Dylann Roof

For this essay – you are analyzing Roof’s life and crime through the existing assumptions and beliefs that are identified in your textbook.  The essay will require you to apply ALL the different theories covered over the course of the semesterthat may have led to him committing this murder.

If a theory applies to Dylann Roof you must explain WHY the theory applies.If a theory does not apply to Dylann Roof you must explain WHY it does not apply.  What I am expecting to read in your essay is that you considered all the explanations of crime and behavior from the textbook and end up with a conclusion of what was the driving factor(s) that existed in Roof’s life to create a mass murderer whose focus was on race.

DYLANN STORM ROOF – Manifesto
I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a
small amount of racial awareness, simply beause of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country. But
it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes
toward each other, but all they were were jokes. Me and White friends would sometimes would watch
things that would make us think that “blacks were the real racists” and other elementary thoughts like this,
but there was no real understanding behind it.
The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case (2012). I kept hearing and seeing his
name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to
understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly
this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the
same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were
pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized
that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while
hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?
From this point I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same
things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I
found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and
other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is
the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out
about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race, and I can say today that I am completely
racially aware.
Blacks
I think it is fitting to start off with the group I have the most real life experience with, and the group that is
the biggest problem for Americans. Blacks are stupid and violent. At the same time they have the
capacity to be very slick. Black people view everything through a racial lense. Thats what racial
awareness is, its viewing everything that happens through a racial lense. They are always thinking about
the fact that they are black. This is part of the reason they get offended so easily, and think that some
thing are intended to be racist towards them, even when a White person wouldnt be thinking about race.
The other reason is the Jewish agitation of the black race.
Black people are racially aware almost from birth, but White people on average dont think about race in
their daily lives. And this is our problem. We need to and have to. Say you were to witness a dog being
beat by a man. You are almost surely going to feel very sorry for that dog. But then say you were to
witness a dog biting a man. You will most likely not feel the same pity you felt for the dog for the man.
Why? Because dogs are lower than men.
This same analogy applies to black and White relations. Even today, blacks are subconsciously viewed by
White people are lower beings. They are held to a lower standard in general. This is why they are able to
get away with things like obnoxious behavior in public. Because it is expected of them.
Modern history classes instill a subconscious White superiority complex in Whites and an inferiority
complex in blacks. This White superiority complex that comes from learning of how we dominated other
peoples is also part of the problem I have just mentioned. But of course I dont deny that we are in fact
superior.
I wish with a passion that blacks were treated terribly throughout history by Whites, that every White
person had an ancestor who owned slaves, that segregation was an evil an oppressive institution, and so
on. Because if it was all it true, it would make it so much easier for me to accept our current situation. But
it isnt true. None of it is. We are told to accept what is happening to us because of ancestors wrong doing,
but it is all based on historical lies, exaggerations and myths. I have tried endlessly to think of reasons we
deserve this, and I have only came back more irritated because there are no reasons.
Only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave. Yet every White person is treated as
if they had a slave owning ancestor. This applies to in the states where slavery never existed, as well as
people whose families immigrated after slavery was abolished. I have read hundreds of slaves narratives
from my state. And almost all of them were positive. One sticks out in my mind where an old ex-slave
recounted how the day his mistress died was one of the saddest days of his life. And in many of these
narratives the slaves told of how their masters didnt even allowing whipping on his plantation.
Segregation was not a bad thing. It was a defensive measure. Segregation did not exist to hold back
negroes. It existed to protect us from them. And I mean that in multiple ways. Not only did it protect us
from having to interact with them, and from being physically harmed by them, but it protected us from
being brought down to their level. Integration has done nothing but bring Whites down to level of brute
animals. The best example of this is obviously our school system.
Now White parents are forced to move to the suburbs to send their children to “good schools”. But what
constitutes a “good school”? The fact is that how good a school is considered directly corresponds to how
White it is. I hate with a passion the whole idea of the suburbs. To me it represents nothing but scared
White people running. Running because they are too weak, scared, and brainwashed to fight. Why should
we have to flee the cities we created for the security of the suburbs? Why are the suburbs secure in the
first place? Because they are White. The pathetic part is that these White people dont even admit to
themselves why they are moving. They tell themselves it is for better schools or simply to live in a nicer
neighborhood. But it is honestly just a way to escape blacks and other minorities.
But what about the White people that are left behind? What about the White children who, because of
school zoning laws, are forced to go to a school that is 90 percent black? Do we really think that that
White kid will be able to go one day without being picked on for being White, or called a “white boy”?
And who is fighting for him? Who is fighting for these White people forced by economic circumstances
to live among negroes? No one, but someone has to.
Here I would also like to touch on the idea of a Norhtwest Front. I think this idea is beyond stupid. Why
should I for example, give up the beauty and history of my state to go to the Norhthwest? To me the
whole idea just parralells the concept of White people running to the suburbs. The whole idea is pathetic
and just another way to run from the problem without facing it.
Some people feel as though the South is beyond saving, that we have too many blacks here. To this I say
look at history. The South had a higher ratio of blacks when we were holding them as slaves. Look at
South Africa, and how such a small minority held the black in apartheid for years and years. Speaking of
South Africa, if anyone thinks that think will eventually just change for the better, consider how in South
Africa they have affirmative action for the black population that makes up 80 percent of the population.
It is far from being too late for America or Europe. I believe that even if we made up only 30 percent of
the population we could take it back completely. But by no means should we wait any longer to take
drastic action. Anyone who thinks that White and black people look as different as we do on the outside,
but are somehow magically the same on the inside, is delusional. How could our faces, skin, hair, and
body structure all be different, but our brains be exactly the same? This is the nonsense we are led to
believe.
Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three
things alone are a recipe for violent behavior. If a scientist publishes a paper on the differences between
the races in Western Europe or Americans, he can expect to lose his job. There are personality traits
within human families, and within different breeds of cats or dogs, so why not within the races? A horse
and a donkey can breed and make a mule, but they are still two completely different animals. Just because
we can breed with the other races doesnt make us the same.
In a modern history class it is always emphasized that, when talking about “bad” things Whites have done
in history, they were White. But when we lern about the numerous, almost countless wonderful things
Whites have done, it is never pointed out that these people were White. Yet when we learn about anything
important done by a black person in history, it is always pointed out repeatedly that they were black. For
example when we learn about how George Washington carver was the first black smart enough to open a
peanut.
On another subject I want to say this. Many White people feel as though they dont have a unique culture.
The reason for this is that White culture is world culture. I dont mean that our culture is made up of other
cultures, I mean that our culture has been adopted by everyone in the world. This makes us feel as though
our culture isnt special or unique. Say for example that every business man in the world wore a kimono,
that every skyscraper was in the shape of a pagoda, that every door was a sliding one, and that everyone
ate every meal with chopsticks. This would probably make a Japanese man feel as though he had no
unique traditional culture.
I have noticed a great disdain for race mixing White women within the White nationalists community,
bordering on insanity it. These women are victims, and they can be saved. Stop.
Jews
Unlike many White naitonalists, I am of the opinion that the majority of American and European jews are
White. In my opinion the issues with jews is not their blood, but their identity. I think that if we could
somehow destroy the jewish identity, then they wouldnt cause much of a problem. The problem is that
Jews look White, and in many cases are White, yet they see themselves as minorities. Just like blacks,
most jews are always thinking about the fact that they are jewish. The other issue is that they network. If
we could somehow turn every jew blue for 24 hours, I think there would be a mass awakening, because
people would be able to see plainly what is going on. I dont pretend to understand why jews do what they
do. They are enigma.
Hispanics
Hispanics are obviously a huge problem for Americans. But there are good hispanics and bad hispanics. I
remember while watching hispanic television stations, the shows and even the commercials were more
White than our own. They have respect for White beauty, and a good portion of hispanics are White. It is
a well known fact that White hispanics make up the elite of most hispanics countries. There is good White
blood worht saving in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and even Brasil. But they are still our enemies.
East Asians
I have great respent for the East Asian races. Even if we were to go extinct they could carry something on.
They are by nature very racist and could be great allies of the White race. I am not opposed at all to allies
with the Northeast Asian races.
Patriotism
I hate the sight of the American flag. Modern American patriotism is an absolute joke. People pretending
like they have something to be proud while White people are being murdered daily in the streets. Many
veterans believe we owe them something for “protecting our way of life” or “protecting our freedom”.
But im not sure what way of life they are talking about. How about we protect the White race and stop
fighting for the jews. I will say this though, I myself would have rather lived in 1940’s American than
Nazi Germany, and no this is not ignorance speaking, it is just my opinion. So I dont blame the veterans
of any wars up until after Vietnam, because at least they had an American to be proud of and fight for.
An Explanation
To take a saying from a film, “I see all this stuff going on, and I dont see anyone doing anything about it.
And it pisses me off.”. To take a saying from my favorite film, “Even if my life is worth less than a speck
of dirt, I want to use it for the good of society.”. I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go
into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time
had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one
doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real
world, and I guess that has to be me.
Unfortunately at the time of writing I am in a great hurry and some of my best thoughts, actually many of
them have been to be left out and lost forever. But I believe enough great White minds are out there
already.
Please forgive any typos, I didnt have time to check it.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Environment and social psychology: A good nexus
Brij Mohan*
School of Social Work, Louisiana State University, Baton Rogue, LA 70803, USA
Abstract: A paradigmatic search for human-environmental-social-development calls for bio-global civility. This article
is a modest attempt to signify social psychology as a discipline that promotes environmentally conducive transformative
behaviors. Premised here is worldwide environmental toxicity, which breeds injustice, bigotry and mayhem.
Keywords: human-social development, bio-global civility, human behavior, environmental justice
*Correspondence to: Brij Mohan, School of Social Work, Louisiana State University, Baton Rogue, LA 70803, USA; Email: brijmohan128@gmail.com
Received: June October 28, 2015; Accepted: December 4, 2015; Published Online: December 23, 2015
Citation: Mohan B, 2015, Environment and social psychology: A good nexus. Environment and Social Psychology, vol.1(1): 3–12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18063/ESP.2016.01.007.
