The search for the causesof terrorism is futileIntroductionOneof the side effects of globalization is terrorism. It created new threats, asense of everyday risk and the globalization of local misfortunes. Itcomplicated communications, created suspicion and pushed the problem ofidentity to the far corner as not so timely against the background of constantfear, emphasizing the quasi-naturalness of society and the inability of a personto influence the situation. As an American professor said: “There isnothing to talk about terrorism, to look for definitions and to build theories.Terrorists are criminals, and they must be destroyed. Terrorism is a crime, andwe must fight it.” A similar mood is clear to our citizens and ourscientists. Nevertheless, it is also impossible to fight terrorism without theanalysis of the causes and essence of terrorism, its new features, itsconnection with the complex of the ongoing changes in the world. Terrorism is often characterized as an attempt to press on the government of a foreign or own country, using the ability of television to visually demonstrate to the whole world the horrors of violence against civilians. Without television, especially terrorist attacks in the live broadcast, terrorists could not rely on the ability of their victims, their relatives and part of the population to put forward demands that coincide with their own. In fact, terrorism is violence that carried out by a group of people towards the state as a political entity through violence and threats of violence against civilians. This is a form of political message, an ultimatum. Another definition given at the conference “The Euro-Atlantic community – community of values” in Soloniki (December 2002): terrorism is the activity of a non-state actor that damages non-state organizations to harm the state. Terrorists are at war with the state through a war with the population without a chance to become a state actor.Ithink it’s worth outlining a few approaches that conceptualize the problem ofterrorism, find out their compatibility, offer their interpretation anddescribe the conditions under which terrorism, which today is an essentialfactor of the 21st century, can be weakened. Reflections on terrorism can bedivided primarily into sociological, civilizational and socio-psychological.All private explanations fit into these three types.Influence of GlobalisationThesociological approach is based on the identification of such sources ofaggression as backwardness and poverty. These eternal satellites of unevendevelopment are not only not eliminated, but are aggravated by globalization.Globalization, having a positive impact on the economic development of Westerncountries, negatively affects the state of peripheral zones. (Anon., 1999)Whyis such a gap attributed to the effects of globalization, although the UNreport shows that it was growing even in the period preceding globalization?First, the figures indicate the acceleration of the gap between developed andundeveloped, rich and poor countries with the onset of globalization. Secondly,information, economically and technologically developed countries haveundeniable advantages in the course of globalization. Thirdly, the changes inthe West are so great that today one cannot count on a catching-up model ofmodernization. It is now impossible to overcome backwardness, it is impossibleto catch up with the West. The idea of ??modernization is changing. Theexplanation of terrorism by poverty and inequality is often challenged. The proofof the opposite is that many leaders of terrorism are educated and wealthybourgeois. Does this topic of poverty make irrelevant the topic of terrorism?Poverty is not always associated with terrorism, but in the ideology ofterrorism poverty plays a central role, along with humiliation, ignorance,alienation, marginalization, and the absence of a global identity in thedestruction of the local. In conditions of high technological equipment anddestroyed identity, its acquisition is often in ugly forms, including thosethat lead to terrorism. In particular, new technologies break off the usualconnections, form new life styles. This happens not only in the West with itstechnological revolution, in post-communist countries with their socialrevolution, but also in the East. Thus, M. Castells as an example of such anartificial identity leads the Japanese terrorist organization “AumShinrikyo”, especially among a young, highly educated generation, can beconsidered as a symptom of the crisis of established patterns of identity,coupled with a desperate need to build a new, collective I, Spirituality,advanced technology (chemistry, biology, lasers), global business ties and theculture of the millenarian end of history. ” (M., 2000)Globalizationinvolves the exchange of goods, capital and people. Since the world has splitinto countries that have a high standard of living, high value of life and highvalue of labor, on the one hand, and those that have a low standard of living,low value of life, low value of labor, legal exchange of people is small,otherwise disadvantaged of the whole world would have rushed to the West. Buttraffic has grown – this is how illegal trade in people, especially women andchildren, often used for sexual purposes, from poor and undeveloped countriesto rich and developed ones, is called. Social contrasts turn terrorism into atool of protest. And, of course, the impossibility of legal politicalresolution of the problem can be a source of terrorism. The reaction to thismay be different, up to the opposites: from the requirements of development,today largely blocked by the West’s globalization policy for backwardcountries, to the traditionalist rebellion against modernization that does notbring visible results.The civilizational approachTheconfrontation “diversity – split” is even more suitable forcharacterizing the civilizational contradictions of the North and the South.There is no need to repeat the polemic regarding the concept of S. Huntington,who, ignoring political correctness, defined the lines of the civilizationalsplit as a feature of the new conflict that is coming after the end of the ColdWar. Terrorism has signs of civilizational opposition.