I have long argued for psychology’s involvement in informing the public policy process on the grounds that we have much science-based expertise to offer to the formulation of public policy on a range of matters. In this spirit I want to take up the matter of terrorism.

     I would like to start by quoting sections from an article titled “Osama Bin Laden: Man or Meme?” by Robert Wright, that appeared on September 27 in the internet publication “Earthling,” (http://slate.msn.com/code/story/actions/print.asp?strURL=/XML/Earthling/01-09-27/Earthling). I am quoting these sections with the permission of author. I also want to clarify at the outset that I am quoting these sections to stimulate discussion. I am not suggesting that APA endorse these views, or any other views for that matter.

     The article begins: “On Sept. 12, Colin Powell framed America's impending military response to the previous day's attack as part of a campaign to ‘go after terrorism and get it by its branch and its root.’ Here is an alternative horticultural metaphor that I came across a few days ago: ‘Military action to destroy terror … will be like hitting a fully mature dandelion with a golf club.’ … The ‘branch and root’ model speaks of centralization. You trace the plant's branches downward until you find the underground headquarters. If you're strong enough, you can rip out the whole thing and end the trouble once and for all. Terrorism has long resisted this kind of description. Terrorist ‘cells’ — semi-autonomous and self-sufficient groups … are given little knowledge about one another, precisely so the whole structure can't be easily uprooted... Terrorism also has a second annoying property: Reprisals spawn hatred, increasing the number of terrorists. (Note the contrast with true "war," in which the enemy state's resources are from the outset wholly committed to your destruction, so upping the hatred doesn't have much downside.)”

     “A big problem America faces right now is that both properties of terrorism — decentralization and contagiousness—have been intensified by technology. The Internet, cell phones, and so on mean that any resourceful terrorist can organize a terrorist assault from almost any piece of turf. You can kill Bin Laden and carpet-bomb Afghanistan, but his movement will still have great organizational power. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said America's goal is "ending states who sponsor terrorism"—a message the administration later amended to "ending state-sponsored terrorism." Either way, how relevant is state sponsorship to what happened on Sept. 11? It now looks as if the attack may have been organized largely in Germany — and, of course, in the United States … Terrorism, now more than ever, is a movable feast. To pull off something like the Sept. 11 attack, all you need is $200,000, computer literacy, the organizational skills of a mid-level manager, and intense hatred.”

     “The spread of that hatred is itself technologically abetted. The first videotaped Muslim casualties in Afghanistan will be not just broadcast on CNN, but put on the World Wide Web and probably played ad nauseum at the fundamentalist schools in Pakistan and elsewhere that mold both tomorrow's suicide bombers and tomorrow's Osama Bin Ladens. And, once Bin Laden himself has been promoted from terrorist mastermind to martyr, his preachings will spread more profusely than ever, available in audio or video to anyone with a good Internet connection or a VCR. These packets of information are the dandelion's seeds.”

     “A currently fashionable term for packets of information is ‘memes.’ A meme can be an image, a song, a belief, an attitude—anything that can hop from one brain to another. Some types of memes are called ‘mind viruses’ because they're not good for the brains they inhabit; they thrive by parasitizing their ‘hosts.’ The hijackers' brains, for example, no longer exist, but the meme that killed them — the meme of fundamentalist hatred — is doing quite well. Similarly, Osama Bin Laden may not be long for this world, but Osama Bin Laden's memes have a longer life expectancy. And killing the man may be the best thing America could do for the memes…”

     For the record I do think we need to deal with Bin Laden, the man, and with states that support terrorism. However, I do think Robert Wright has performed a valuable service in drawing our attention to the “dandelion seeds”.

     On September 19, 2001, the APA Board of Directors held a conference call, at which one of the items for discussion was the Terrorist Attack on September 11. We noted with appreciation the tremendous efforts of the APA Practice Directorate’s Disaster Response Network, which has been working hand in glove with the American Red Cross in responding to the needs of both victims and rescue workers at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We also expressed appreciation to the staff for all of the wonderful materials on coping with trauma, stress and grief that were recently added to APA’s website.

     In tune with the idea that psychologists need to contribute their expertise to matters of public policy, the Board then turned to the question of what more psychology could contribute to addressing this national crisis. Noting, as was made clear in Robert Wright’s article quoted above, that terrorism is fundamentally a psychological process, and, further, that psychology played significant roles in the war efforts during both World Wars of the last century, we began to take stock of what psychology might contribute to the goal of ending terrorism. We looked at foundational areas such as social psychology and its work on malignant attitude formation, such as prejudice and fanaticism. We also looked at more applied areas such as international psychology, peace psychology, conflict resolution, multicultural psychology, the psychology of religion, military psychology, and the psychology of criminal justice.

     We have begun to assemble lists of potential contributors and have written to the presidents of APA’s divisions asking them to help identify their members who might be conducting research which has relevance to the anti-terrorism effort. But we also decided that before we go off and write white papers, it would be appropriate to learn what might be of genuine assistance to key policy- and decision-makers. Hence we are now attempting to network with psychologists working in mission critical governmental departments such as Defense, State, the CIA, etc.

     To monitor and shepherd this burgeoning effort the Board established a new Subcommittee on Psychology’s Response to Terrorism, with Ron Levant as Chair, Laura Barbanel and Nate Perry as members, and with staffing from the Science, Education and Practice Directorates (with the Science Directorate taking the lead). This subcommittee held a conference call a few days ago and has taken stock of recent activities in the three directorates to assemble resources and reach out to individuals and organizations. This promises to be a very significant effort with many ramifications. If you have suggestions or resources to contribute please send an email Kurt Salzinger at the APA Science Directorate (ksalzinger@apa.org).

     We are at the proverbial fork in the road as a society in dealing with this problem. There are many ways that psychologists can help, and I have sketched just a few of them. The stakes are high. If we can help, we must.

     As always, I welcome your thoughts on this column. You can most easily contact me via email: (new address): levant@uakron.edu

Biographical Sketch

Ronald F. Levant, Ed.D., A.B.P.P., is in his second term as Recording Secretary of the American Psychological Association. He was the Chair of the APA Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP) from 1993-95, a member of the Board of Directors of Division 42 (1991-94), a member at large of the APA Board of Directors (1995-97), and APA Recording Secretary (1998-2000). He is Dean, Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Back to articles and columns listing