1. Introduction
O
n the cusp of growth and development, humanity confronts a crisis of confidence. Dualities of success and catastrophes abound. A
deadly drought in Texas, followed by devastating
floods in Austin and Dallas, Texas is not a freaky
natural calamity. Human complicity is both hidden
and underrated. Paradox of boom and gloom characterize the crisis of biodiversity compounded by environmental injustice.
Environment and people have co-existed since the
dawn of human evolution. Vagaries and invincibility
of nature forced humans to adapt and evolve. The advent of civilization is a triumph of human imagination
and ingenuity to cultivate and exploit natural resources. Reason prevailed over instinct. Still, humans
remain humans. The social animal (Elliot, 1999) is not
a fictional conjecture.
Advancements in science, technology, and global
economy have raised hype and hope. Environmental
consciousness is a global phenomenon; so is pollution,
not to mention rampant abuse and innate greed.
Global free market economy thrives on these attributes. But it does not resolve existential issues: poverty,
inequality and violence against both man2 and nature.
Noble laureate economist Angus Deaton says, “If
poverty and underdevelopment are primarily consequences of poor institutions then, by weakening those
institutions or stunting their development, large aid
flows do exactly the opposite of what they are intended to do” (Bloomberg, 2015: 18).
The Deaton theory is convincing but overstated.
There has always been a politics in foreign aid. Yes,
we must build institutions rather than destroy. Our
social, political, and economic institutions are in the
throes of meltdowns. Catastrophes that challenge our
will, tools, and convictions warrant nations to rethink
what they wish for. The good nexus seeks to explore
possibilities that may save us from ourselves.
Green Jihad3 in Africa is practicing what Pope
Francis lately admonished us to do for the environment. Socio-hydrology, a construct turned into a cool
branch of environmental sciences4, like ‘socioviolen
1
Founding Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Environment and Social Psychology. This article will serve as a rationale for exploring the nexus of environmental linkages and human behaviors. Much of relevant research is rooted in the outcomes of bio-socio-psychological investigations. Neglected dimensions of human psyche, behaviors and motivations have assumed special significance in light of advancements in environmental and social sciences. Largely, his piece was written months before Pope Francis delivered his homilies in Washington, DC, New York and Philadelphia (September
2015). The fact of the matter is: It’s all about “Climate, Economy and Justice” (Mohan, 2015). Environment and Social Psychology presciently
underscores the need for a new mantra: Bio-global civility encapsulated in ESP’s mission.
2
I will use ‘man’ in an unbiased, non-judgemental generic way as a social scientist.
Environment and social psychology: A good nexus. © 2016 Brij Mohan. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), permitting all non-commercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
3
Environment and social psychology: A good nexus
tology’5, is bridging the gaps that a new culture of
environment stands for. The human condition rests on
the outcomes of a good nexus that synergizes the
forces of nature, physical and human.
Environment and Social Psychology (ESP) is both a
platform and a movement to capture the new wave so
well captured in Pope Francis’ four words: right of the
environment. Psychology’s evolution as a science of
human psyche posits both inner and external social
worlds in a symbiotic relationship that make people
more human. The nexus of environment and social
psychology is thus inherently evolutionary and organic.
2. The Symbiosis
Environment and social psychology are two symbiotic
entities. A civilization rising on the waves of monumental changes calls for transformative adaptations to
harmonize productivity, creativity, and overall globalhuman well-being.
Foul environment does not merely pollute civil life;
it corrupts the conscience of a society that manufactures mayhem and madness, not to mention ‘civilized’
numbness to such monstrosities. President Obama
lamented “‘routine’ mass shootings in America” and
addressed the nation in response to the 15th mass
shooting that had occurred during his presidency, saying “the U.S. has become numb to them”6. The politics of mental illness, gun ownership and mass murder
in America is a case in point7. Environmental injustice
is perpetrated against the victims of an irresponsible
culture that enchants the mantra: “Guns don’t kill
people, people kill people”. While liberal mental
health industry reaps benefits in the name of a better
mental health system, gun owners, their advocates, the
invincible National Rifle Association (NRA), and the
conservative politicians—with racist proclivities —
perpetuate their mundane interests at the expense of
public health and social well-being. This nefarious
nexus in a culturally polluted environment highlights
the power of evil that impacts human psyche.
When Pope Francis talks about the rights of environment, he posits environment as a victim of human
greed and rapaciousness8. I am in full agreement, but
environment is also an oppressor. The politics of expedience make it a fearsome adversary. It is in this
context, that we find people and their behaviors adversely impacted. The duality of environmental
stressors partakes of a new dimension in social psychology. It is not merely a ‘culture of waste’; it is also
a culture of greed, guns, and gods that perpetuates
poverty, draught and mayhem at the same time.
What we see today is environmental duality in theory
and practice.
It is our endeavor to explore, investigate and discern variables and co-dependents that are immeasurably invaluable to comprehend patterns of human actions and reactions in relation to a host of milieus
around their lives. Social psychology owes its existence to human consciousness of its immediate and
remote environments. Psychology is not a perfect science; it need not be so as humans are humans. Environmental consciousness is enlightening the world
asleep with cognitive dissonance. Contextually, this
posits environment-psychology nexus that we seek to
explore with obvious implications for public policy,
social practice and scientific research.
How will people behave hundred years later is uncertain. Some conjectures, however, are in order.
“Which current behavior will be most unthinkable 100
years from now? The Atlantic raises certain Big Questions: Taking the pill? Sadness? Driving? Fossil Fuels?
Emails? Unsupervised Home Schooling? Snail Mail?
Playing Football?”9 It is anyone’s guess how forces of
3
Cf. Fareed Zakarian GPS, October 18, 2015. In late seventies, I developed a concept of socio-violentology, which, I regret, did not get any traction.
Its logic, however, survives.
4
Personal communication with Professor Vijay P. Singh, October 17, 2015 (Editorial Board, ESP, 2015).
5
A concept that I developed in late seventies (See Mohan, 1987, Ch. V: 53–54).
6
http://time.chtah.net/a/tBWDmClBASRffB84oq1NvHKqJFa/time5 (viewed October 2, 2015)
7
In reference to the Mental Health Reform Act of 2015, a bill sponsored by U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (See Roberts, G. 2015:7B).
8
“First, it must be stated that a true “right of the environment” does exist, for two reasons. First, human beings are part of the environment. We live in
communion with it, since the environment itself entails ethical limits which human activity must acknowledge and respect. Man, for all his remarkable gifts, which “are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology” (Laudato Si’, 81), is at the same time a part of these
spheres. He possesses a body shaped by physical, chemical and biological elements, and can only survive and develop if the yr water is coming?
therefore, is harm done to humanity. Second, because every creature, particularly a living creature, has an intrinsic value, in its existence, its life, its
beauty and its interdependence with other creatures… . The misuse and destruction of the environment are also accompanied by a relentless process of
exclusion.” (http://www.newsweek.com/read-full-transcript-pope-francis-speech-united-nations-general-assembly-376606; viewed November 2,
2015).
4
Environment and Social Psychology (2016)–Volume 1, Issue 1
Brij Mohan
emerging environments will impact our lives as individuals and collectivities. I suspect—fear?—100 years
from now humans will be using 3D-printer technology
for desired procreation. Social mores, institutions and
belief systems are in a state of flux.
The new ‘hangout” culture is a forerunner of devolving marriage as a dated social institution. A
woman in Afghanistan is stoned to death for ‘adultery.’ 10 Family as we knew has new definitions. Communities that we grew up in do not exist anymore.
Toxicities of varied hues have nearly destroyed environmental character. The technology behind bitcoin’s
blockchain ledger “could transform how the economy
works.”11 In other words, you can only “trust machines”. Nietzsche famously wrote in Beyond Good
and Evil:
“All psychology so far has got stuck in moral
prejudices and fears; it has not dared to descend
into the depths. […] Never yet did a deeper world
of insight reveal itself to daring travelers and
adventurers, and the psychologist who thus
‘makes a sacrifice’ – it is not the sacrifizio dell’
intelletto, on the contrary! – will at least be entitled to demand in return that psychology shall be
recognized again as the queen of the sciences,
for whose service and preparation the other sciences exist. For psychology is now again the
path to the fundamental problems.”12
As ‘queen of the sciences’, psychology is rooted in
its father’s ambivalence about science and truth. I
could perhaps say the same about ‘environment’. The
ambiance of two embodies Environment and Social
Psychology (ESP) — a modest endeavor to unravel
the nexus of current and future contours of psychodynamic, cognitive and motivational behaviors that
help us understand the dynamics of human-environment interactions. Holistic linkages between environment and social psychology, the foundation of a sociological offshoot of psychology, is conceptualized
here as a disciplinarity that unravels the human experience in its varied dimensions involving conditions,
interactions and behaviors at different levels of existence. Explorations of human-social interaction and
development situate Social Psychology (SP) as an
independent field of study and research beyond Cartesian dualism and interdisciplinary hybridism. Mon-
strosities like war, gun violence, racism, extremism,
xenophobia, and global terrorism cannot be comprehended in isolation from inequality, injustice and oppression.
The Creation of Inequality (Flannery and Marcus,
2012) reveals how hunter-gatherer societies evolved
into empires. Rousseau’s study of ‘state of nature’, as
noted by Flannery and Marcus, was premised on conjectures of non-western, traditional societies. Now that
we have archives of anthropological data, the archaeological evidence becomes irrefutable.
New Goliaths are masters of manipulating technology to collect data and control the people. “Google
can identify flu outbreaks using search queries; America’s National Security Agency (NSA) aspires to do
the same to find terrorists. But at the same time people
are under constant surveillance by companies and
governments, since the rules protecting privacy are
hopelessly out of date” (Schneier, 2014). Too much
power with invincible techno-digital empires cannot
ensure global equality and justice, let alone a peacefully progressive world. Perhaps it is a contradiction
to aspire for progress and freedom at the same time.
Freedom entails heavy responsibilities; constrains on
freedom impede progress.
