A longstanding misconception about extremism is that it stems from seriously low self-esteem. This concept, however, is a flawed one as it makes societies see political violence purely as a psychological problem. It allows them to look upon the terrorist as a hurt child who turned into a monster, and a good therapist and some self-help books can cure him. A closer look debunks this theory since the issue is much more complicated.

Roy Baumeister and his colleagues more than 30 years ago looked for a direct link between poor self-image and aggression. They could not locate one. Rather, they noted that people who do not feel good about themselves are more likely to react aggressively when they feel insulted. The reason behind such a reaction is not self-hatred; it is actually a feeling of an attack on one’s self-esteem, known as ‘threatened egotism’. Hence, violence usually emanates from those who think they are entitled to better treatment, but are treated with disrespect.

This is not merely an academic debate. The tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with cross-border firing being common, has existed for years, especially since 2021 when the Taliban once again came to power and created an environment suitable for the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). They do not consider themselves ‘worthless’, but actually quite the opposite of it. They claim a Pashtun homeland belonging to their people. It is not a feeling of disaffection which inspires such groups, but a powerful mix of grievance, sense of entitlement and wounded pride conveyed through the narratives of justice.

Similar dynamics can be observed from the hills of erstwhile federally adminis- tered tribal areas (Fata) to the lone-wolf attackers in Western societies. The issue is far from being simple, and any account that suggests otherwise is only misleading. Structural theorists have repeatedly cautioned against placing the focus of the cause of terrorism entirely on psychological factors. Instead, they propose that individuals’ motivations are triggers to violent action, and that structural conditions provide the environment in which violence can take place.

How, then, does a psychological wound become a rather deadly weapon? Arie Kruglanski’s ‘significance quest’ theory contends that militants are rarely driven by feelings of insignificance alone. They are driven by the promise that violence will make them matter. A related manifestation of this dynamic is Nietzsche’s concept of ‘ressentiment’, the slow-acting poison experienced by those who cannot fight back, transforming their weakness into moral virtue and their opponents’ strength into an unforgivable wrong.

A century ago in Vienna, Alfred Adler called it overcompensation; an inferiority complex reinforced and transformed into a sense of superiority. After 25 years of interviewing survivors of Rwanda and other genocides, Evelin Lindner came to the same conclusion, calling humiliation the ‘nuclear bomb’ of human emotions. This is dangerous since it hides itself under the guise of justice. If this assessment is correct, much of today’s counterterrorism efforts are actually inappropriate. People suppressed through border walls and drone strikes can in the end become even more embittered and would then be recruited as the next group of militants to further this ‘humiliation’ narrative.

In the absence of due action to address the core reality, countries and governments would remain focused on treating the symptoms of extremism, and contribute to the very conditions that fuel extremism.

Barira Mumtaz

Islamabad