Content uploaded by Josh Cuevas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Josh Cuevas on Aug 10, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND
CONSEQUENCES OF FUNDAMENTALIST
INDOCTRINATION
Joshua A. Cuevas
Introduction
It can be argued that throughout the past two centuries, religious fundamentalist
movements around the world were relegated largely to the margins of politics and
culture. Their influence was limited to relatively small, peripheral segments of various
populations, especially in industrialized nations. Over the last two decades we have seen
a monumental shift in the influence of fundamentalist movements, both here in the
United States and abroad.
Christian fundamentalist movements were arguably the most decisive factor in
the last two American presidential elections, and the current president is closely
associated with fundamentalist groups. From the Middle East, radical Islamist
fundamentalists have reached out to coordinate attacks in the United States, as well as in
several European countries, Africa, and Asia. They are currently fomenting hostility in
small but volatile pockets around the globe to an extent that is unprecedented in world
history. Indeed, the most incendiary conflicts the world currently faces can be viewed as
emanating from a tension between the fundamentalists in the West and those in the
Middle East. While these conflicts involve a number of complex issues, such as
economics, military influence, and political dynamics, it cannot be denied that
fundamentalist ideology is central to the dilemma.
If the nature of fundamentalist thinking and indoctrination is not better
understood, human progress will be at risk, just as peace has already been a casualty.
Erich Fromm’s research on the indoctrination of the public by the Nazi regime was the
first to examine the psychology behind authoritarianism, followed most notably by the
“Berkley” research by Adorno, et al. in 1950.1 But suicide attacks as we know them
today did not exist before the 19802. Japanese Kamikaze pilots do not fall into the same
category, because they were a part of a military organization taking action against another
military organization in a situation of mutual combat, and regardless of the morality of
the strategy, many soldiers throughout history have sacrificed their lives for similar
causes.
This modern conflict pits religious ideologies against one another to an extent the
world has not seen since the Middle Ages. The unique aspect of this conflict is that
citizens in relatively large numbers have been willing to commit suicide while at the
same time killing random and innocent civilians. The extreme circumstances of this
development make it necessary that we examine the processes behind fundamentalist
indoctrination.
10.1558/eph.v16i2.57
58
Defining Indoctrination
Schweitzer argued that a distinction be made between religious education and
indoctrination.3 He also stressed that empirical research on religion is necessary.
However, the rationale put forth for the distinction between religious education and
indoctrination was vague and ambiguous. In addition, Schweitzer suggested that religious
education should not be modeled according to expectations of science. This is an
extremely precarious position to take, on one hand asserting that religious education is
different from indoctrination and that increased empiricism is called for, but on the other
hand providing no criteria for the distinction between religious education and
indoctrination and suggesting that scientific standards should not apply. This argument
simply does provide sufficient criteria in regard to rigor or consistency.
In contrast, Hand put forth a framework for the definition of indoctrination in
purely logical terms, specifically in regard to children: One can impart knowledge on
another person in a number of ways.4 One way is to appeal to reason and rationale by
showing evidence of what is known to be true, such as with a math formula or a scientific
demonstration. Another is to appeal to reason and rationale by acting as an authority
figure who has witnessed the actual evidence for what has been shown to be true, which
may be the case with anyone who has experience in a specific field. Clearly these two
instances are not indoctrination, because each includes both an appeal to reason and a
reference to what has been proven to be true. And because the acquired knowledge is
based on active reasoning, it allows for that information to be amended and revised in the
future should additional or contradictory proof appear. Indoctrination takes place when
one circumvents reasoning and imparts a way of thinking based on something other than
the force of evidence, so that the child holds the beliefs irrationally, without regard for
evidence.
Teaching religious beliefs cannot entail either of the first two methods, because
evidence for what is known to be true cannot be demonstrated for religious belief, and the
authority figure cannot have been witness to evidence to support the religious belief.5
The very existence of a variety of religious doctrines, such as Christianity, Islam,
Judaism, Hinduism, etc. makes it clear that none has been shown to be decisively true
beyond argument. Scientific evidence that contradicts certain areas of these belief
systems further illustrates the point that no religion can currently be proven to be true.