David and Goliath have been in conflict since Biblical times. While the mythical moral still holds water,
it is uncertain if continued conflict can still sustain the
essence of adversity and suffering. “Three thousand
years ago on a battlefield in ancient Palestine,” Malcolm Gladwell writes, “a shepherd boy felled a mighty
warrior with nothing more than a stone and sling…”
(Gladwell, 2013). It’s a counter-factual, wish-fulfilling,
romantic fallacy that underdogs will always win.
Look at: Nation of No Beasts in Africa; Palestinian
kids revolting in the land of David! A time-tested lofty
ideal is being shredded by cruelties of perceptions,
politics of faith, beliefs and motivations.
Philosophy has been the fount of knowledge. From
times immemorial societies have developed cultural
norms that continue to regulate human behavior. Each
culture’s worldview offers a perspective on life. Human societies, both as abstractions and congregates,
embody primordial philosophical paradigms that help
the construction and deconstruction of Social Psychology. Between Aristotle and Hegel, western phi-
9
The Atlantic, June, 2015, 315, 5: 96.
http://news.yahoo.com/graphic-video-shows-afghan-woman-stoned-death-eloping-071332458.html (viewed November 3, 2015).
11
The Economist, October 31, 2105: 13.
12
https://www.facebook.com/eduardo.carlidemoraes/posts/677071259008177 (viewed November 4, 2015)
10
Environment and Social Psychology (2016)–Volume 1, Issue 1
5
Environment and social psychology: A good nexus
losophy has sought the triumph of reason and truth.
Nirvana actually escaped the western psyche until
Nietzsche reminded us that ‘god is dead.’
It is a tragic irony that philosophy as a discipline is
losing ground while techno-material specialties are
riding the tide of success. The sections that follow will
attempt to spotlight some issues that might reinvigorate the spirit of ESP.
2.1 Archeology of the Human Mind
“Man is by nature a social animal, an individual who
is unsocial naturally and not accidentally, is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is
something in nature that precedes the individual.
Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is
so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does
not partake of society, is either a beast or god.”
Aristotle, Politics, c.328 B.C.
9/11: The most infamous day in recent history. I
was in the midst of a doctoral seminar in Room 356
talking about Tipping Point following on an earlier
discussion on the subject before Malcolm Gladwell’s
book (2000) was published13. As the towers came
rolling down like a monstrous dark grey cloud of fire
and dust, I unwittingly uttered, “It’s the end of a free
society.” The hell that broke loose is history in the
making. Flight 9268 suspiciously broke apart in sky,
killing 223 passengers returning from vacation in
Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. History is made of environmental miscarriages of justice.
A 21-year-old young man named Dylann Roof
whose Facebook picture displays him attired in
abominable flags of apartheid in Rhodesia and South
Africa guns down nine innocent people in a black
church in Charleston, SC. This “absolute hate crime
occurred without any cause but deep rooted vestiges
of bigotry, hatred and terror that characterized slavery
in bygone days cannot be overstated in a gun culture.
In his confession he said he “wanted to start a race
war”14. Almost the whole world is appalled at America’s insatiable hunger for guns and more guns. Mr.
Roof used the same pistol that his father had given
him on his birthday. Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old child
with a BB gun was shot down by a white cop in
Cleveland, OH15. Carnage and mayhem, almost daily
occurrences, reflect on a lingering legacy of confederacy — Jim Crow, slavery, and racist terror — in the
United States16. “Stuff happens!” said Jeff Bush.
“Somehow this has become routine,” lamented President Obama17.
Society is an abstraction. I doubt if any society
preceded humans. Also, we must, at the very outset,
question the Aristotelian premise that man is a “social
animal’. Perhaps, man is a political creature, sociopsychologically. From times immemorial societies
have developed around cultural norms that continue to
regulate human behavior. Each culture’s worldview
offers a perspective on life. Human societies, both as
abstractions and congregates, embody primordial philosophical paradigms that help the construction and
deconstruction of Social Psychology.
Psychology got prefixed with social mainly in the
post-war era of the 20th century. New realities of the
21st-century call for transformative reflection on the
nature and scope of both social and psychology. My
contention is that in light of visible social-cultural
meltdowns, the subject warrants redefinition. The
factors that account for this new direction are related
to: (i) inequality in a technologically globalized culture, (ii) anti-state counter-revolutions and (iii) breakdown of social institutions that defined individual,
family, marriage, and community as primordial bases
of the social contact that does not exist anymore.
It is a tragic irony that philosophy as a discipline is
losing ground while techno-material specialties are
riding the tide of success. These advancements, we
contend, cannot liberate humanity from its innate
trappings. As Sartre famously said, “Success is not
progress.”
2.2 Transformative Social Psychology
Social psychology’s reconstruction calls for re-examination of the nexus of environment and human
13
An article written by Malcolm Gladwell appeared in The New Yorker (June 3, 1996: 32). Dr. Frank Raymond, one of my students in the premier
class, discussed the issue with the author and the colloquium analyzed social psychological implications for social practice and research.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/06/03/the-tipping-point (viewed March 10, 2015).
14
http://news.yahoo.com/charleston-shooting-suspect-identified-21-yr-old-dylann-141932147.html (June 19, 2015)
15
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2850234/Video-released-showing-police-shooting-Tamir-Rice-12-carrying-BB-gun.html (June 19, 2015).
16
http://news.yahoo.com/familes-of-charleston-church-shooting-victims-to-dylann-roof–we–forgive-you-185833509.html (June 19, 2015)
17
44 school shootings took place in the US President Barak Obama lamented the tragedy. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/oregon-shooting-obama-response/index.html (viewed October 4, 2015).
6
Environment and Social Psychology (2016)–Volume 1, Issue 1
Brij Mohan
behavior. This thrust is embedded in three basic connections: (i) sustainability and human-social development,
(ii) trans-disciplinarity of approaches and (iii) paradigmatic perspective on full behavioral spectrum.
ESP’s inception is an acceptance of a daunting challenge. We seek to:
1. Examine the possibilities of human and social
development as a credible paradigm for scientific inquiry and dialogue that promote world peace, prosperity and progress in a dangerously complex world,
2. Transcend dualities and contradictions of contemporary ideologies and methods toward a unifying
framework for enduring social psychological research,
3. Promote scholarly pursuits for the advancement
of knowledge in search of empirical evidence and
truth, which support environmental justice as a viable
paradigm conducive to human-social development,
4. Unravel social psychological barriers—beliefs,
attitudes, stereotypes, prejudices, habits, and politico-cultural practices—that thwart quality education
and learning beyond the contemporary dogmas of behavioral schools,
5. Interface pathways to understand and resolve
contemporary nihilism that incubates psychopathologies of self-destructive addictions—sexual abuse, substance and drugs, interpersonal violence, and anomic
dysfunctions—and breeds mayhem, mass murders and
terror18.
The Age of Anxiety has morphed into an age of
sudden terror. How did this social transmutation occur?
What forces triggered this strange metamorphosis?
Was it ontogenesis or phylogenesis? Which of the two
principles—pleasure or reality—prevailed? Can we
scientifically ascertain the future of human race given
the circumstances that are at work? It is my assumption that a paradigm shift is long overdue to construct
afresh a ‘third’ way of studying science, humanities,
and social sciences. As such, environmental justice is
postulated as a fulcrum of futuristic pathways to unrevealing ecological, attitudinal and behavioral transformations.
“Of all branches of social psychology, none seems
to have as much intuitive appeal as does social psychology” (Baron and Graziano, 1991). Initially, fundamentals of social psychology are embedded in the
interdisciplinary study of three intertwined aspects of
“humanology and technology” undergirding the interactional processes of (i) communication, (ii) socialization and (iii) individuals in the group (Hartley and
Hartley, 1961). Social psychology has thus traditionally dealt with inter-personal relationships in a societal
context with emphasis on beliefs and attitudes, perceptions and realities that impact social functioning of
people in a particular culture. Implicitly, social conflict, change, accommodation, and cooperation are
invisible and invincible forces that impact human behaviors and interactions. No essentialist theory of social psychological process can be formulated.
Construction of social psychology involves “creative and critical processes” (McGuire, 1999). William
J. McGuire studied attitudes, persuasion and social
influences that undergird his learning theory underlying ephemeral aspects of human thoughts, behaviors
and actions encompassing the whole spectrum of
critical processes. He sought to study “the magical
experiments on attitude inoculation showing that
small doses of a persuasive message can increase resistance to later larger doses; the construction of self
in terms of its distinctive and atypical features; the
content, structure, and processing of thought system
functioning by balancing logical consistency, realistic
coping, and hedonic gratification; persuasion by Socratic questioning that selectively directs attention;
and the process of doing research as an exciting and
infinitely rewarding activity” (1999: cover).
The “social problem” approach to scientific social
psychology involving individual, interpersonal and
group processes (Baron and Graziano, 1991) seems to
signify SP’s role from a logical and pragmatic viewpoint. Symbolic interactionism along with internalization and differentiation, socialization, power and deviance has added depth and authenticity to comprehend and resolve complicated aspects of social psychology (Lindesmith, Straus and Denzin, 1975;
Backman and Secord, 1966).
We live in a global community of nations where no
feature of community has survived. Concepts of family, marriage and community are changing; institutions
that built societal structures are crumbling. Meltdown
is not limited to only usually derided ‘underclass’ and
‘developing nations’. Ideologies have disappeared.
“Capitalism’s unlikely heroes”19 are emerging form
the shadows of the Wall Street gloom. Communist
18
Environment and Social Psychology published by Whioce Publishing, Singapore, due out in February 2016 (http://esp.whioce.com/index.php/
ESP/index; June 1, 2015).
Environment and Social Psychology (2016)–Volume 1, Issue 1
7
Environment and social psychology: A good nexus
China is the world’s most successful free market. In
midst of this new world situation, it is hard to ignore
certain aspects of life that expand as well deepen the
nature and scope of social psychology. Emerging individual-societal relationships (EISR), I posit, define
the new frontiers of social psychology.
