1. There are causes for the causes
Lankford provides an in-depth analysis of suicide bombers, arguing in the Précis that “mental health problems, personal crises, coercion … or hidden self-destructive urges play a major role [in their behavior and psychology]” (target article, Abstract). We would thereby argue, that although some suicide terrorists may be suicidal, the act itself is very much dictated by contextual factors such as frustration with government and corruption, culture, ideology, religious beliefs, life mission, and so forth. If one calculates the prevalence rate of each of the factors Lankford mentions, the numbers are so high that ultimately they do not explain why only a few people become suicide bombers while many others with the same symptoms don't. But more importantly, why attribute the causes solely within the attacker (i.e., the individual), when the causes are primarily in the larger environments: social/organizational (e.g., pressure of the terrorist organization to carry out the suicide mission), political (e.g., “lover was killed by enemy soldiers,” Lankford Reference Lankford2013c, p. 60), and cultural (e.g., unwanted premarital pregnancy in Islamic cultures, shame as a consequence of being unable to get pregnant and being divorced; see p. 59).
In fact, almost all risk factors for suicide that Lankford mentions in the book (Table 3.2, p. 61) are externally caused. Happenings in people's lives that may cause despair and may trigger the onset of mental illness inherently express their values – political, religious, cultural, ideological. Therefore, with suicide terrorism, it is not just individual pathology, it is also deeply contextual. The complaint by Joe Stack about lack of healthcare and insurance (Lankford Reference Lankford2013c, pp. 13–15) may sound political, but understanding the person's context of illness, leads to something truly personal. There is a common saying that what is deeply personal is political – and what is political is personal.
One example highlights the enormous influence of environmental variables in shaping the experiences (and probably mental health issues) of the targeted population. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC 2004, p. 6) stated:
Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property. They arrested suspects, tying their hands in the back with flexi-cuffs, hooding them, and taking them away. Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people. Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles.
Also, Lankford's diagnosis of Atta's clinical depression (Ch. 4) is hastily done. In identifying neurovegetative symptoms of depression, Atta's comment that “eating is boring” does not in itself indicate appetite or weight changes, the characterization that Atta “was reluctant to any pleasure” does not describe anhedonia or loss of interest in activities that gave him pleasure in the past, and nothing is known about Atta's insomnia or hypersomnia. Moreover, rigidity in personality cannot be equated with depression. Finally, the experience of persistent sadness, hopelessness, guilt, and even fatigue cannot just be inferred from the descriptions of people. As the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-V) also concurs, the diagnoses of Suicidal Behavior Disorder does not and should not include suicide terrorism if the act was “undertaken solely for political or religious objectives” (American Psychiatric Association 2013, p. 800).
2. Understanding homicide must include cultural, political, religious/ideological, and social-organizational explanations
For suicide terrorists, it is not enough to kill oneself, as some people with mental illness (e.g., mood disorders, schizophrenia, substance/drug abuse) do, but an equally compelling intent is to kill others too. We would argue that Lankford has missed the most important explanation for suicide terrorism – which is the power of the belief that, despite losing their lives, suicide terrorists believe they are gaining something more important, something that transcends human life (see, e.g., interviews with suicide bomber volunteers by Ghosh [Reference Ghosh2005] and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, the former Israeli Defence Minister, in Levy-Barzilai [Reference Levy-Barzilai2002]). People who are suicidal may have similar reasons for hopelessness and helplessness, and for resorting to a permanent solution to temporary problems; but the desire to include other people in their death contains a consciously constructed message: the message of terror, of eliciting fear and achieving power, of attaining fame and “success,” of fulfilling a collective goal to “right a wrong,” of intense revenge and anger, and of performing what for them is the ultimate sacrifice.
The second criticism does not only refer to Lankford's book, but to extant research on suicide terrorism. Many researchers refer to either individual psychological variables or social dynamics related to group pressure, leadership influence, or religious factors. To focus on only one or a few aspects falls short of providing a complete picture of the driving forces of suicide terrorists. Only a cultural-psychological theory which integrates phenomena at the micro- and macro-level can lead to a better understanding of suicide terrorism and explain regional differences. An analysis of suicide terrorists needs to take into account all of the following: individual psychological factors such as emotions (e.g., strong negative emotions due to experience of trauma or injustice, helplessness, and violence) and cognition (e.g., mechanisms to eradicate guilt or doubt by dehumanizing the enemy and deferring responsibility); social psychological factors (e.g., group cohesion and group pressure, isolation, ideological training including us-versus-them distinction); historic-political factors (e.g., “puppet regimes” and corruption, foreign occupation, deterioration of the living conditions); and cultural variables (e.g., religious world view, revenge as moral duty, anticipated rewards in heaven, media attention, honor and fame, and financial support and increased status for surviving family members). Only then will we get a cohesive and comprehensive picture of the phenomenon (see, e.g., Güss et al. Reference Güss, Tuason and Teixeira2007). The consideration of these groups of variables over time and how they intersect, will lead to a better understanding of, and interventions for, suicide terrorism.