Since teaching of religion cannot fall into either the category of demonstrating
direct evidence or being derived from an authority figure who has personally witnessed
the direct evidence, it must fall into the third category: bypassing decisive rationale,
reason, and evidence to impart beliefs by exerting psychological pressure or acting as a
false authority figure. This is indoctrination.6 Without examining the obvious question of
the morality, or immorality, of teaching someone something as truth that the teacher does
not actually know to be true, it becomes clear that most religious teaching must fall under
the category of indoctrination. However, if one were to arrive at religious belief
completely independently as an adult, without prior guidance or persuasion from others,
that individual would not have been indoctrinated. But this would have to be considered a
rare occurrence given the climate in most countries around the world where familial
upbringing is most often steeped in some form of religious education.
59
Evolutionary Theory
Bering identified three possibilities for humans’ tendency towards religious
belief: 1) it is simply a vestige of a time when human knowledge could not explain life
and death, and religious belief filled the vacuum of knowledge; 2) it is strictly a product
of cultural indoctrination; 3) it is an evolutionary product that humans are predisposed to
developing.7 If religious belief is a vestige of an earlier time, then it has outlived its
usefulness now that science can more accurately describe life processes. If it is neither a
vestige nor a product of indoctrination, then by Bering’s logic, there would likely be a
genetic predisposition, an evolutionary root to religious belief. Of course, evolution has
shaped behavior and behavior is the product of psychological states. In turn, religious
belief is also clearly tied to the psychological state.
However, this possibility could only have validity if the psychological state that
led to belief in a deity had biological advantages or was useful to the survival of the
species.8 By attributing an event to a conscious intention on another’s part, rather than
seeing it as a random occurrence or inadvertent act of nature, it causes individuals to be
hyper vigilant, which tends to create a safer environment. For instance, if an early human
walked through a forest and heard a branch snap, his chances of survival would be greater
if his natural tendency was to initially suspect that it was a predator stalking him, rather
than to first assume it was a dried branch falling. But that hyper vigilance also makes it
more likely that the person will attribute a natural occurrence to an intentional act. This
would create a situation where acts of nature where attributed to acts of god, therefore
creating a climate predisposed to irrationality.
If, on the other hand, indoctrination were at the root of religious belief, then we
would logically see more irrational views of mysticism amongst more developmentally
advanced humans. If there is indeed an evolutionary foundation, younger children would
be more inclined to show those patterns.
There is some empirical support for the evolutionary perspective. Bering’s 2006
study found that the younger children were the more likely to believe that the mental
functions of a deceased animal would continue to function after death, although even
preschoolers showed an understanding that the body ceased functioning at death. This
would seem to contradict the cultural indoctrination theory, because in the indoctrination
model it would be more likely that children would show this trait of a belief in continued
existence the longer they were socialized into the culture. So if it was indeed the product
of cultural indoctrination, older children would be more likely than younger ones to
believe the mind lived after death, and this was not the case.
