Violence is not inevitably destructive: Theories on Terrorism

Sociological Theories Applied to Terrorism in the Case of Paris

Michel Wieviorka has the conception that violence does not inevitably have to be destructive and negative. In the course of time violence was also used to change society. The violence we saw in Paris during the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s editorial department was not only simply destructive but also caused changing impacts on the society in a whole. Some of the consequences of this terror attack were riots, xenophobia, an increasing discrimination of Muslims or debating about prevention and public security in the cloak of terrorism. Since the wind of nationalism is sweeping over the European country most of these impacts on society tend to have negative effects in the short course of time. However, from an optimistic point of view this destruction of the values we hold on to since years may lead to social evolution in a longer course of time. Referring to Randall Collins it could end in countries and peoples in a whole, despite racial differences, realizing the necessity of social changes when it comes to discrimination and religious segregation. Raising acceptance and tolerance could be one of the positive effects of violent situations like the Charlie Hebdo case. However, as mentioned above to see these positive effects now requires an optimistic point of view since the majority of the people cannot or refuse to understand that it might be violent situations forcing people into aggression as long as the bitter taste of “Islamification destroying European values” is still in there mouth.

In regards to Pierre Bourdieu the Paris incidents and the omnipotent fear of terrorism may manifest in our “habitus”. With “habitus” he describes the traditions, values and convictions we hold on to and subsequently pass it on to future generations. Therefore it will be socially reproduced, which may lead to a latent but manifested and therefore even bigger problem of racism in the future. This may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy because people are expecting violence, felony and anti- social behavior from immigrants, foreigners or simply dissidents. The moment when this expectation has manifested in the mind, the brain will automatically filter out situations not suiting this preconceived opinion and end up in only seeing news, articles and actions that confirm what has already manifested in the mind before. A vicious circle a society in a whole is hardly able to escape since there are plenty of developments that make the situation and impacts on society even worse and more manifold. For instance the French government implemented a homepage providing guidelines for its citizens giving advices on how to prevent potential, radical Islamists from turning into dangerous jihadists. These guidelines resemble more the ancient methods of witch-hunting than an attempt to keep their citizens safe and prevent future violence and terrorist attacks.

In the case of the attack on Charlie Hebdo the victims are not only the families and persons directly concerned. But also all people that felt threatened by this unreasonable, unpredictable act of violence. Furthermore there are plenty of proofs of this terrorist attack on the Internet and media, which leads to a lot of passive witnesses and bystanders. These reasons make the difference of violence staying local to global violence. For most people this attack had no clear goal that would socially legitimize it like the state’s monopoly on violence mostly does. In contradiction this terrorist attack allegedly encouraged by the Islamic State tried to legitimize the movement itself and gain more power by its social rejection and general security threat. Because the IS does not want to be socially accepted by the rest of the world. This is how they gain more members too. Since, their social rejection is a symptom also the aggressors on the satire magazine suffered from, as well as a lot of religious or racial discriminated persons in the world. So the former abusers turn to victims of the society they live in themselves and can relate to the image the IS draws of itself. By making unreasonable, local violence global by videos, social media networks or newspaper articles public, this organization gains more power. Therefore their violence is not addressed to any specific organization or state but to Western society in a whole. Hence, relating to Michel Wieviorka their violent acts are not a conflict but war. It seems contradictory but the particular way European media reports about the Charlie Hebdo case encourages the extremist of both sides. On one hand there are the nationalist extremists in Europe who fear the “Islamification” of their countries, which leads to rejection, intolerance aggression and xenophobia towards immigrants. On the other hand the foreigners who may start to relate to Islamic State’s position and gather in their cultural, religious communities among peers because of that rejection from a steadily growing part of society. Another vicious circle the European people are tumbling into since it is following the “emergence principal”. The recipients of overdramatized news are not aware of the latent effects of what they read see and hear but slowly it manifests in their behavior. Because the whole is always bigger than the parts it contains of.

Concerning the abusers, I will relate to Randall Collin’s theory because it focuses more on the micro-sociological and individual sphere. According to him people are not violent but situations are. The situation for the aggressors in Paris was being rejected by a modern, capitalist society they were living in. That may have led them to become a Jihadist and finally receive attention of the society they got rejected by. The abusers were willing to die for a reason most people do not understand. Their violence focused clearly on weaker targets and achieved their motivation to implement the feeling of a general lack of security. The terrorists’ attack did not only dominate the space it happened in but also helped them to promote their ideas and gain more power.

The media has an undeniable influence on the society and how recipients perceive and interpret what they see, hear or read. The effect is even stronger if the content appears similar and repetitive. To apply this on the Charlie Hebdo case I would like to consider the “Thomas theorem”. It says “if man define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”. Relating on the terror attack in Paris that means if readers, victims and people think that “Islamification is a threat to Western values”, as often and repetitively stated in the European newspapers, it may lead to this perception of society in a whole. Furthermore it leads to a religious divide and segregation of culturally different people. This divide can result in an as real defined situation on both sides of that divide, which leads to a situation actually real in its devastating consequences.