2.2.1 Paradigm Shift
The ‘new world order’ is fraught with ambiguities of
hope and despair. A three-dimensional paradox of this
emerging phenomenon may well be the focus of all
ESP research as follows:
Figure 1 seeks to interface three intertwined bases
of bio-socio-environmental roots of human behavior
corresponding to (i) interpersonal dynamic (A), (ii)
normative structure (B) and (iii) cultural-instinctual
metamorphosis (C). The womb of this bio-interactional design of human-social development is embedded in socio-cultural whole that shapes, modifies and
manipulates the raw trappings of one’s intra-psychic
world. The major streams of psychological and sociological thought broadly underscore this formulation as
illustrated in Figure 1.
Emergence of a Discipline: A Framework
A = Interpersonal Dynamic (ID)
B = Normative Structure (NS)
C = Cultural-Instinctual Metamorphosis (CIM)
X. Frontiers of a Discipline: Social Psychology
Y. Contexts: Social, Cultural, Political and Economic
Z. Development and Techno-Digital Revolution
Figure 1 Exhibit I and framework for an emerging discipline.
Instinctual, Institutional and Intellectual (I,I,I)
(Figure 1)—rational and irrational—motives and impulses are embedded in evolutionary and developmental phases of human experience. Social Psychology’s frontiers are variegated with limitless possibilities to transform the culture of fear and terror into a
19
8
new culture of sustainable peace and development. In
other words, if A, B, C and X, Y, Z, contextualized
above within I, I, I (Figure 1), posit of ESP as a paradigm that unravels the parameters, principles and
promises of a new frontier of knowledge.
In my sixth trilogy on Human-Social Development
(Mohan, 2007; 2011; 2015), I have endeavored to
synthesize overlapping disciplinarities, which otherwise exist as islands in the vastness of oceanic
knowledge (Mohan, 1999). ESP is a modest paradigmatic attempt to signify this viewpoint.
2.2.2 Genealogy of a Discipline
In 1694, Steven Blankaart seemed to have used Social
Psychology for the first time in English, implying soul
in a body. Psychologiá is owed to a Latinist named
Marko Marulié. Wilhelm Wundt initiated his scientific
work as a founder of psychology. Hippocrates, Plato,
Thales, Manu and Chankya had alluded to mind and
soul in relation to feelings, thoughts, dreams, and behaviors in ancient literature. Social psychologists had
traditionally studied their behaviors and internalized
norms in relation to inter-personal relationships and
interactions in situations that are crucial to unravel
feelings, attitudes, beliefs, cognitions, persuasions and
motivations. Post-war developments in behavioral
sciences underscored the significance of such an approach with emphases on individual (American) and
group (Continental) dynamics. Thus intra- and inter-personal contacts, relationships, social-psychological interfaces within environmental contexts constitute the main realm of this field of study and research.
As elucidated and conceptualized, the foundation of a
discipline is premised on certain notions that are validated by specific, even though abstract, empirical
evidence of its need and relevance. ‘Social’ and ‘psychological’ phenomena forged a unified cognate realm
of study to unravel human interactions, transactions,
and relationships. Human and social development
(Mohan, 2007) implies environment as an incubator.
While psychologists still continue to study mind and
psyche and social scientists remain preoccupied with
social processes, Social Psychology has forcefully
emerged as a cognate discipline. Post-war scientific
strides have signified dynamic contexts welding social,
economic, mental, cultural, historical dimensions of
human development and social environment.
Sigmund Freud is dated. Karl Marx is dead. Mao
Tse Dong is diminished. Gandhi and Buddha have
The Economist, February 7, 2015: 11.
Environment and Social Psychology (2016)–Volume 1, Issue 1
Brij Mohan
become irrelevant. Ideology that once tainted intellectual discourse has now become expedient functionality.
However, race, religion, class and gender continue to
fuel the engines of academic discourse. Frederick
Nietzsche was perhaps right: there are no facts; only
interpretation. This juxtaposition of ideology, science, and self-interest is perhaps the most single factor
that has shaped the construction of social psychology
as a discipline of the human condition.
A phalanx of authors including Backman and Secord (1966), Baron and Graziano (1991), Hartley
(1961), Lindesmith, Strauss and Denzin (1975),
Lindzey (1954), McGuire (1999) and Parker (1998)
have contributed much to our understanding of ESP.
None of their texts, however, surface on the radar of
current Social Psychology horizons. A casual Google
search revealed 50 most important books written on
social psychology20. The subjects mainly included in
these “most important” books include human behavior
and social being embedded in our habits, motivation,
persuasion, belief, attitudes, prejudices, likings, attractions, disliking, aggression and deviance that make us
“social animals” (Brooks, 2011).
In the new age of information revolution where
media, mass communications, and opinions matter in
both public and private sectors, it is imperative that
Social Psychology be accorded the status of a discipline that is intuitive and proactive. From hostage crises to geo-political issues to presidential elections, one
cannot underestimate the power of social psychological methods. No one exemplifies this better than the
real estate mogul Donald Trump who is changing the
political landscape of American politics (as I write this
article).
2.2.3 The New Reality
If “80% of adults will have a supercomputer in their
pocket” by 2020, realties of the “planet of the phones”
will change dramatically (The Economist, February
28–March 6, 2015). Still no one knows if this might
amount to a return of ‘planet of the apes’. New realities call for more dynamic synthesis of art and science, body and soul, and values and facts. When
Carl Djerassi, ‘the father of the Pill’, taught on biosocial aspects of birth control, he was actually predicting
a new frontier for all social psychologists. “Observing
the future from his sofa…he saw humans decisively
uncoupling sex from procreation,” (The Economist,
Obituary Carl Djerassi, February 7, 2015: 86).
20
Djeraasi’s brave new world is an unfathomable realm
of human-social complexities. “This baby” (Time,
February 23, 2015: Cover), “could live to be 142 years
old” (Carstensen, 2015: 69–70).
It seems ‘frontiers of longevity’ are no more scientific fiction. If marriage and ‘family’ are dated institutions and ‘hangout’ is the hallmark of a neo-consumerist-hedonist civilization, society and inter-societal
interactions—inter-personal relationships included —
are on the cusp of a social revolution.
“Promiscuity and fidelity,” writes Science and
Technology, “seem to be specific biological adaptations. And their manifestations in men and women are
not as different as you might expect.” (The Economist,
February 7–13, 2015: 75). Human sexual behaviors,
mores, and mating strategies constitute a primordial
focus of Social Psychology’s new frontiers. Man “has
to be promiscuous which will promote caddishness”.
But humans are unusual in that a father often helps
care for his offspring. Those offspring are (at least, on
a state of nature) less likely to survive and thrive
without him. That will promote caddishness.” (The
Economist, February 3–17, 2015: 75).
Modernity, innovation and technology will play
havoc with traditional mores, vales and patterns. Look
at how smartphones and social media have changed
institutional needs and behaviors. Their impact transcends personal-instinctual boundaries. ISIS is using
new technologies to re-establish medieval institutions
including slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings as
given mandates of Caliphate. Any apostate is liable to
be punished in line with the religious doctrines of war.
Graeme Wood writes: “Nearly all Islamic state’s decisions adhere to what it calls, on its billboards, license
plates, and coins, ‘The Prophetic Methodology’”
(Wood, 2015: 83). What do 9-11, ISIS, The Return of
Khilafah, and i-Phone have to do with Social Psychology? They all deepen and expand — unbearable
challenges — of both ‘social’ and ‘psychological’.
The ramifications of this development unravel human-social development in light of progressive dimensions of evolutionary processes.
Our culture wars often are extended-reflectiveramifications of human conflicts and conundrums that
validate socio-biogenic bases of human propensities,
proclivities and perceptions. One can witness cultural
warriors practically in every departmental unit on a
university campus that allows dissent and diversity but
http://www.sparringmind.com (viewed January 23, 2015)
Environment and Social Psychology (2016)–Volume 1, Issue 1
9
Environment and social psychology: A good nexus
ignores bigotry against the marginalized people of
color, LGBT, ‘aliens’ denigrated as apostates of an
established order.
This reality is what I propose to be the most fascinating and challenging frontier for all social psychological undertakings. This partakes of concerns that
destabilize established social-personal norms, values,
and structures. Elsewhere, I have illustrated comparative scenery of psychosexual behaviors that unravel
both social and psychological aspects of human experiences, fundamentally the same but culturally
wrapped in different packages (Mohan, 2015a). I believe the hybrid blind spots is the new frontier of social psychology. Human sexuality, in post-Kinsley era,
has mostly been a subject of masculinity. FDA just
disapproved a female libido pill.21 Sexism seems to be
an alleged reason for the neglect of this aspect of human sexuality.
We see chaos compounded by apparently unrelated
phenomena. Sex and war have been intrinsically embedded in the history of human evolution (Potts and
Hayden, 2008). Since the nature of human conflict has
apparently broadened beyond the territorial imperative,
one cannot ignore the roots and consequences of war.
Pacifism, realism, and jingoism have not substantially
reduced the dangers of war in a world that is increasingly well equipped to prevent and perpetuate world
conflicts. This environmental paradox of modernity
involves a nexus of social and psychological exchange.
Historian Ian Morris (2013) talks about ‘productive’
and ‘unproductive’ wars. Francis Fukuyama, a conservative theorist, seemingly underscores Morris: “War
spurs societies to create institutions that limit violence
and create social peace,” (2014: 42). Is that true?
The operations of hard drug trade in the world are
mindboggling to say the least22. No one talks about
‘war against poverty’ which half-a-century ago was
the foundation of the Great Society. Terror, violence,
drugs, arms, and inequality rise alongside growth and
development. The brave new world is still naked un-
derneath its glossy façade. Applications of socialpsychological methods might not change the direction
of its evolutionary transformation; it may well stop its
imminent devolution.
American Social Psychology has mostly focused on
its micro sociological aspects. The variegated nature
of global social climate that permeates our entire civilization, dictates that we macro-cosmesize Social
Psychology as a transformative process. Inequality
and injustice are global issues. Environmental Toxicity
pervades life-threatening existential hazards23. The
hiatus between people (marginalized ones) and embodiments of power, law, control and order causes
murders and mayhems on a routine basis. ESP consciousness will help mitigate this global catastrophe.
The persistence of hydra-headed bigotry — racism,
xenophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia—cannot
be overstated. The “risks of conflict are rising” in this
“new nuclear age” (The Economist, March 7–13,
2015). As global insecurity rises along with risks, human-social interactions are bound to be guided by
perceptions, not realities. A new perspective on human
reality calls for ESP’s acceptance as a global issue.