One theory is that since no one knows what it is like to be dead, people will
continue to attribute the mental functions, they cannot imagine being without, to the
deceased.9 Likewise, religious belief is dependent on the individual acquiring theory of
mind because the person must be able to understand that there is a deity out there
somewhere who has intentions and beliefs separate from the individual’s. This would
point to a time early in life when a child is particularly susceptible to a number of factors:
Whether the tendency is genetic or not, the child would have an ambiguous mindset in
regard to death, knowing that death means the person is no longer “here,” but unable to
contemplate an actual end to existence. During this time of ambiguity, the child may be
particularly vulnerable to indoctrination, since the religious teachings would eliminate the
60
inherent contradiction in the child’s belief system. It has been speculated that conflict and
contradiction are necessary to the learning process.10 A lack of contradiction in the area
may cause stagnation in the child’s learning process, and that child may essentially be
locked into cycle of irrational thought. Indeed, Hand suggested that it is more likely that
younger children will hold beliefs into adulthood than it is for older individuals to adopt
those beliefs later on.11
Group Identity and Intergroup Theory
In addition to the child’s uncertainty about the nature of life itself and a mindset
that is susceptible to irrational ideas that may help to quell that uncertainty, young
children are also beginning to form ideas about social constructs. Humans are naturally a
social species, so it is natural that they tend to classify stimuli, including people, into
groups, and those classifications work to form social identities and intergroup attitudes.12
Social categorization is a powerful psychological process that can lead to in-group
favoritism and out-group discrimination, even when the differences are trivial in a real-
world context,13 such as the irrational argument that extending rights to homosexuals will
somehow damage heterosexual marriages. However, when individuals view themselves
as being defined by the parameters of the group, and therefore are part of an “identity
group,” extreme behavior such as genocidal conflicts can result even amongst seemingly
intelligent, educated, and rational people.14
Eisold identified three important dynamics involved with an identity group: First,
the group is formed based on differences the collective group members have with non-
group members. Next, those differences become cause for action, or in other words, help
to determine the group’s behavior. Finally, there is the need to protect those differences,
and they become a source of defense mechanisms and possibly aggression.15
Patterson and Bigler16 studied intergroup identity among school children and
found that children who attended schools segregated by sex or gender were more likely to
form biases against those who were not identified with their groups. It would stand to
reason that if schools or communities are segregated along the lines of religious beliefs,
the individuals within that culture would be prone to form biases and possibly hostilities
towards other individuals with different beliefs who they have not had the opportunity to
integrate with. In addition, children’s biases were developed through cognitive processes
from within the group, rather than taught by an authority figure or deduced via actual
external stimuli in the environment.17 Thus, the leaders who influence and indoctrinate
followers into a fundamentalist movement may be more successful if they act not as
leaders or teachers at the apex of the group, but as peers, and represent the ideology as a
common struggle. In further support, Aronson identified three conditions that create an
environment in which an individual is likely to succumb to the group exerting pressure
and ultimately conform: if the group consists of perceived experts; if the members are of
high social status; or if the members are comparable to the individual in some way.18 An
effective fundamentalist group or leader may construct a situation in which one or any
combination of the three conditions are met. Therefore, the focus is placed on the
perceived enemy or sinners, and those being indoctrinated do not pause to question the
validity of their new positions.
61
Another interesting finding was that minority groups showed more in-group bias
than majority groups did, meaning the majority was more able to overlook group
membership, as the minority “gets lost in the crowd.”19 Those in the minority group seem
to be more aware of their group status and identify more strongly with it, possibly as a
defensive mechanism. Eisold also noted the importance of the minority group identity as
well, concluding that subgroups form within groups based on the issues that are currently
central to their thinking.20 The subgroup members are then galvanized by their more
specific interests and in turn influence the larger, more general group. For instance,
Christian fundamentalists may form subgroups based on a common desire to limit the
rights of homosexuals or abortion rights. Muslim fundamentalists may form subgroups
based on a common desire to rid their holy land of “infidels.” These specific interests of
the subgroups then influence the collective actions of the entire Christian or Muslim
fundamentalist movements if the subgroup’s identity is tied strongly enough to those
issues and the issues are not in direct conflict to the larger group’s goals. However, these
subgroups may also create splits in the larger group, as Protestant groups did with
Christianity.
The more rigid and prominent the group identity becomes, the more likely the
members are to hold extreme beliefs and possibly resort to violence.21 Indeed, identity
groups can be viewed as having psychotic patterns of thought and behavior due to a
failure to develop more adaptive and balanced ways of thinking in regard to
differences.22 One of the psychological processes central to intergroup dynamics is
psychological distance.23 In extreme cases this psychological distance allows those from
the in-group to view those from the out-group as less than human or not worthy of the
same treatment we would normally provide other humans. By categorizing the out-group
as enemies, the fundamentalist distances himself psychologically from his victims.
