Social epidemiology is a new term to me as well, although I can make sense
of it. Welcome Mashood. Also thanks Lawrence for getting a new member to
enlist.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 12:42 AM Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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. J
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 <lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Lawrence Helm
*Sent:* 6. april 2019 20:30
*To:* 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, Lee Robins
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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-norway-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