3. Environmental Social Psychology: Aspects
and Issues
The contours of life and environmental vicissitudes
have drastically changed during the last five decades.
This “planet of phones,” The Economist surmises,
“will change everything” (February 28, 2015: 9). Aspects, issues and problems (AIP) that emerge out of
this globalized new culture are fraught with unprecedented challenges and several variegated issues. A few
observations are in order:
(i) Stereotypes, prejudices, attitudes and beliefs
have long plagued humanity with unjust and brutal
practices of discrimination and violence. Their banality transcends territorial, parochial and national boundaries24.
(ii) As the primordial system of inter-and-intra-social communications has broken down, a new Social
21
“Female libido pill fires up debate about women and sex”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/16/384043661/female-libido-pill-fires-up-debate-about-women-and-sex (viewed February 16, 2015).
22
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/astonishing-maps-show-hard-drugs-122048889.html (viewed February 19, 2015).
23
“The Justice Department issued a report this week that found that police in Ferguson overwhelmingly arrested and issued traffic citations to black
residents, creating a “toxic” environment with its policing practices. That culture of distrust erupted in August, when white Ferguson Officer Darren
Wilson fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was black and unarmed. The incident triggered months of protest and a national debate about
race and police behavior.”
10
Environment and Social Psychology (2016)–Volume 1, Issue 1
Brij Mohan
Contract is in order. How to achieve this avowed goal
is beyond the capacity of world leaders. History can
neither be reinvented nor forgotten. An awakening
based on reason, acceptance and mutual respect might
transform generational evolution at the expense of
decadent atavism that has dogged this civilization for
thousands of years. ESP can be a transformative field.
Both smartphones and apes can co-habit this planet
without the fear of mutual destruction.
(iii) The construct of environmental social psychology per se does not exist. This ESP embodies the
spirit of a new consciousness that is crucially important for the reinforcement of Enlightenment Two
(Mohan, 2015).
4. Conclusion
Social psychology has been at the center of actualist
and dynamical investigations during the last few decades. How do we know what is really real? Ian Parker
aptly says, “We must separate the world from our
knowledge of it” (1998: xii). The social constructionist’s view of reality is a non-essentialist, pragmatic
approach to all human interactions and relationships.
How objective is this relativist method? Can social
psychology be empirically valid? These concerns posit
ontological dimensions of experience in both discursive and scientific contexts.
“The terrible loneliness growing up on America,”
as Robert Putman puts in his new book Our Kids:
American Dream in Crisis (2015)25, is a manifestation
of the hiatus that divides rich kids from the poor ones
with immeasurable social-psychological consequences.
Racial and economic inequalities compound the misery of the underprivileged, single parent families who
are pushed to the edge. The myth of “culture of poverty” still prevails in the minds of the policy makers
and public. I re-iterate, its moral-analytical opposite: It
is the poverty of culture that sustains dysfunctional
social institutions (Mohan, 2011).
Social psychology’s day of redemption has come to
weld perceptions with reality. In domestic and international arenas, a corroded structure of communications
divides people and nations from each other. It is hard
to repair a rusty social fabric of society when race,
class or gender continues to dehumanize marginalized
people. Education, healthcare and opportunities matter.
The bedrock of a civil society rests on sustainable
human conditions bereft of fear, insecurity and injustice that demonize “the others” in obsessive-compulsive systems of tyrannies of mistrust fueled by bigoted persuasions.
Society as a whole is the quintessential lab for
theoretical and experimental social psychological inquiry and research. The scope and nature of subjects
within individual-environmental spectrum is boundless26. The continued duality of micro-macro experience and approach has impeded Social Psychology’s
potential strengths to resolve variegated issues in a
complex world. In a counter-intuitive culture, institutional dysfunctionality breeds intolerance, anxiety, and
illusions (of hope).
Sadly, the rebirth of an insane society is a possible
conclusion. Reinforcing the ‘right of environment’ and
reconstruction of Social Psychology might serve as a
good nexus to salvage an otherwise catastrophic situation. “No one is responsible for a man’s being here at
all, for his being such-and-such, or for his being in
these circumstances or in this environment.”27
Conflict of Interest and Funding
No conflict of interest has been reported by the author.
24
After horrific terrorist killings of Charles Hebdo and others in Paris, the Islamist fury has bloodied the temples of worship—unrelated to Islam—and terrorized the agencies of free speech, the hallmark of a civil society. Incidents following this pattern abound.
25
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/06/the-terrible-loneliness-of-growing-up-poor-in-robert-putnams-america/ (viewed
March 7, 2015)
26
“Recent debates about human shields in the summer bombardment of Gaza raised the question of how the unarmed human form comes to be regarded as a military instrument. … To what extent does the racialized structure of the visual field become instrumental to justifying the unjustifiable?”
27
F. Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols, The Four Great Errors (http://www.lexido.com/QUOTATION_KEYWORD.aspx?KEYWORD_ID=67);
viewed November 1, 2015.
Environment and Social Psychology (2016)–Volume 1, Issue 1
11
Environment and social psychology: A good nexus
References
Aronson E, 1999, The Social Animal, New York: Worth Publishers.
Backman C W and Secord P F (eds), 1966, Problems in Social Psychology: Selected Readings. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Baron R M and Graziano W G, 1991, Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bloomberg Businessweek, 2015, viewed October 19–25, 2015.
Brooks D, 2011, The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement. New York: Random House.
Carstensen L L, 2015, The new age of much older age. Time, February 23–March 2: 69–70.
Feld S and Radin N, 1982, Social Psychology for Social Work and Mental Health Professions. New York: Columbia University Press.
Flanneray K and Marcus J, 2012, The Creation of Inequality: How Our Prehistoric Ancestors Set the Stage for Monarchy, Slavery
and Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Fukuyama F, 2014, On the spoils of war. Stanford, July/August, 42–43.
Gladwell M, 2000, The Tipping Point. New York: Little, Brown & Co.
Gladwell M, 2013, David and Goliath. New York: Little, Brown & Co.
Hartley E L and Hartley R E, 1961, Fundamentals of Social Psychology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Lindesmith A R, Strauss A L and Denzin N K, 1975, Social Psychology. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
Lindzey G (ed), 1954, Handbook of Social Psychology: Theory and Method. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub.
McGuire W J, 1999, Constructing Social Psychology: Creative and Critical Processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mohan B, 1987, Denial of Existence: Essays on the Human Condition. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Mohan B, 1996, Democracies of Unfreedom: The United States and India. Westport, CT.
Mohan B, 1999, Unification of Social Work. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Mohan B, 2007, Fallacies of Development: Crises of Human and Social Development. New Delhi: The Atlantic Pub.
Mohan B, 2011, Development, Poverty of Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mohan B, 2015, Global Frontiers of Social Development: Climate, Economy and Justice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mohan B (ed), 2015a, Construction of Social Psychology. See my Introduction. Lisbon: InScience Press.
Morris I, 2013, The Measure of Civilization: How Social Development Decides the Fate of Nations. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Parker I (ed), 1998, Social Constructivism, Discourse, and Realism. London: Sage.
Potts M and Hayden T, 2008, Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World. Dallas:
Benbella Books, Inc.
Putman R, 2015, Our Kids: American Dream in Crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Roberts G, 2015, Cassidy tackles the huge problem of mental illness. The Advocate, November 2: 7B.
Schneier B, 2014, Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World. NY: W.W. Norton.
Simmens L, 2015, Bibi Blusters, Boehner Blunders, Another Day in Republican Fantasyland, viewed March 4, 2015.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-simmens/bibi-blusters-boehner-blu_b_6797526.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Wood G, 2015, What ISIS really wants and how to stop it. The Atlantic, March, 79–94.
12
Environment and Social Psychology (2016)–Volume 1, Issue 1
620626
research-article2015
CADXXX10.1177/0011128715620626Crime & DelinquencyMills et al.
Article
Extreme Hatred:
Revisiting the Hate
Crime and Terrorism
Relationship to
Determine Whether
They Are “Close
Cousins” or “Distant
Relatives”
Crime & Delinquency
1­–33
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011128715620626
cad.sagepub.com
Colleen E. Mills1, Joshua D. Freilich1,
and Steven M. Chermak2
Abstract
Existing literature demonstrates disagreement over the relationship between
hate crime and terrorism with some calling them “close cousins,” whereas
others declare them “distant relatives.” We extend previous research by
capturing a middle ground between hate crime and terrorism: extremist hate
crime. We conduct negative binomial regressions to examine hate crime
by non-extremists, fatal hate crime by far-rightists, and terrorism in U.S.
counties (1992-2012). Results show that counties experiencing increases in
general hate crime, far-right hate crime, and non-right-wing terrorism see
associated increases in far-right hate crime, far-right terrorism, and far-right
hate crime, respectively. We conclude that hate crime and terrorism may be
more akin to close cousins than distant relatives.
1John
Jay College of Criminal Justice; City University of New York, The Graduate Center
New York City, USA
2Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA
Corresponding Author:
Colleen E. Mills, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; City University of New York, The
Graduate Center, 524 West 59th St., 2103 North Hall, New York, NY 10019, USA.
Email: cmills@jjay.cuny.edu
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
2
Crime & Delinquency 
Keywords
terrorism, violence, minorities, hate crime
Introduction
In June 2015, Dylann Storm Roof opened fire on Black congregants in the
Emmanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina. Roof previously
posted a manifesto, detailing his hatred for non-White races and confirming
the racial motivation behind the shooting (Robles, 2015). Three years prior,
Wade Michael Page stormed a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, executing a mass
shooting that was widely recognized as bias-motivated against the Sikh congregants. The authorities later revealed that Page was a White supremacist,
active in the neo-Nazi music scene, and often spoke of the racial holy war
(Elias, 2012). After both of these attacks, many designated the attack as
domestic terrorism, lone wolf terrorism, as well as a hate crime (Elias, 2012;
Gladstone & Zraick, 2015; Goode & Kovaleski, 2012; B. Levin, 2012;
Murphy, 2012; Robles, 2015; “Unprosecuted Hate Crimes,” 2012). Incidents
such as Page’s and Storm’s rampages blur the line between certain hate
crimes and terrorism. Such confusion extends beyond the media to the scholarly community. Existing literature recognizes the parallels between hate
crime and terrorism (Deloughery, King, & Asal, 2012; Green, McFalls, &
Smith, 2001; Hamm, 1993; Herek, Cogan, & Gillis, 2002; Krueger &
Malečková, 2002, 2003), but some scholars disagree over the nature of the
relationship. Krueger and Malečková (2002, 2003) deem them “close cousins” with their similarities outweighing their differences, whereas Deloughery
et al. (2012) characterize them as “distant relatives,” finding their differences
set them apart.