Of course, the group must constantly recruit new members, and Hindery
identified a number of characteristics common to the indoctrination process.24 The first is
the presence of repetitive formulas and self-hypnotic meditations. Obvious examples of
these tendencies can be found in the rocking back and forth motion that often
accompanies Muslim chanting as one recites the Quran, Christians who speak in tongues
during Pentecostal services, and a variety of Catholic rituals, although more subtle forms
can be found throughout most religious exercises.
Another feature of indoctrination is binary thinking.25 Eisold describes
humanity’s tendency to form groups and categorize others as a natural product of social
dynamics,26 and Hindery emphasizes a conscious, almost conspiratorial effort by the
fundamentalist to create two narrow, simplistic, and oppositional groups—good or evil;
saved or unsaved; the chosen or the damned; Muslim or non-Muslim. One of the
foundations of fundamentalist education systems is to encourage rigid, us-versus-them
thinking,27 even if making them one of us is also a foundation.
Religious Education
This religious perspective can be especially problematic when it is combined
with political ideology, which undoubtedly calls for more nuance and sophistication than
binary thinking would allow. The combination of religious indoctrination and politics
leads to increased radicalization and isolation of the in-group, because the political policy
62
must either correspond absolutely with the religious dogma of the group, or it is rejected
out of hand as a sinister product of the out-group. President George W. Bush’s statement
after 9-11 that the rest of the world is “either with us or against us” stands as an example
of binary thinking that certainly did not benefit United States and only served to isolate
the country from a world that did not choose to view their allegiance in such limited
terms. According to Moghaddam, Western psychology has defined right-wing
authoritarianism by use of categorical philosophy and us-versus-them perspectives such
as this.28
Fundamentalists, both terrorists and non-terrorists, also tend to target youths.29
Adolescents and teenagers are seen as more pliable and impressionable. During the 1980s
in Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini’s prime focus was on recruiting youths into his radical
movement as future holy warriors.30 The typical age of a terrorist, including the 9-11
hijackers, is in the mid-20s.31 These individuals are raised in a religious climate, recruited
into the movement in their youth, and groomed over approximately a decade to fulfill the
role the fundamentalist leaders need them for.
The focus on recruiting youths is common throughout most religions, from Islam
to Christianity to Hinduism to Buddhism.32 Religious organizations attempt to reach
young children because most people tend to stay within the faith they are raised in.
Christian evangelist operatives note that once a child reaches the age of 13, the chances
drop from 32 to 4 percent that they will be converted.33
The religious right often vehemently criticizes the public school systems as
godless and worldly. However, since public schools serve 90 percent of the American
school children, they are seen as fertile recruiting ground.34 As one way to circumvent
laws and bring fundamentalism into schools, evangelicals such as Franklin Graham, son
of the highly influential evangelist Billy Graham, are advocating having children in each
public school who are trained and expected to indoctrinate other children into their
religious beliefs. Training in evangelical techniques would be available to these child
“trainers” on the Internet. Church leaders intend to use children as missionaries and have
been vocal in disregarding the wishes of parents of other faiths and philosophies who do
not wish to have their child indoctrinated into Christian fundamentalism. The Child
Evangelism Fellowship is in the process of suing school districts all around the country to
be allowed greater access to communicate religious information to public school children.
Another characteristic of indoctrination that would help to explain the endeavors
of fundamentalists to enter public schools is unwarranted certitude.35 Fundamentalists
view themselves as fighting in defense of their god against those who oppose him.36
Believing their inspiration is from an infallible god, fundamentalist leaders and their
followers are convinced their actions are right, even in the presence of evidence to the
contrary. As their position becomes more tenuous due to mounting evidence against it,
they will become more vehement in defending it,37 as though the strength of their
opinions will somehow supersede reality. Since the individual’s identity is so strongly
tied to the fundamentalist group, situations that suggest the possibility of being mistaken
also become a threat to the ideal self of the group member.38 Again, the Bush
Administration’s refusal to acknowledge errors and faults serves as an example,
particularly in light of the President’s open affiliation with fundamentalism and
statements he has made that are emblematic of binary thinking.