“Whydo they hate us?” – asked George W. Bush and himself answered:“Because they hate our freedom.” This is reminiscent of the speech ofLord Lytton mentioned above, spoken in India in 1878, in which he informed theIndians about the high mission of Britain, which brings to India the idea of ??freedomof dignity for every person through freedom of the press. No less mysterious isthe “formula” of Bush for terrorists. Political correctness, asalready noted, does not allow in the US to discuss this issue. Only two“theoreticians” – G. Vidal and N. Chomsky – attempted to answerBush’s question, not sparing America, but this did not arouse public sympathyand under the circumstances could not cause it. InVidal’s book, published in Russia earlier than in America, the author showsthat the arrogance of the United States towards other nations, hegemony,triumphalism, the easy use of military and police operations, the conviction ofone’s political and moral superiority makes people like Timothy the AmericanMcVeigh, who blew up a house in Oklahoma City, decide on a terrorist act,hoping that in this way he will be able to explain through the media thereasons for his discontent with America, and the Islamic terrorists go Tostruggle by means available to them. (Vidal, 2003)Manyin America and beyond consider the question of the essence of terrorism asManichaean, splitting into the poles a pluralistic country where “we”and “they” coexist. Huntington is opposed not only by the ideas ofcosmopolitanism, globalization, but also by the understanding of terrorism asbarbarism, fighting with civilization. Barbarism certainly takes place, but itparasitizes cultures that admit terrorism.Socio-psychological approachClassicalsocio-psychological work on the problem of terrorism is the book of the Germanscientist E. Hoffer under the heading “The True Believer”., publishedin 1961. Long history of this book was a deep analysis of mass psychology,those of its features that form the type of “true believer”, that is,a deeply convinced and destructive person. Among these features are the“appeals of the mass movement” – the desire for change, the desirefor substitutes, the internal variability of the masses. A great role is playedby misfortune and poverty, excessive egoism and ambition, doctrines,fanaticism, striving for leadership, etc. Evolution of such person or groups:from words to deeds, to “useful mass movements”. (Hoffer, 1951)Laqueurin his books sees the cause of terrorism in fanaticism, in response to stateterrorism, in human nature, which does not change even with the fastest changesin technology. Laqueur also talks a lot about the so-called state terrorism,which, it seems to me, only confuses the issue. (Laqueur,1999)Rather, I agree with Budnitsky, who considers the term “terrorism”not applicable to the activities of the state even when the state carries outterror. Through this methodological approach, it will be possible to avoidconfusion in explaining these two different phenomena.Anotherauthor draws a slightly simplified chain of “radicalism – extremism –fanaticism – terrorism” as the evolution of a subject inclined to escalateviolence and respond violently to violence. (Olshansky, 202)Inthe formation of the psychology of a terrorist, unjustified expectations play arole, a sharp change of identity that does not make it clear when theUkrainians so changed to Russians, and the Bosnians began to interpret theiridentity as Islamic. And yet, the prevailing interpretation of terrorism as anactivity of fanatical people blinded by rage can hardly be fully accepted. A.Utkin quotes in his work the contents of a letter written by a suicide pilotwritten long before the attack on the World Trade Center. Calm in tone, itcontains an appeal to the Muslims with an explanation of the causes of the actby the search for justice, a religious duty. The same author also mentions the diaryof a Japanese kamikaze pilot who attacked an American aircraft, but fell intothe sea and did not explode. He rejoices that the flight has been postponed fora day, that he will once again see the sky, and then will fulfil his duty. (Utkin, n.d.)Inthe already mentioned Vidal’s book, correspondence with McVeigh is given, whichproduces a stunning impression. This correspondence reveals in McVeigh not afanatic, not an evil man and not a mental patient. His sanity is confirmed by apsychiatrist who was formally appointed when considering his case, which givesthe conclusion that McVeigh is simply a person who aspires to devote himselfentirely to his work. In his letters, he looks more like M. Luther, how theIsraeli student Agal Amir, who killed the Israeli Prime Minister Isaac Rabin,looked like him. McVeigh avenges the horrors carried over by the Arabpopulation during the Gulf War, wanting to show Americans what these horrorsare, so that US citizens work on their government. McVeigh’s explanations werenot presented to the public through the media, and his death became a messageof the opposite property – it indicated the dangers posed by terrorist animals.A more accurate description of the psychology of a terrorist is in many casesnot fanaticism, but monism: “They (extremists, terrorists,) ignore orsuppress the complexity (phenomena) and do not recognize or tolerate anyambiguity, reducing Evaluation of social institutions to “single fixedstandards” … such as black – white, true – false. Their romantic appealto outsiders or surrounding participants is typically due to their apparentadherence to the consciousness of their proponents, one of the features