Although debate exists over the hate crime–terrorism relationship, only a
limited body of research has empirically examined this relationship (Byers &
Jones, 2007; Deloughery et al. 2012; Disha, Cavendish, & King, 2011; R. D.
King & Sutton, 2013). Much of this work centers on the impact of the
September 11 attack on hate crime offending (Disha et al., 2011; R. D. King
& Sutton, 2013). To date, Deloughery et al.’s (2012) temporal analysis is the
only study that examines the effects of the full range of anti-U.S. terrorist
attacks on hate crimes. In addition, it is the only known study that tests for
escalation from hate crimes to right-wing terrorism.
The current study extends Deloughery et al.’s (2012) important work by
testing the spatial relationship between hate crime and terrorism on the
county level. We unpack the relationships among (a) non-fatal hate crimes
committed by non-extremists, (b) fatal far-right hate crime, and (c) terrorist
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
3
Mills et al.
attacks from 1992 to 2012. The current study fills another gap by utilizing
bias-motivated homicides by the far-right catalogued in the Extremist Crime
Database (ECDB). The use of the ECDB addresses a limitation acknowledged by Deloughery et al. in their study as they used Hate Crime Statistics
Act (HCSA) data, which fails to account for perpetrator ideological strength
or affiliation. The current study seeks to answer the following research
question:
Research Question 1: Are hate crimes and terrorism more interrelated
than prior research has demonstrated?
Literature Review
The Similarities and Differences Between Terrorism and Hate
Crime
Some past research has highlighted the similarities between terrorism and
hate crime. For example, one of the earliest forms of terrorism in the United
States was racially and politically motivated violence of the postbellum Ku
Klux Klan, which ushered in early legislative attempts to address the common phenomenon of racially motivated terrorism. Examining the Klan’s use
of violence to block African Americans’ political involvement, Law (2009)
calls the Klan the “terrorist wing of the Democratic Party” (p. 132), highlighting political motivations of the Klan’s reign of terror. Arguing that early
efforts to combat political violence coincided with tackling racially motivated violence, Shimamoto (2004) remarks that the Enforcement Act of 1870
and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 were the first measures taken by the United
States to handle terroristic racially motivated violence, so as to preserve the
rights of targeted citizens much like hate crime legislation. Thus, the line
between hate crime and terrorism proves blurred historically as early
American terrorism was both politically and racially motivated.
Hamm (1993) notes the similarities between the language of terrorism
and hate crime definitions as stated by the U.S. government. Hamm (1993)
cites the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) definition of a terrorist
incident as a “violent act or an act dangerous to human life in violation of
the criminal laws . . . to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social
objectives” (pp. 106-107). The most recent language of federal hate crime
legislation defines hate crimes as offenses motivated by “prejudice based
on race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation,
or ethnicity” (U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, 2011b). Given the statutory
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
4
Crime & Delinquency 
language, Hamm (1993) argues that skinhead violence can be classified as
hate crimes or terrorist acts, evidencing the similar nature of such acts.
Definitions of hate crime and terrorist acts reveal a number of shared
traits. Both involve acts of violence against persons and property. Hate crime
and terrorism definitions both focus on classifying civilian populations, or
subgroups thereof, as victims (Shimamoto, 2004). Many definitions of terrorism rely on the political, social, and/or religious nature of the goals of
terrorist perpetrators (Hoffman, 1998). Like terrorism, hate crimes express a
number of socio-political objectives by targeting individuals based on their
perceived group membership. Biases often prove intricately related to sociopolitical and/or religious views. Both acts serve as tactics in the arsenal of
hate groups, a number of which are also labeled as terrorist organizations
such as the Ku Klux Klan (Atkins, 2006; J. Levin, 2013). Similarly,
McDevitt, Levin, and Bennet’s (2002) typology of hate crime offenders
includes the “mission” category made up of members or supporters of organized hate groups. “Mission” offenders are often racist White supremacist
extremists who believe that they must purge the world of evil by eliminating
the “other” group that threatens their group. B. Levin (2012) notes that these
“hard core hatemongers are believed to be responsible for about 33%-40%
of hate motivated homicides” (para. 7).
Hate crimes and terrorist incidents act as message crimes, instilling fear
and psychological harm, as well as behavioral modification. Noting the
close relationship between hate crime and terrorism, Krueger and Malečková
(2002, 2003) describe the goal of hate crimes to terrorize a larger group
beyond the immediate victim, who is selected on the basis of her or his
group identity. Hate crimes constitute not only an attack on a single person,
but also they send an anti-“other” message to the target’s larger community.
Hate crimes thus present unique harms that distinguish them from ordinary
crimes as they align more closely with terrorism. Several studies (Barnes &
Ephross, 1994; Iganski & Lagou, 2009; Lim, 2009; McDevitt, Balboni,
Garcia, & Gu, 2001) also show that victims of hate crime suffer greater
psychological and emotional harms, including depression, increased fear of
victimization, anger, and stress. For example, Iganski and Lagou (2009)
find that both racial minority (and the larger minority communities) and
White victims of racially motivated crimes avoid certain places and are
more likely to have moved (i.e., changed residences). Increased avoidance
behaviors and other behavioral changes also follow in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, such as those of 9/11 and the 2005 London bombings
(Gigerenzer, 2004, 2006; McArdle, Rosoff, & John, 2012; Prager, Beeler
Assay, Lee, & von Winterfeldt, 2011; Rubin, Brewin, Greenberg, Simpson,
& Wessely, 2005).
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
5
Mills et al.
Hate crimes and terrorist acts can be defensive or retaliatory. Defensive
hate crimes are those in which offenders “defend their turf” and send a
message to the larger community to which the victim belongs (Green,
Glaser, & Rich, 1998; McDevitt et al., 2002). Interviewing White youth
in Brooklyn, Pinderhughes (1993) finds that youth committed racially
motivated attacks to defend their turf as they believed that the government was taking their jobs and giving them to racial minorities while
Whites suffered unemployment and homelessness. Retaliatory hate crimes
occur in response to some precipitating event, specifically a perceived or
actual hate crime against a member of the offender’s ingroup (McDevitt
et al., 2002). One study of hate crimes in New York City, for example,
found that “cross-sectionally, antiwhite incidents correlate with the number of antiblack incidents, and temporally these two monthly time series
seem to follow a tit-for-tat pattern” (Green, Glaser, & Rich, 1998 in
Green, Strolovitch, & Wong, 1998, p. 399). Terrorist acts can also be conceptualized as defensive or retaliatory. For example, the Troubles in
Ireland exemplify both models with republican dissidents “defending”
Ireland from the British or acting in retaliation with tit-for-tat attacks by
republican dissidents and loyalists or British forces (LaFree, Dugan, &
Korte, 2009).
Although many scholars argue for the similarities between the two, others note how each are unique. In investigating the association between hate
crimes and terrorism, Deloughery et al. (2012) address the claim that hate
crime acts as a “poor man’s terrorist attack” that eventually escalates to
more serious acts of terrorism (p. 665). Unlike most terrorist attacks that
require some level of planning and resources, hate crimes are usually committed on the spur of the moment.1 Therefore, hate crimes present an avenue for extremists to pursue their socio-political objectives without the
necessity of planning. Hate crimes also pose less danger of arrest. Hate
crimes are underreported and under-investigated and prosecuted (Freilich
& Chermak, 2013; R. D. King, 2007; R. D. King, Messner, & Baller, 2009).
Terrorist attacks garner media, government, and law enforcement attention
and pose a greater threat of apprehension. Hate crimes thus present an
effective route for upholding ideological beliefs while minimizing the costs
of resources and risks.
Hate crime and terrorism further differ in certain ways. Hamm (1993)
argues that the distinction between hate crime and terrorism is nuanced,
remarking that only extreme hate crimes driven by socio-political goals
should be considered terrorism. Deloughery et al. (2012) find that hate
crimes constitute more of a “downward” offense with a majority party
attacking a member of a minority, whereas terrorism proves to be an
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
6
Crime & Delinquency 
“upward” crime with a less powerful group attacking a more powerful one.
Although this may be a valid distinction, it fails to acknowledge the nature
of a terrorist group’s social, political, or religious objectives. Michael (2003)
comments that “terrorism is almost always linked to a wider social movement. . . . Klan terrorism in the South was part of a broader pattern of white
resistance to the civil rights struggle” (p. 105). Shimamoto (2004) also
argues that both terrorism and hate crime attack fundamental notions of
democracy and the state. Therefore, the argument remains that hate crimes
attack society at large by attacking its norms, targeting dearly held values of
equality, liberty, and basic human rights. Such a conception of hate crimes
aligns them with the “upward” nature of terrorism, refuting that hate crimes
are only a downward crime.
Other differences between hate crime and terrorism pertain to offender
and incident characteristics. J. Levin and McDevitt (2002; see also Phillips,
2009) find that the majority of hate crimes are actually committed by
groups of thrill-seeking youth who lack firm ideological beliefs or hate
group affiliation.2 In addition to this thrill nature and the peer dynamics,
these incidents usually involve alcohol or drug consumption and are
unplanned (J. Levin & McDevitt, 2002; McDevitt et al., 2002; Messner,
McHugh, & Felson, 2004). It must be noted though, that thrill-seeking hate
crimes still send a message to the targeted group and often are an outgrowth of societal cultural norms. Byers, Crider, & Biggers (1999) shows
that many in their sample of thrill offenders expressed negative views of
their Amish victims. These thrill hate crime offenders also thought that the
larger community agreed with them that Amish persons were inferior and
not a part of society. Although thrill-seeking hate crime offenders are not
political extremists and are far from being firmly committed terrorists,
they still may be motivated by quasi-political motives. Thrill-seeking
offenders, in other words, often commit these attacks to send a message
that reflects both their personal biases and what they believe to be their
society’s cultural norms.