63
Western Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Crouse and Stalker suggest that such right-wing authoritarian beliefs may be due
largely to emotional responses to psychological conditions, and those who hold those
beliefs are not necessarily fully convinced of the rationale behind them.39 Right-wing
authoritarianism correlates positively with dogmatism, need for cognitive closure,
religious orientation, and fears about a dangerous world. These are all characteristics that
the Bush Administration has not only displayed, but overtly champions. However, right-
wing authoritarians tend to differ from others who are dogmatic or have fear of a
dangerous world in the number and strength of their specific beliefs and attitudes, or the
sum of the parts. It is clear that right-wing authoritarians have held great sway in this
country in the first decade of the twenty first century and are gaining in influence in
various locations around the globe.
Religion mitigates the psychological inadequacies of the right-wing authoritarian,
because it serves as a defensive reaction towards the fear of death.40 If one believes in life
after death, then death is not final, and the fear associated with it is diminished. Belief in
a perfect deity helps individuals rationalize their fears associated with their own
inadequacies. Because these religious beliefs are rooted in people’s most existential fears,
if those beliefs are questioned by people of other faiths or nonbelievers, the believers
often react with extreme hostility, aggression, and possibly violence. By eliminating
nonbelievers, the religious people can eliminate a source of doubt, insulate themselves
from confronting fears, and strengthen group bonds through a consensus that the
aggression is a necessary sacrifice for their god. The representations in various religions
of angry gods who punish transgressions with vehemence may give further justification
to those believers who react with violence towards those with opposing beliefs.
Right-wing authoritarians will also submit to the power of leaders or government
in a similar way they will to a deity, even when complete submission is not necessary.41
After surrendering to superior power, the authoritarian “borrows” that power and sees
himself as acting as a conduit of that power, thereby inflating his own self-worth and
legitimizing hostility towards those who have not subjected themselves to the same
dogmatic capitulation to the authority structure.
Right-wing authoritarians tend to view the world as being more chaotic than it is
and perceive threats all around them.42 This feeds their desires to accept only established
cultural standards and reject change that deviates from them, such as feminism and
homosexuality. Through this process of insisting on only what is previously accepted,
they come to believe there is only one “right way” to live, and anything that does not
correspond with that view is a threat to religion, government, and culture, when in fact, it
is not. This type of binary thinking suggests that right-wing authoritarians value
conditions that limit human freedom.
If authoritarianism is built upon a series of conflict resolutions, as Crouse and
Stalker suggest, then its positions are based on reactions to impulses and not a result of
logical reasoning.43 Though this may be an acceptable dynamic strictly in the realm of
religious belief, it is one that may have devastating consequences when applied to politics
and world events. Logical reasoning would seem most necessary when dealing with
64
others who do not fall into the same belief system, but this is exactly what the
authoritarian chooses to forego.
Terrorism and Extreme Fundamentalists
In the Middle East, thought patterns similar to those guiding Western right-wing
authoritarianism can be found, but there the hostility towards the out-group and binary
thinking is so extreme that it results in terrorism. Like Western fundamentalists, Islamic
fundamentalists’ actions are based on subjective values and beliefs.44 Just as with any
other fundamentalist group member, because an Islamic fundamentalist’s identity is
highly dependent on group categorization, his resistance to pragmatism, compromise, and
rational thinking increases, since to entertain any of these would be to threaten the
identity that gives the individual security.45 In other words, people resist information
when the acceptance of that information would cause a threat to their identity, and this is
particularly the case with those who have been indoctrinated. At present there is a great
deal of hostility in the Muslim world due in large part to a perceived threat to the Islamic
identity.
