Mashood,
I'm very glad you joined us. Yes, certainly from a legal standpoint Anders
Breivik knew, at least intellectually, right from wrong, but his actions are
so shocking it is difficult to avoid searching for a "cause." The sociopath
knows the difference between right and wrong, does he not, but "normally,"
if I can use that word in this context he lets fear of punishment deter him
from choosing a horrific course of action like that Breivik. And would a
sociopathic personality become so impassioned or committed to a cause that
he would do what Breivik did? I don't understand him.
As to the terms you asked about, back after 9/11, I devoted a lot of time,
and read a huge number of books (many were discussed on this forum at the
time) on the histories of the extremist groups extant in the middle east at
the time. The term "terrorist" used by our President Bush didn't seem
adequate and the more scholarly writers I read didn't use it. Also, the
term "Islamic fundamentalism," while popular with some, seemed too close, as
a descriptive term, to Christian Fundamentalism and didn't last long. At
the time I was doing all that reading the widely-used term "Islamism,"
seemed most descriptive of what Sayyid Qutb was advocating, i.e., turning
the religion Islam into a political "ism" like Communism or Fascism.
It has been several years since I read anything on this subject and as I
said over on the Pentax forum, I have given up political arguments (and hope
this doesn't turn into one), but Sayyid Qutb was associated with the Muslim
Brothers which in term was derived to some extent from Saudi Salafism or
Wahhabism. I do recall reading at the time that Qutb's teachings influenced
the Talibaan, but perhaps not directly. Their beliefs were similar.
In regard to immigrants. Western European nations as you know have not been
producing indigenous populations which are continuing to grow, and Western
Nanny Capitalism depends upon them. Each nation needs young people whether
born indigenously or from immigration to pay for Social Security and all the
other social benefits. But as it happened, immigrants in various regions
did not integrate themselves into existing societies but preferred living in
enclaves. This phenomenon most famously occurred in Italy and France. The
Italian Oriana Fallaci wrote passionately on the subject but took an extreme
view against all of Islam. But many others described these enclaves more
objectively.
Here in the U.S. we pride ourselves (or at least did in the past) for
welcoming immigrants. We were a large relatively empty nation with plenty
of room for them and those who immigrated usually learned the language and
strove to fit into American society. Usually, the next generation (the
first generation born here) was indistinguishable from those descending from
the New England immigrants who came here in the 1600's and 1700's. But in
Europe, that wasn't always the case. The European nations are much older
than the United States and have had much more time to develop unique
national cultures. Perhaps the hide-bound national citizens of Europe
resisted their political leaders. Perhaps many Islamic immigrants were
influence by Islamic militants. In any case, unless things have changed
from when I was reading about them, enclaves of immigrants who resist
integration have arisen in France, Italy and elsewhere in Europe. I don't
know about Norway.
As to Pakistan, I recall reading about a leader, perhaps associated with the
Deobandi who created teachings very like Sayyid Qutb's but the followers of
his teachings denied a direct connection with Qutb. And I don't believe
this teacher, whoever he was, took direct responsibility for the Taliban.
I just checked my journal and see that I read my last book relating to this
subject in 2007; so none of it is fresh in my 84-year-old mind. I hope none
of this offends you, I certainly don't intend any offense, and I fervently
hope I don't start an argument.
So, I gather that I have introduced matters that are not related to social
epidemiology, perhaps you could explain, without Mako looking over our
shoulders, what social epidemiology is. :)
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mashhood Sheikh
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2019 1:44 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Anders Breivik and Social epidemiology
This is an interesting discussion. I've seen some posts on the topic, and I
think this discussion is more related to political sociology, criminal
psychology, and discourses on extremist ideas than social/psychiatric
epidemiology.
Having said that, I do not think that Anders Breivik's actions could be
blamed on his psychopathology. Just like Talibaan's actions cannot be blamed
on their (members) psychopathology. Both are terrorists and cold-blooded
murderers! One can argue and discuss the reasons behind their terrorism, but
that doesn't change the fact that they are terrorists.
I have read Anders Breivik's manifesto, and he killed young members of a
far-left party because he considered them traitors. He chose to kill the
(younger generation of) people who are responsible for immigration, as that
would be more productive than killing a bunch of immigrants (according to
Anders Breivik). Yes, such an extreme ideology is more likely to flourish in
certain personalities more than others, and yes, some people are more prone
to "indoctrination" than others, but that is not a justification for his
actions. Many other humans with exactly same personality traits as Anders
Breivik are amongst our friends and family members, and yet they will never
commit the crimes he committed. Understanding Anders Breivik is useful for
preventing such incidents, but to label everyone with similar personality
traits as "mentally sick" is simply counter-productive.