ofwhich is the elimination of differences between private and public interests… ” Perhaps the most adequate psychological assessment of terrorismshould be based on the understanding that they are representatives oftraditional societies or traditional consciousness, which, even when living inother societies, measure rationality not by the ability to achieve the goal,but by unswerving attachment to values. (A. Breton, 2002)Terrorismis a crime, followed by punishment. But only if we want to evade the problem,then we should simplify the situation in order to turn terrorists intonotorious villains, possessed by extremely low motives.Itis difficult to determine the motivation of a terrorist. It can be bothpolitical, religious, and psychological. The attackers of America hated her fortriumphalism, for imposing the status quo, despite the fact that radicalIslamists are unhappy with their position and their place in the globaleconomy, for not understanding that they are others, for alienation, for softpower (“soft power”), State. This hatred mixed truth and fiction,from which the solidarity of the Islamic world and its marginals was forged.Hatred was combined with rational actions – long-term planning, preparation,calculation. It is unlikely that all these psychological considerations areconvincing in some ways and make it possible to understand terrorism as aphenomenon, although they are necessary for the neutralization of terrorists. The political approachItis not difficult to see that the above descriptions of terrorism contain acharacteristic of many of its features and prerequisites, which certainly takeplace. The poverty of entire regions and the unevenness of globalization, theweakness of the general civilization, the common humanity and the psychology offanatics cannot be discounted. But why was terrorism the response to all this?Why is terrorism, as stated in a variety of works, marks the 21st century,although there were many examples of it in the 19th and 20th centuries as well?Is there an integral characteristic of terrorism that would separate theconditions for its implementation from its essence, would indicate not onlygeneral but also specific signs and prerequisites for a terrorist attack? Thereis some parallel with the definitions of the conditions of the revolution andits essence. The split of classes, like the civilizational split, accompaniestheir economic inequality and contributes to the revolution and, accordingly,to terrorism. But in the presence of economic inequality and civilizationaldifferences of the revolution (as well as terrorism) may or may not be. Povertyis also the cause of the revolution. But even in the presence of poverty, arevolution can take place, or it may not take place. Terrorism is similar tothe social-protest or revolutionary movement, carried out in the conditions ofclass death and depoliticization. In this capacity, it is fuelled by socialcauses. But these are “revolutions”, as a rule, not claiming to seizepower. Their goal is to disturb the hated enemy, immerse him in a state ofvulnerability, fear, create conditions for him that push him to understand theproblems of those who are capable of this desperate struggle. (Toffler &Toffler, 1993)Atthe same time, terrorism is like a new type of war, which does not alwayscontinue the policy of the state. This is a war of non-political authors,carried out without declaration and with far-reaching, not as a result of thiswar, feasible political goals. Among its sources are social and civilizationalreasons.Atthe same time, terrorism is an international criminal, technologically equippedand having political goals, acting as a political actor, although itsactivities are directed not directly against one’s own or another’s state, butthrough an attack on civilians. His prevailing source is psychological: hatred,envy, greed, desire for profit. This is the kind of crime that accompanies thedestruction of traditional society, not accompanied by successfulmodernization. In these characteristics of terrorism, the previously presented sociological, civilizational and psychological approaches interact, but the integral characteristic of terrorism remains unidentified. Concluded in one phenomenon social protest, cultural conflict and psychological rage increases the number of threats in the world, makes them unpredictable, like natural disasters, and society turns into a quasi-natural reality.Thosewho define terrorism as revenge and the last battle of traditionalism considerthat terrorism is not a political act, since the whole life of traditionalsocieties does not know politics in the modern sense of the word. However,there is another opinion.Firstof all, terrorism acts as a way to combat the weak with the political power ofthe state, with which they cannot enter into a direct battle. In the book onextremism cited above, it is noted that extremism is a reaction to asymmetry inthe distribution of political rent.Ibelieve that the integral characteristic of terrorism can be preciselypolitical. As Pakistani President Musharraf notes, “Bin Laden gave hisstudents a project that justified terrorism and gave them financial resources.The main motivation of Islamists is not religion, but politics.” (Olshansky,202)This view is primarily due to the fact that terrorists have political goals.For Bin Laden, this is the construction of an Islamic caliphate, for others –the creation of a state of its own, autonomy, the attainment of a certainstatus in the international system, access to the international arena in thecontext of globalization, when the most developed countries firmly definedtheir leadership. The Sri Lankan terrorists, the Basques, the Irish and otherterrorist organizations are different from the Islamic radical organizations,they can be more local in their actions and more tangible and feasible goals,they are less archaic (the call to give