When concerned with acts of ‘terrorism’, the media constantly presents us with two supposedly polar opposite scapegoats. On the one hand, much of the right wing media attributes acts of ‘terrorism’ and violence to extremist groups, attributing the acts of terror to the hatred that is incited by religious leaders and religious thinking. On the other hand, much of the left wing media attributes these acts to the decisions made by governmental institutions abroad, the role of British foreign policy for example. Although some acts of terror may be influenced by the actions of these institutions, the extent to which they persuade individuals to engage in acts of violence is less clear.

As much psychological research has shown, the factors that energise and sustain our behaviour rely on a combination of environmental, behavioural and personal factors. As a result, making everyday decisions is determined by a complex interplay of influences. The variety of influences that motivate our behaviour include the observations we make, the discussions we engage in, who we choose to engage with, how we have learnt to react to these discussions, and what we think about our own personal competence. Acts of ‘terror’ are therefore no more influenced by large organisations such as religious institutions, than by the personal, emotional and physiological stance of the individual.

Why, then, do we attribute heinous incidents such as the attack in the Woolwich district in London on 22 May primarily to environmental factors? News reports continuously focused on the impact of Islam on contemporary Britain, and Islamic ideals in relation to ‘terror’ incidents. These accusations suggest that a homogeneous set of characteristics can reflect a large and diverse religious grouping, and more controversially that it is a religion that determines and builds character. The problems with these associations are therefore manifold. Not only is there no single unified understanding of Islam, just as there is no single understanding of Christianity or any other religious grouping, but if it was only religion that built character then all religious groups should be cohesive and every individual within the group should have the exact same understanding and perceptions.

But as we all know, no two individuals are the same. We all interpret what we see differently despite the overarching similarities in our environments. An often quoted example which perhaps best exemplifies the importance of a wide range of factors in the character building process is the vast differences between siblings, where despite similarities in upbringing, siblings will often form very individualised outlooks on life. Within the British political system, these differences are exemplified by the disparities between the Milibands. Despite their allegiance to the Labour party, they are constantly at odds over significant political issues. Although this does not suggest that a greater singularity of mindset and opinion within small, radical or extremist groups is not present, it draws attention to its role in the decision making process as one influence among many.

Thus, when attempting to understand and pinpoint the causes for ‘acts of terrorism’, it is important to look beyond the solely environmental factors. When Prime Minister David Cameron said that ‘It is the most appalling crime’ he may have been right. But when the incident is labelled as a ‘terrorist incident’, it is crucial to remember that this tells us very little about the causes of the crime. Drummer Rigby was not the victim of a radical group, Drummer Rigby was the victim of a range of factors, and the continuing trend to scapegoat single influences fosters an ignorance that encourages the very behaviour that news reports are trying to confront. 

This piece is one of three in Varsity Comment's coverage of the controversial issue of terrorism in Britain. The others are available here and here.