In the news today is the bombing of Moscow’s Domodevov airport where, at this time, they say at least 35 have been killed and over 130 wounded. Having taught about political violence and terrorist action for several years now at the college level, I am critical of the response states (the political entity of countries) have taken. States, like the US, Russia, Spain, etc., tend to respond to terrorism unilaterally and by focusing on the outcome effect or potential of an extremist or terrorist group.  This approach fails to consider the reasons why people join extremist groups and their motivation for escalating their actions to terrorism.

When we look at the reasons why people join extremist groups, there is no one clear answer. While almost all extremists have an ideological or belief system that guides their actions, from political to religious, ideology cannot explain motivation. Psychologically, people want to be part of a group, use groups to create identity or family, often an identity lost to war, oppression, or social upheaval.  Economically, people either see value enhancement in joining an extremist group or a desire to obtain their share of the pie. Politically, extremists may desire the political freedom to develop the social, political, economic and religious world they believe is best, or are responding to policy that has taken away their way of life.  These are just a few reasons why people become terrorists.

If we are going to combat terrorism, we must change the approach states have taken thus far. Policy actions towards terrorism have produced a net gain in terrorists and terrorist actions in the last decade, not decreased them.  In order to eliminate any problem, it must first be addressed at causation, or it is simply a band aid that will never be able to hold back the tide of blood.

The movement on the right seeks to undermine the years of scientific findings with a non-academic understanding of “theory” and “fact.”  These two words, used differently for the lay person and the academic or scientist, are purposely framed by those on the right to devalue the advancement of science.

A theory in the scientific sense is not just an avenue of thought pulled out of the air and surmised to exist.  Scientific theory is based first on a hypothesis that develops out of previous literature and science.  This hypothesis is then tested over and over until generalizations can be surmised.  In many cases, a theory can then become a “law” if it can NEVER be proven false.  However, as science advances, the ability for scientists to understand our world becomes ever greater, and the micro and macro aspects of our world change in ways that make scientific laws almost impossible.

This does not mean that the “theory” does not have value.  Scientific theory still explains the dynamics of the world in ways that are generally true. They are not easily refuted.  A hypothesis can be easily refuted, but a theory has withstood the brunt of scientific analysis and review.

Be critical of those who wish to devalue scientific theory in order to launch their own brand of political propaganda.  By using words that have different meanings in different contexts, political propagandists on the right are seeking to cloud the real issues of the day.