Another difference is that offenders typically do not claim responsibility for the attack or publicize it as terrorists often do, but they do not
necessarily need to publicize their crimes themselves (LaFree & Dugan,
2004). As message crimes, hate crimes themselves issue a warning to the
victim’s larger group. Such crimes often garner enough media attention to
get their objective publicized. Despite important differences between hate
crime and terrorism, their similarities provide the groundwork for further
investigation of the relationship between the two phenomena. See Figure
1 for summary of similarities and differences between hate crime and
terrorism.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
7
Mills et al.
Similarities
Differences
•• Early U.S. terrorism linked
to KKK, a notorious hate
organization
•• Hate crimes are often committed on
the spur of the moment; and usually
require less planning and resources
•• Similar language in statutes
(violence, civilian populations,
socio-political objectives)
•• Hate crimes are less likely to result
in an arrest; are under-reported,
-investigated, -prosecuted
•• Biases linked to socio-political
and religious ideologies
•• Hate crimes can be downward
(powerful subgroup attacking a
minority subgroup)
•• Overlap between hate groups
and terrorist groups
•• Many hate crimes are committed by
offenders fueled by alcohol, and drugs.
•• Communicative nature
•• Many hate crimes are committed by
non-extremist youths, acting with
others, for the “thrill” of it
•• Instill psychological harms, fear,
and behavior modification
•• Hate crimes can lack a publicity aspect
•• Both can be upward (terrorism
and hate crime attack notions
of democracy, equality, human
rights)
Figure 1. The Similiarities and Differences Between Hate Crime and Terrorism
(Barnes & Ephross, 1994; Deloughery, King, & Asal, 2012; Hamm, 1993; Iganski &
Lagou, 2009; LaFree & Dugan, 2004; J. Levin & McDevitt, 2002; Law, 2009; Lim,
2009; Messner et al., 2004; McDevitt et al., 2001; McDevitt et al., 2002; Michael,
2003; Phillips, 2009; Shimamoto, 2004).
The Theoretical Context of the Hate Crime and
Terrorism Relationship
General Hate Crime Escalating to Extremist Hate Crime
The theoretical basis for investigating the relationships between hate crime,
extremist hate crimes, and terrorism relies on intergroup conflict and related
theories, including normative support and social identity theory. Several
studies (Grattet, 2009; Green, Glaser, & Rich, 1998; Green, Strolovitch, &
Wong, 1998; Jacobs & Wood, 1999; R. D. King & Brustein, 2006; R. D. King
& Sutton, 2013; C. J. Lyons, 2007) investigate the role of intergroup conflict
and hate crime. Green, Strolovitch, and Wong’s (1998) “defended neighborhoods thesis” draws on realist group conflicts theories. In brief, realist group
conflict theories posit that White intolerance manifests when racial and
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
8
Crime & Delinquency 
ethnic minority groups move into their areas, thereby representing a threat to
their political and economic interests as a competing force for resources
(Green, Strolovitch, & Wong, 1998). Several studies (Grattet, 2009; Green,
Strolovitch, & Wong, 1998; C. J. Lyons, 2007) support the “defended neighborhoods” thesis, evidencing that racially/ethnically based hate crimes are
highly correlated with the influx of minorities into former almost all-White
areas.
The following section examines how the presence of general anti-“other”
hate crimes can result in fatal hate crimes by far-rightists. Normative support
proves to be a very significant factor in influencing the use of violence in
intergroup conflict. Louis and Taylor (2002) explain how group norms shape
individual members’ perceptions, specifically perceptions of intergroup conflict. Senechal de la Roche (1996) explains that solidarity is integral for
collective violence, permitting violent expression of group grievance. As
such, lynching varied with local solidarity in the American South with closeknit communities seeing increased lynchings. Gurr (1968) explains that
experimental evidence demonstrates that highly cohesive groups are much
more likely to express hostility against “outsiders” (p. 272). Regarding the
importance of normative support for violence in enabling terrorists, M.
King, Noor, and Taylor (2011) note how Milgram’s experiments demonstrated that individuals are susceptible to accepting violence when surrounded by others who were compliant with engaging in violence. M. King
et al. (2011) find that jihadi terrorists receive normative support from their
families, as well as the larger community. Ingroup identification provides a
mechanism for individuals to positively see themselves. Social identity theory dictates that people derive self-esteem through their group membership
and by viewing their group positively compared with other groups; furthermore, such group identification strengthens individual conformity to group
norms (Cohrs & Kessler, 2013; Federico, 2013; Louis & Taylor, 2002; P. A.
Lyons, Kenworthy, & Popan, 2010). P. A. Lyons et al. (2010) find that the
interaction of ingroup identification and mean and high-level group narcissism among U.S. citizens was associated with negative attitudes and behaviors toward Arab immigrants.
The research demonstrates that extremists are more likely to resort to
violence against a perceived threat when they receive normative support
from their ingroup. Hamm (1993) finds that skinheads are synanomic,
which he defines as “hyperactively bonded to the dominant social order
and to one another” (p. 212). As a result, far-right extremists should be
more likely to not only be more aggressively bonded to their goals of carrying out their socio-political objectives in sustaining “traditional” values,
but also their ingroup (White, heterosexual, working-class men).
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
9
Mills et al.
Furthermore, far-right extremists should prove to feed off of the normative
support of their ingroup in exercising violence against outgroups.
In sum, there are two causal mechanisms that could explain how regular hate crimes committed by non-extremists lead to fatal ideologically
motivated attacks committed by far-right extremists. First, regular hate
crimes often attract attention from the media, the larger community, and
committed far-rightists. These regular hate crimes may encourage farrightists to conclude that “regular” persons in the general community
share their racial and extremist grievances. For example, Green and Rich
(1998) investigated the association between White supremacist rallies and
demonstrations and cross burnings on the county level in North Carolina.
They found that in counties where White supremacist rallies occurred, the
likelihood of subsequent cross burnings increased. The authors concluded
that White supremacist rallies could encourage individuals traveling to
the event by drawing attention to racial grievances, and therefore facilitating action in the form of racial intimidation. Deloughery et al. (2012)
similarly explain that anti-minority hate crimes can highlight growing
anti-minority sentiment to which extremists may respond with more serious violence. Our argument is that regular hate crimes committed by nonextremists could (perhaps unintentionally) highlight these same racial
grievances that then encourage far-right extremists to commit fatal acts of
ideologically motivated hate crimes.
Second, these regular hate crimes are often fiercely denounced by government officials, minority communities, and advocacy groups (Jenness &
Grattet, 2004; J. Levin & McDevitt, 2002). Simi and Futrell (2010) have
explained that far-rightists commonly feel stigmatized by mainstream society. Many therefore retreat to “free places” where they are better able to
subscribe to and act upon their extremist beliefs, and interact with others
who think like them. It is possible that these denunciations of regular hate
crimes aggravate the feelings of persecution held by many far-rightists that
is reinforced by others who share their views. This in turn could create a
backlash effect that results in some far-rightists committing fatal hate
crimes. As the far-right movement often attracts violent individuals (see,
for example, Ezekiel, 1995; Freilich, Adamczyk, Chermak, Boyd, & Parkin,
2015), we wonder, in other words, whether some far-rightists engage in
fatal bias-motivated violence in response to the condemnation of regular
anti-minority hate crime, which presents an attack on their grievances and
ideology.
Based upon both of these possible causal mechanisms, we hypothesize
that places experiencing hate crimes in general are more likely to experience
fatal hate crimes by far-right extremists.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
10
Crime & Delinquency 
Extremist Hate Crime Escalating to Extremist Terrorism
In terms of extremist hate crime escalating to terrorism in the intergroup context,
Michael (2003) discusses Sprinzak’s theory of “split-delegimitization” as
applied to right-wing terrorism, which asserts that “outsiders” as well as the
state simultaneously come under attack (p. 95). Michael (2003) contends that
this theoretically supports the evolution of right-wing terrorism with attacks
escalating from those against the “outsiders” to the state due to the state’s perceived alliance with the “outsiders” (p. 95). Supporting the theoretical escalation, Michael (2003) looks to Hewitt’s (2000) descriptive data on American
domestic right-wing terrorism, which evidences a demonstrable escalation in
violence against the state. Hewitt’s (2000) data show that the majority of the first
wave of far-right attacks from the 1950s to the 1970s was against people based
on their race or ethnicity, followed by civil rights workers. The second wave
from the 1970s to the present shows that the far-right has increasingly targeted
the government, including attacks against law enforcement, politicians, and
government facilities. Examining the life course of American far-right groups,
Kerodal, Freilich, Chermak, and Suttmoeller (2015) empirically test and find
support for Sprinzak’s theory, uncovering that the far-right initially attacked
non-government targets but began to equally strike both non-government and
government targets after becoming disillusioned with the government. Such
findings support the idea that the far-right may move from simply engaging in
hate crimes against minorities to anti-government attacks as well, signaling an
escalation in their activities. Deloughery et al.’s (2012) case study of Timothy
McVeigh’s horrific anti-government bombing attack of the Federal building in
Oklahoma City in 1995 demonstrated that increases in anti-minority hate crimes
were a way to express right-wing grievances and can act as a warning or a signal
that some extremists will subsequently potentially “upgrade” to (anti-government or American society at large) terrorism (p. 668). As a result, we hypothesize that counties experiencing fatal hate crimes by far-rightists would also see
far-right terrorism with these extremists employing violence against both minority and government targets and American society at large.
