Violence, terror, and terrorism today: Psychoanalytic perspectives, Part I

The selection of timely papers for this monograph issue of the International Forum of Psychoanalysis (Part I) are from plenary sessions of the XIXth International Forum of Psychoanalysis, held in New York City, on May 12–15, 2016, and entitled “Violence, Terror, and Terrorism Today: Psychoanalytic Perspectives.” An international group of psychoanalysts encompassing diverse theoretical perspectives gathered together to address the global problem of terrorism presently impacting our work as psychoanalysts in the consulting room and in the community.

Many questions were raised during the course of this rich exchange of ideas. Is it the social responsibility of psychoanalysts to add their knowledge to the ongoing efforts to contain and ameliorate the violent terrorist acts that threaten and destabilize our society? What goes on in the mind of the terrorist and what has happened to civility (Angel, 2017)? What does a terrorist’s aggressive behavior conceal besides reactions to social marginalization, deprivation, and frustration? What is the difference between violent criminal acts and acts of terrorism? Why is there no recognition of otherness?

James Gilligan views the rejection of the concept of difference between self and other as a precursor to fear and intimidation, a tactical position used in the advancement of terrorism. There is no acceptance of “otherness,” Gilligan informs us, when there is distortion in thinking, feelings of worthlessness, and lack of pride. Violence can multiply because of childhood trauma, religious affiliation, and the long- term effects of modernity. Why has modernity been rejected by radical Islamic followers? Why do radical Islamists view the Western world’s dedication to the advancement of science as a threat? The impact of difference stands out in the work of James Gilligan, Malcolm Slavin, and Zhudi Zasser. Intolerance of difference, negative thoughts, and maladaptive behavior patterns create distortions in thinking and behavior.

Salman Akhtar’s paper is a historical and psychoanalytic approach to understanding the deep-seated roots of discontent in the Muslim world. His perspective broadens and shapes our understanding of how extreme interpretation of Islamic law within modern Islamic life creates tension within European, Asian, and Middle Eastern societies. He proposes interventions on the educational level to expand the dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims in regard to the differences within the Islamic world. This preventive and ameliorative strategy might help to engender less animosity, less fear, and less suspiciousness of our neighbors. Some fear reactions are reality oriented and focus on an object of fear, while other fear reactions are driven by unconscious forces. Frank Summers’ paper provides a psychoanalytic understanding of fear and differentiates fear from pervasive anxiety. Sandra Buechler’s paper reflects upon Erich Fromm’s concept of “reactive violence,” which is linked to exposure to a threat.

The heart of our art, our psychoanalytic discourse, is a relational intersubjective matrix, and in our work we as analysts need to be able to tolerate uncertainty. Psychoanalysts can address their social responsibility in offering a psychoanalytic understanding to the unconscious motivations of terrorists. We can introduce strategies to ward off intolerable anxiety, and attend to annihilation fears in the deradicalization process. To understand how it is possible to deradicalize a terrorist, I recall the work of Eric Kandel, who was awarded the 2000 Nobel Prize. Kandel’s work on learning and memory informs us how relational experience can create new neural pathways in the brain, and perhaps his discoveries reinforce the curative factors of the “talking cure.” To deradicalize a terrorist, a relationship is formed with the other to explore memories, for example of how a person met his love interest or experienced the birth of a child. A connection is made that is not based on shame but instead reinforces pride through the recollection of positive memories of loving relationships.

The papers of Salman Akhtar, James Gilligan, and Malcolm Slavin, and Zhudi Zasser’s discussion of Slavin’s paper, provide a foundation for comprehending violence and terror today. The editors are aware of the controversial aspects of some views expressed in the papers published in this journal issue. The IFPS Forum is committed to fostering a spirit of intellectual freedom and the unfettered exchange of ideas.

I recommend to our readers a thorough report of the XIX IFPS Forum in Volume 26, No. 1/2017 by Marco Conci (2017), the co-editor of this journal. I deeply appreciate Marco Conci's continued dedication to report on both the Executive Committee and the Assembly of Delegates, the business meeting of the International Federation of Psychoanalytic Societies, as well as the highlights of plenary sessions, individual papers and writing about the Benedetti/Conci award. This award is given to a candidate from an IFPS society and Marco Conci's contribution to the development of scholarly writing for psychoanalytic candidates is admirable. I thank my guest coeditors, Edith Gould and Ona Lindquist, for their invaluable collaboration in bringing our readers these meaningful psychoanalytic writings from the plenary sessions of the XIXth IFPS Forum (Parts I and II). Knowledge has the power to mitigate anxiety that has arisen from the many violent terrorist attacks in the first two decades of the twenty-first century.