In The Myth of Martyrdom, Lankford takes a controversial stand in arguing for suicidal motivations being key to explaining suicide terrorism (Lankford Reference Lankford2013c). His comparison of the various groups – suicide terrorists, conventional suicides, murder suicides, and unconventional suicides – is innovative and commendable. We shall comment on two main limitations of the book, however.
1. There are causes for the causes
Lankford provides an in-depth analysis of suicide bombers, arguing in the Précis that “mental health problems, personal crises, coercion … or hidden self-destructive urges play a major role [in their behavior and psychology]” (target article, Abstract). We would thereby argue, that although some suicide terrorists may be suicidal, the act itself is very much dictated by contextual factors such as frustration with government and corruption, culture, ideology, religious beliefs, life mission, and so forth. If one calculates the prevalence rate of each of the factors Lankford mentions, the numbers are so high that ultimately they do not explain why only a few people become suicide bombers while many others with the same symptoms don't. But more importantly, why attribute the causes solely within the attacker (i.e., the individual), when the causes are primarily in the larger environments: social/organizational (e.g., pressure of the terrorist organization to carry out the suicide mission), political (e.g., “lover was killed by enemy soldiers,” Lankford Reference Lankford2013c, p. 60), and cultural (e.g., unwanted premarital pregnancy in Islamic cultures, shame as a consequence of being unable to get pregnant and being divorced; see p. 59).
In fact, almost all risk factors for suicide that Lankford mentions in the book (Table 3.2, p. 61) are externally caused. Happenings in people's lives that may cause despair and may trigger the onset of mental illness inherently express their values – political, religious, cultural, ideological. Therefore, with suicide terrorism, it is not just individual pathology, it is also deeply contextual. The complaint by Joe Stack about lack of healthcare and insurance (Lankford Reference Lankford2013c, pp. 13–15) may sound political, but understanding the person's context of illness, leads to something truly personal. There is a common saying that what is deeply personal is political – and what is political is personal.
One example highlights the enormous influence of environmental variables in shaping the experiences (and probably mental health issues) of the targeted population. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC 2004, p. 6) stated:
Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property. They arrested suspects, tying their hands in the back with flexi-cuffs, hooding them, and taking them away. Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people. Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles.
Also, Lankford's diagnosis of Atta's clinical depression (Ch. 4) is hastily done. In identifying neurovegetative symptoms of depression, Atta's comment that “eating is boring” does not in itself indicate appetite or weight changes, the characterization that Atta “was reluctant to any pleasure” does not describe anhedonia or loss of interest in activities that gave him pleasure in the past, and nothing is known about Atta's insomnia or hypersomnia. Moreover, rigidity in personality cannot be equated with depression. Finally, the experience of persistent sadness, hopelessness, guilt, and even fatigue cannot just be inferred from the descriptions of people. As the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-V) also concurs, the diagnoses of Suicidal Behavior Disorder does not and should not include suicide terrorism if the act was “undertaken solely for political or religious objectives” (American Psychiatric Association 2013, p. 800).
2. Understanding homicide must include cultural, political, religious/ideological, and social-organizational explanations
For suicide terrorists, it is not enough to kill oneself, as some people with mental illness (e.g., mood disorders, schizophrenia, substance/drug abuse) do, but an equally compelling intent is to kill others too. We would argue that Lankford has missed the most important explanation for suicide terrorism – which is the power of the belief that, despite losing their lives, suicide terrorists believe they are gaining something more important, something that transcends human life (see, e.g., interviews with suicide bomber volunteers by Ghosh [Reference Ghosh2005] and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, the former Israeli Defence Minister, in Levy-Barzilai [Reference Levy-Barzilai2002]). People who are suicidal may have similar reasons for hopelessness and helplessness, and for resorting to a permanent solution to temporary problems; but the desire to include other people in their death contains a consciously constructed message: the message of terror, of eliciting fear and achieving power, of attaining fame and “success,” of fulfilling a collective goal to “right a wrong,” of intense revenge and anger, and of performing what for them is the ultimate sacrifice.
The second criticism does not only refer to Lankford's book, but to extant research on suicide terrorism. Many researchers refer to either individual psychological variables or social dynamics related to group pressure, leadership influence, or religious factors. To focus on only one or a few aspects falls short of providing a complete picture of the driving forces of suicide terrorists. Only a cultural-psychological theory which integrates phenomena at the micro- and macro-level can lead to a better understanding of suicide terrorism and explain regional differences. An analysis of suicide terrorists needs to take into account all of the following: individual psychological factors such as emotions (e.g., strong negative emotions due to experience of trauma or injustice, helplessness, and violence) and cognition (e.g., mechanisms to eradicate guilt or doubt by dehumanizing the enemy and deferring responsibility); social psychological factors (e.g., group cohesion and group pressure, isolation, ideological training including us-versus-them distinction); historic-political factors (e.g., “puppet regimes” and corruption, foreign occupation, deterioration of the living conditions); and cultural variables (e.g., religious world view, revenge as moral duty, anticipated rewards in heaven, media attention, honor and fame, and financial support and increased status for surviving family members). Only then will we get a cohesive and comprehensive picture of the phenomenon (see, e.g., Güss et al. Reference Güss, Tuason and Teixeira2007). The consideration of these groups of variables over time and how they intersect, will lead to a better understanding of, and interventions for, suicide terrorism.