders are especially likely to remain passive. Their passivity encourages destructive leaders and their followers.
Instances of mass killing or genocide show a progressive change and evolution, sometimes with intervening periods of relatively stability. In Germany, there was progressive increase in discrimination, persecution and violence once the Nazis took power in 1933. In Turkey there was a mass killing of Armenians in 1894-96, with relatively little violence against them until the genocide of 1915-16 that took place in the context of World War I. In Cambodia, there was extreme violence as part of the civil war, after which the victorious Khmer Rouge proceeded to perpetrate genocide (Staub, 1989).