Following a violent criminal attack at Westminster, the media were so lost in their sensationalist reporting, they failed to invite any useful analysis or reflection. Rather than relying on the BBC to stimulate my thinking, I turned to my own experience of crime and my training in forensic psychotherapy. Whatever type of offence I am confronted with my starting point is always the same, ‘What is the meaning of this?’
The real meaning of a crime, all crime, can be identified by the one aspect of it that characterises its manifestation and its consequences. Knowing the real meaning of a crime is absolutely crucial is being able to respond effectively to manage the associated risks and particularly in our response to prevent further crime.
The real meaning of a crime is often not the one we would prefer to acknowledge. Often the real meaning is one that connects us with discomfort or truths that are hard to acknowledge. This applies to both the perpetrator and to victims. To discover the real meaning and purpose of a crime we need to ask what is it that the crime in question is communicating? More importantly, what is its unconscious communication? If we can answer this question, then we have an opportunity to address causal factors and reduce further risk to victims. In some instances, further repetition of the crime can be stopped completely.
The crime of terrorism is a good example. The unconscious meaning of terrorism is not so readily available for assessment. But if we look at the various components of a terrorist act, it does not take long before it is possible to identify the one characteristic of it that gets repeated again and again by all involved. That defining characteristic is the experience of vulnerability. Terrorism, for its perpetrators, supporters and victims is all about vulnerability and not in fact about terror.
The motivating factor for a terrorist act is vulnerability. The motivated terrorist has perceived that something they hold dear or indeed that they themselves are under threat, under attack, that they are vulnerable. It is the perception or the actual realisation of this that informs the defensive response of a, bombing, shooting, stabbing, kidnap or other atrocity. The causal factor is vulnerability, the immediate impact is vulnerability, and the ongoing consequence is vulnerability.
It is discouraging therefore, to recognise that the ‘solution’ being pursued by the state appears to be missing this point altogether. The states in their response has decided to focus on radicalisation. Radicalisation is not the cause of terrorism, it’s a symptom. Much emphasis is being placed on the radicalisation of young people rather than the vulnerability that they wish to escape from.
In our developmental year’s we are acutely aware of our vulnerability. It is during these years we learn to do everything possible to deny, avoid and banish our experiences of vulnerability and in so doing we search for, find and employ anything that will keep it at bay. Drink, drugs, sex, religion all present radical alternatives to vulnerability and enable us to experience comfort, omnipotence or both.
In denying our vulnerability we do ourselves a massive disservice, we stop the growth of resilience. Consequently, we are then forever at the mercy of our defences rather than discovering the strengths of our resilience. It is a sobering truth that all defences give the impression of working for us, but sure enough they always end up repeating the very experience we sought to avoid in the first place.
As long as the response to terrorism continues to focus on radicalisation the real cause will go unaddressed. The young men and women attracted into ‘radical Islam’ are no different to any young person attracted into any cult. The emphasis of the response needs to be on enabling young people to tolerate their vulnerability, to value their vulnerability and to discover a healthy resilience to the vulnerabilities of life.
The current emphasis on radicalism is further misses the point in its lexicon. Even the term ‘radical’ is unhelpful, in my youth anything described as radical appeared attractive indeed, it implied the opposite of vulnerability and therefore was worth investment. Again, so often when the truth within the unconscious is not recognised repetition occurs.
In my work with people who have committed crime contrary to popular belief, I see massive change. but only when they can start to be honest and real about their vulnerability. Does that happen when I talk about their crime? No. Does that happen when I talk about their faults and failing? No. Does that happen when I try to judge them or punish them? No. It happens when I start to talk about love and fear and hopes and needs and compassion. Those are the occasions murderers, rapists, bank robbers and yes, terrorists, break down and cry and allow their vulnerability to be seen and heard. Yes, they make sure they stop before stepping out onto the prison wing, but it’s a start and once that process is started it seldom fails them and certainly does not fail society. Because from that place of embracing vulnerability flows empathy. Initially yes, it is for themselves then it soon becomes for others. Evidence for me that focusing on the cause and not the symptom brings change. Now, that is radical!
Br Stephen Morris fcc