Currently, the number of suicide bombings in Iraq exceeds those from anywhere
else in the world, including all of those precipitated upon Israel during the past three
decades.46 Many common childhood games have disappeared in Palestinian
neighborhoods because children aspire to become not doctors or soldiers, but martyrs.
Outside of suicide bombings, suicide rates are lower in Muslim countries than in Western
countries, yet there are higher rates of psychological disorders that predict suicide, such
as depression. We must ask whether the religious culture could be suppressing
psychological function, resulting in a calm, methodical radicalism.
Yet there is little evidence that terrorists generally exhibit psychopathological
tendencies, come from significantly deprived economic backgrounds, or have particularly
low education levels.47 In examining the backgrounds of suicide bombers, patterns of
psychopathology and similar personality traits have not been evident.48 To the contrary, it
is believed that mental stability helps them endure the pressure leading up to the bombing
and allows them to carry it out.
No substantial difference has been found between the socioeconomic or
education levels of Palestinian suicide bombers and the general Palestinian population.49
This is consistent with the findings that indoctrinated fundamentalists in the West do not
have notably lower education levels than the general population.50 So individuals
indoctrinated into fundamentalist groups have shown no trends of psychopathology and
do not tend to be uneducated. In essence, they tend to resemble those in the general
population.
However, there have been other indications that those indoctrinated into
fundamentalist organizations had a history of personal, educational, and occupational
shortcomings, leading to feeling of inadequacy.51 Though studies have shown extremist
fundamentalists are usually not uneducated and do not have histories of intense
psychological abnormalities, they tend to be underachievers and ineffective in most
aspects of life. Ultimately, most suicide bombers did not have quality career options and
had unsatisfying personal lives. But while suicide bombers have generally had
unsuccessful occupational histories, few had extensive, if any, criminal records or had
65
shown previous compunctions towards violence. They have tended to be law abiding
citizens previous to their involvement in terrorism. Of course, they also tend to be
religious. Some Western studies have shown religious involvement to be a protective
factor against aggression in adolescents and teenagers.52 However, this may be due to
those children having an outlet for safe community involvement. If that religious
organization is a fundamentalist one, the outcome may be very different. Religion has
certainly been shown to be a risk factor in the case of terrorist bombers and extreme
fundamentalists in the Middle East and Europe.53
The main tool of long-term indoctrination is education through schools, media,
parents, and friends.54 Palestinians are exposed to propaganda from an early age, with
school textbooks referring to Israelis as an evil, hated race that is in opposition to Islam.
Short-term indoctrination, on the other hand, is usually carried out by a charismatic
political or religious leader. Ideal candidates are isolated from “worldly” influences that
may spark doubt or provide alternative goals, such as family or friends not in the in-
group, music, television, or sexual interests. Groups or cells of three to five like-minded
individuals are often formed to further insulate the newly indoctrinated from “divergent”
ideas.
Common tactics to mold recruits are affiliation, isolation, secrecy, and fear.55
The recruited individual is typically given a great deal of positive attention and almost
treated with celebrity status, especially by the recruiters and leaders who stay in constant
contact with him. Informal friendship networks and a need of the individual to belong are
two characteristics of the process. Recruits are socialized into the traditions, methods, and
goals of the organization. Conformity and obedience are highly regarded, while
nonconformity, disobedience, and disloyalty bring harsh punishments.
Indoctrination is fueled by the media, with social status and cultural acceptance
also influential in garnering new recruits.56 Regardless of how much or how little damage
is done in a military sense, heightened exposure captures the public’s attention and draws
in new recruits. Some of these are termed “self-burners,” who essentially indoctrinate
themselves via Internet and media sources without having any formal affiliation to
fundamentalist groups. These individuals then seek an organization to embark upon a
mission with, since suicide bombings are never perpetrated by lone individuals.