Regarding the connection between recent New Zealand shooter and Anders
Breivik; yes, like-minded people may discuss similar things, and can
encourage each other for certain acts, but that is simply because they are
"like-minded". New Zealand shooter may have been encouraged by Anders
Breivik's actions, but this is not a causal affect. The hatred in New
Zealand shooter's head was not filled by Anders Breivik's manifesto alone;
many websites, discussion forums, politicians' speeches, etc., could have
contributed.
I can understand the desire to believe that Talibaan or Anders Breivik are
simply "mental patients", and if they were "cured", so many lives could had
been saved; unfortunately, this desire is just wishful thinking. Either
this, or we are unwilling to accept that such extreme ideas can flourish
anywhere, even in a relatively egalitarian society like Norway. The work of
famous social psychologist Stanley Milgram has shown the power of
"obedience", and many others have assessed this phenomena (and
"indoctrination") in varying settings. Having my origins from Pakistan, I am
well-aware of this phenomenon, and would not hesitate to call a spade, a
spade!
One interesting argument was the attempt to blame "islamists" for their
"warfare" that contributed towards Anders Breivik actions. In general:
violence begets violence, but we all have seen the terrorism by Anders
Breivik and Talibaan; if we are not affected, then Anders Breivik had a
choice as well!
Importantly, what's with the use of term "islamists"? shouldn't it be
Talibaan? Or we should refer to Anders Breivik's religion in this
discussion? To me, they are all fairy tales, but one should not generalize
1.8 billion people, especially discussing Anders Breivik who was a member of
only ca 5.1 million people.
Lastly, what exactly is a non-integrating immigrant? Please explain
Kind regards,
Mashhood Sheikh
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On
Behalf Of Lawrence Helm
Sent: 6. april 2019 20:30
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Anders Breivik and Social epidemiology
I belong to a forum on Pentax DSLR cameras and one of its members asked a
series of questions hoping to discover a membership profile. The largest
number are old and retired, for example. One of his questions asked what
sort of work Pentax photographers had done. It seems that a high-percentage
are retired engineers. A relatively new member said he is a retired Social
Epidemiologist.
Never having heard of that specialty and knowing nothing more about it than
his title, I asked him if he worked on the Anders Breivik phenomenon. The
Moderator (whose forum name is the name of a shark) deleted my question and
some messages that followed it. Apparently my question resulted in an
argument which occurred after I had signed off and gone to sleep.
I invited the Social Epidemiologist to log onto Lit-Ideas for whatever
happens with this subject, but I don't know if he will.
Subsequent to my asking my inflammatory question, I looked up "Psychiatric
Epidemiology" in Wikipedia. This specialty apparently explores "the
mechanisms behind how exposures to risk factors may impact psychological
problem and explore neuroanatomical substrate underlying psychiatric
disorders."
"As an example, in an attempt to measure the prevalence of mental illness in
the United States, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Robins> Lee Robins
and Darrel A. Regier conducted a study called the Epidemiological Catchment
Area Project which surveyed samples of the general population at five sites
across America. In the study, it was found that about a third of all
Americans suffer from mental illness at some point in their lives. This
statistic is often referred to as lifetime prevalence." [from Wikipedia]
Apparently specialists work from statistics, that is the identification and
quantification of causes underlying psychiatric problems, but they are not
permitted to introduce stressors that might cause a psychiatric disorder,
but that is what I find most interesting. Goethe's The Sorrows of Young
Werther, for example, was a stressor in the rash of suicides that occurred
after the book's publication in 1774.
And so, while I haven't read anything that describes Anders Breivik's
exploits as a symptom of a psychiatric epidemic, I did read of an Australian
who killed some people in Christchurch New Zealand. Journalists were
attempting to see Breivik as this fellow's stressor: "Ranstorp told Swedish
radio Friday that the New Zealand shooter, who killed at least 49 people in
two mosques in Christchurch on Friday, claims to "have been in contact with
Breivik's sympathizers." [From
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-15/nz-manifesto-resembles-no
rway-mass-murderer-s-text] But whether or not Brenton Tarrant contacted
Breivik's followers isn't necessary in order to speculate that Breivik may
have been the stressor to Tarrant's actions.
And then also, we might see a stressor, perhaps one that inspired Breivik in
the asymmetrical approach to warfare devised by the Islamists.
Does anyone have a better description of Social or psychiatric epidemiology?
Or a better explanation for the social pathology epitomized by Anders
Breivik?
Lawrence