their lives in exchange for eternalbliss after death and help the family is understandable to the Ummah , But inother cases it appears in a weaker form).Inaddition, the political nature of the terrorist attacks of the 21st century canbe justified through a political interpretation that does not link politicsexclusively to the specialized activities of the state. Methodology of thiskind was presented by the German political scientist K. Schmitt. He believedthat the specifics of this kind of activity can be determined by identifyingthe main problem that the politician decides. This problem is characterized bySchmitt in the same way as an aesthetic, ethical, economic one is considered.The aesthetic solves the question of the relationship between beauty andugliness, ethical – good and evil, economic – fit and unfit, profitable andunprofitable. “Specific political discrimination, to which politicalactions and motives can be reduced, is the distinction between a friend and anenemy.” Despite the fact that Schmitt’s work was written in 1927, he, likeno one else, managed not only to formulate the essence of the political in suchan unusual way, but also was able to comment on the events that are takingplace today. So, as confirming from the past, he described the political natureof the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center: “The real division intogroups of friends and enemies is so strongly and so decisively important thatthe non-political opposite at the very moment it causes such grouping, putsaside its previous criteria and motives: “purely” religious,“purely” economic, “purely” cultural, and is subordinatedto completely new … conditions and conclusions are now poly Tical situation“. (Schmitt,n.d.)Havinggiven the above definition of the political, Schmitt did not reject theimportance of the state as the main agent of politics and did not reject theconnection between politics and state activity. He simply explained the reasonsfor this state of affairs: the political does not automatically follow from therelationship to power, to the state, but, on the contrary, the state takes onweight and primacy because of its political nature – the ability to maintainunity among friends, including, first and foremost, internal unity and oppositionto enemies. The state is the main political actor, but the above definition ofthe political implies the possibility of others. (Schmitt,n.d.)ConclusionTheend of the twentieth century brought a sharp understanding that all itstragedies and tensions, revolutions and wars are the result of the rule ofpolitics, the endless polarization of both the international system and theinternal life of states against enemies and friends. The prospects for a lessconfrontational future were seen in openness, dialogue, in democratization. Noone has ever thought that a clash of civilizations or life styles can become anequally painful process. The hatred of politics as such or the attempt to findthe perfect political order prevailed. Neoliberalism came out with this claim.Appealing to the free market, he took part in depoliticization, providing underits slogans its policy and its ideology.Undoubtedly,the root of the problem lies in the underlying causes: injustice ofglobalization, uneven development, in civilizational contradictions, inpsychological traumas. And here the recipe is not: just need to feel it,understand justice as honesty, in the words of the recently deceased classicAmerican political scientist J. Rawls. In terms of the same cognitive task, itis necessary to change the requirements of political correctness, remove moraland political prohibitions and not shy away from studying the most painfulissues. Considering the conflicts connected with the depoliticization of themain political actor-the state and the system of states, science must bedepoliticized in order to obtain true knowledge to the maximum extent that itcan do it.Accordingly,analysing the above, one can conclude that scientists identify not only manycauses of terrorism, but also many theories. Every concrete terrorist act cannotbe characterized solely based on one theory. Therefore, it is impossible tosingle out any clear description of the causes of terrorism and to characterizeeach case exclusively by these criteria. Moreover, our world does not standstill, and every day, every month, there are new social relations, laws, livingconditions … that all together and separately, generates new causes ofterrorism, or situations that can contribute to its development. Everyscientist has his own point of view regarding the causes of terrorism, but isit possible to say that one of them is right, but someone is not? Veryevaluation situation. In addition, every terrorist act has its own uniquenature, and therefore, in general, it is very difficult to say that they are ofthe same type. Each of them is individual, and each has its own, uniquereasons.BibliographyA. Breton, G. G. G. P. S. R. W., 2002. Political Extremism and Rationality. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Anon., 1999. Globalization with a Human Face//UNDP Report, New York: Oxford University Press.Hoffer, E., 1951. The True Believer. 1st ed. Manhattan: Harper & Brothers.Laqueur, W., 1999. The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.M., C., 2000. Information age. Economy, society and culture. 1st ed. Moscow: “Publishing house of the Higher School of Economics”.Olshansky, D., 202. Psychology of Terror. 1st ed. Saint-Peterburg: Piter.Schmitt, C., n.d. The concept of political, 1992: s.n.Toffler, A. & Toffler, H., 1993. War and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn of the 21st Century. 1st ed. Boston,Toronto,New York: s.n.Utkin, A., n.d. The only superpower. s.l.:s.n.Vidal, G., 2003. Why do they hate us? Eternal war for the sake of eternal peace. s.l.:s.n.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more