Extremist Hate Crime as Response to Terrorism
Regarding extremist hate as a response to anti-American terrorism, a review of
the literature on group grievance, social control, and retaliation is useful. Black
(1983) posits a theory of crime as social control, in which individuals use crime
as “self-help” to express their group’s grievance against a particular subgroup to
maintain social control. McCauley and Moskalenko (2011) define group (or
political) grievance as a mechanism for radicalization and as the “threat or harm
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
11
Mills et al.
to a group or cause the individual cares about can move the individual to hostility and violence toward perpetrators” (p. 21). Terrorist attacks perceived to
attack “traditional” or “American” values thus present extremists with a group
grievance that manifests in violent retribution. Vicarious retribution occurs
when an ingroup member views an entire outgroup responsible for a harm
against a fellow ingroup member and thus attacks an outgroup member for retribution (Lickel, Miller, Stenstrom, Denson, & Schmader, 2006). Several scholars (Lickel et al., 2006; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008, 2011) explain that a
popular mechanism for both radicalization and vicarious retribution is dehumanization of the “enemy.” Lickel et al. (2006) comment that intergroup conflict sees dehumanization of the outgroup, which facilitates vicarious retribution
as outgroup members are seen “as being interchangeable and therefore equally
deserving of retaliation” (p. 378). Retaliatory hate crimes involve individuals
who seek revenge by targeting innocent bystanders whom they perceive as representative of a larger enemy. Several studies (Byers & Jones, 2007; Deloughery
et al., 2012; Disha et al., 2011; R. D. King & Sutton, 2013; McDevitt et al.,
2002) demonstrate the prevalence of hate crimes following terrorist attacks.
Hate crimes targeting perceived Middle Eastern victims occurred not only after
9/11 and the Boston Marathon, but also immediately at the start of the Iran hostage crisis in 1979 (J. Levin & McDevitt, 2002). Retaliatory hate crimes thus act
as micro-level manifestation of broader conflicts on the international scale.
The synanomic nature of far-right extremists thus explains why they are
likely to respond to terrorist attacks against “traditional” or “American” values with hate crimes against outgroups they perceive as a threat or as responsible for precipitating terrorist attacks. As a result, extremists prove more
likely to exercise hate crime as a form of social control. Furthermore, normative support exists for retributive violence in the course of intergroup conflict
(Lickel et al., 2006). Therefore, extremists feed off of normative support to
not only engage in hate crimes in general, but also specifically as a form of
vicarious retribution. Retaliatory hate crimes following terrorist attacks thus
express group grievance, as well as social control, by those ultra-committed
to upholding the dominant social order. We hypothesize that counties that
experience terrorist attacks by non-right-wing groups would be more likely
to see an increase in fatal hate crimes by far-right extremists.
Revisiting Deloughery et al. (2012): Are Hate Crimes Only
Distant Relatives?
Using HCSA and Global Terrorism Database (GTD) data, Deloughery et al.
(2012) examine the temporal proximity of hate crimes and terrorism and find
that (a) hate crimes do not necessarily lead to future right-wing terrorism, (b)
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
12
Crime & Delinquency 
hate crimes are more often a response to terrorism, and (c) anti-minority hate
crimes prove especially prevalent after non-right-wing terrorist attacks that
seem to attack traditional “American” values. As a result, they conclude that
hate crimes and terrorism are more akin to “distant relatives” as hate crimes
are not indicative of future terrorist attacks. One limitation acknowledged by
the authors is the absence of a measure for ideological strength or offender
affiliation. The majority of hate crime offenders consist of thrill offenders,
who lack firmly committed extremist ideological beliefs (J. Levin & McDevitt,
2002; McDevitt et al., 2002). Therefore, HCSA data does not allow researchers to identify which offenders subscribe to extremist views which undermines
our ability to study this phenomenon. Offenders who subscribe to extremist
right-wing ideology, however, prove more likely to resort to both ideologically motivated hate crimes and terrorist acts than non-ideological offenders.
This study extends Deloughery’s important work in two ways: by utilizing
fatal bias-motivated homicides committed by far-rightists as contained in the
ECDB and by examining the county-level association of hate crime and
terrorism.
Finally, based upon the prior literature we also examine four additional
hypotheses (for a total of seven). Research establishes that intergroup conflict
occurs when minorities pose a threat to the interests of the dominant group
(Blalock, 1967; Green, 1998, Green, Strolovitch, & Wong, 1998, R. D. King
& Brustein, 2006). Greater rates of minority presence are said to lead to
White intolerance, and in turn violence against minorities, as their presence
poses a threat to White economic interests (Green, Strolovitch, & Wong,
1998). Previous studies (Disha et al., 2011; C. J. Lyons, 2007) find that
greater racial/ethnic minority presence explains interracial violence.
Intergroup conflict theories also posit that ethnic heterogeneity can also lead
to greater conflict (Olzak, Shanahan, & McEneaney, 1996; Shanahan &
Olzak, 1999). Another important predictor in studies examining intergroup
conflict is demographic change. Green, Strolovitch, and Wong’s (1998)
defended neighborhoods thesis holds that demographic change over time
with minority growth in areas contributes to White violence against “invading” minorities. We hypothesize that those counties with greater minority
presence as well as greater ethnic heterogeneity will be more likely to see
far-right activity. We further hypothesize that demographic change (i.e.,
minority presence increasing over time) will be associated with far-right
activity as well.
The literature on intergroup conflict often relies on measures of economic competition. Theoretically, poor economic conditions foster
increased racial competition for resources, which, in turn, fosters increased
intergroup conflict leading to violent outcomes such as hate crimes and
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
13
Mills et al.
terrorist incidents (Corzine, Huff-Corzine, & Creech, 1988; C. J. Lyons,
2007; Olzak, 1989, 1990; Soule, 1992; Tolnay & Beck, 1995; Tolnay,
Deane, & Beck, 1996). Relatedly, deprivation frameworks in criminology
such as the classic strain theories maintain that poorer locations usually
provide fewer opportunities for success. Some persons use crime as an
alternative way to achieve financial success as the legal opportunities are
closed to them (Merton, 1938). Often, persons in these areas are socially
isolated from mainstream society. These areas may also attract offenders
from other locations who exacerbate this locale’s crime problem (Messner
& Rosenfeld, 2007). Significantly, economic deprivation has also been
seen as linked to far-right extremism (Lipset & Raab, 1977). Freilich et al.
(2015; see also Pridemore & Freilich, 2006), for example, discuss how farright extremists residing in poorer locations might conclude that their ideological opponents are responsible for their economic deprivation. These
far-rightists may therefore then attack these opponents. We hypothesize
that counties experiencing both higher rates of unemployment and poverty,
as well as increased rates in both of these domains over time, will see
higher numbers of far-right activity.
Data and Methods
This study investigates the research question, “Are hate crimes and terrorism
more interrelated than prior research has demonstrated?” Using incident data
aggregated to the county level, we seek to address whether hate crime and
terrorism prove more similar to each other than not by studying the spatial
association between the two phenomena. We test the following seven
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: An increase in counties’ non-fatal anti-minority/anti“other” hate crimes committed by all type of perpetrators is associated
with an increase in counties’ fatal hate crimes committed by far-rightists.
Hypothesis 2: An increase in counties’ fatal hate crimes committed by
far-rightists is associated with an increase in counties’ far-right terrorist
attacks.
Hypothesis 3: An increase in counties’ terrorist attacks by non-right-wing
groups that attack “traditional/American values” is associated with an
increase in counties’ fatal hate crimes committed by far-rightists.
Hypothesis 4: An increase in counties’ levels of minority presence and
diversity is associated with increases in counties’ far-right activity.
Hypothesis 5: Growing minority presence and diversity over time is associated with increases in counties’ far-right activity.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
14
Crime & Delinquency 
Hypothesis 6: An increase in counties’ levels of poor economic conditions (poverty and unemployment) is associated with increases in counties’ far-right activity.
Hypothesis 7: Worsening economic conditions (poverty and unemployment) over time is associated with increases in counties’ far-right
activity.
To address these hypotheses, this study conducts a county analysis using
pooled event counts by county over a 20-year period (1992-2012) from three
different databases: the U.S. ECDB, the HCSA from the Uniform Crime
Report (UCR), and U.S. cases from the GTD.
The GTD is a terrorist event database that includes all terrorist attacks that
occur around the globe using open-source data (see LaFree & Dugan, 2007,
for information on incident inclusion criteria). This study uses incident-level
data from the GTD to examine pooled counts of 223 right-wing3 and 225
non-right-wing/anti-“American” (primarily far-left animal/environmental
terrorists and radical Islamists) terrorist attacks in the United States over the
20-year period from 1992 to 2012 (excluding 1993, which is missing from
the GTD) (data from National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism &
Responses to Terrorism, 2014). As Deloughery et al. (2012) do in their study,
this study identifies the perpetrator type (i.e., far-right vs. far-left) by using
data from the Terrorist Organization Profiles (TOPS), which codes and organizes groups by ideology (Deloughery et al., 2012). The current study also
evaluates each potential individual or unknown perpetrator attack to discern
and classify terrorist attacks according to evidence indicating far-right or
non-right-wing/anti-“American” perpetrators or motivations.4
The HCSA of 1990 provides for the collection of data on hate crime incidents in the United States with law enforcement agencies recording and submitting counts and other possible descriptive information of hate crime
incidents in their jurisdictions to the FBI for inclusion in the UCR (U.S.
Department of Justice, FBI, 2011a). Currently, the federal hate crimes act
charges the Attorney General with collecting data on designated crimes motivated by “prejudice based on race, gender and gender identity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity” (U.S. Department of Justice, FBI,
2011b). Similar to other official crime databases, limitations exist with the
HCSA data as hate crimes suffer from underreporting as well as differential
compliance with recording and reporting hate crimes by location (R. D. King,
2007; R. D. King et al., 2009).
Importantly though, despite its limitations the FBI’s HCSA is recognized
as one of the most reliable sources available for county-level hate crime data.
The HCSA includes more participating police agencies and covers more of
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on April 10, 2016
15
Mills et al.
the nation’s population than the FBI’s National Incident Based Recording
System’s (NIBRS) bias crime data. In addition, watch-groups do not publish
annual listings of all hate crimes for the entire nation in any systematic fashion (Freilich & Chermak, 2013). Regarding the National Crime Victimization
Survey, there could be significant variation in the respondents�…