The standard profile of a terrorist is an unmarried, average male over 18 with an
average education level, someone who has been brought up in a religious background,
but who is discouraged in both his career and private life.57 Terrorists come from a
background of anger and frustration, and are often influenced by leaders who attempt to
displace their aggression onto an enemy.58 Perceived deprivation is of fundamental
importance to the metamorphosis from disenchanted citizen to militant extremist. It is
hypothesized that fundamentalism has roots in individual and group narcissism.59 The
individuals in the group seek to identify with absolute righteousness and to garner the
respect associated with absolute righteousness. Those who believe otherwise are
perceived as a threat to all that is good, when in fact they are only a threat to the
fundamentalists’ self image. But by viewing dissenters as an existential threat to all that
is wholesome, the fundamentalist sees extreme violence as a legitimate tool, because
through its use they would be “preserving the wholesomeness and integrity of god.”
66
However, others hypothesize that fraternal deprivation, the feeling of injustice as
it relates to a group, is more influential than egotistical deprivation, the feelings of
personal injustice.60 Perceived threats and fraternal deprivation are particularly important
to religious fundamentalists because of religion’s close association with identity needs.
Fraternal deprivation is more likely to occur when group members feel their path has
been blocked to a desired goal that their group deserves. Hence, the most powerful
motivator for Islamic fundamentalist aggression may be from shame associated with their
own perceived powerlessness and inadequacy in the face of military superiority of the
Israelis and Americans.
Mainstream society, as well as most rational thinkers, view acts of terrorism
almost exclusively as displaced aggression, whether the terrorist is one of the 9-11
hijackers, a Palestinian suicide bomber, or one of the American terrorists, Timothy
McVeigh or Eric Rudolph.61 From the perspective of the vast majority of most
populations, terrorists are morally disengaged. But terrorists view themselves as morally
engaged and the “enemy” as morally disengaged. The recruiting and indoctrination
process consists of attempting to have the recruits become disengaged from morality as
defined by societal norms and engaged with morality as defined by the fundamentalist
organization.
Another symptom of fundamentalism is a double standard in regard to
morality.62 The fundamentalist will have one standard for his own family, but another for
those outside the group. For instance, a fundamentalist would rationalize that it was
morally wrong for violence to be carried out against his own family, but will encourage
violence towards others’ families. This is certainly the case with suicide bombers, but an
argument could also be made that Christian fundamentalists who vehemently support war
efforts would fall into the same category. The fundamentalist’s self-image as a righteous
victim allows for this seeming hypocrisy.
The rational thinker would note that the foundations of Judaism and Christianity
are in opposition to the use of murder and suicide as tools.63 Islam strictly forbids suicide,
yet this has not deterred Islamist extremists from making it a central weapon. To avoid
this obvious restriction, terrorists identify suicide bombers as martyrs, defined as a
warrior for Allah being killed in his name by an enemy during battle, a far cry from the
actual circumstances of a suicide attack. Ultimately, the extreme fundamentalist will
rationalize his position to allow him to engage in violent acts that are logically in
opposition to the ideology he claims to champion.
Conclusion
Though an argument can certainly be made that in some cases religious
affiliation has benefited individuals and that religious groups have accomplished
commendable goals, fundamentalism and indoctrination fall along a varying continuum.
A number of things are clear, however. First, most religious education falls under the
definition of indoctrination, because it asks the child to bypass reason and evidence, and
instead accept something as truth that is not known to be true by the authority figure. The
reasons for human belief in a deity may include the belief being a vestige of humanity’s
past, cultural indoctrination, or evolutionary pressure.
67
Regardless of the root of religious belief, it appears that young children are
particularly susceptible to indoctrination. Their concept of life and death is vague and at
times contradictory. The human mind seeks to rectify contradictions, and religious
education may serve that function in young children, if in an irrational fashion.
Individuals are more likely to stay within a religion as adults if they were indoctrinated as
children than they are to reach the same conclusions as adults without prior religious
education. This means that children are both primed for indoctrination and that they are
the most logical targets for religious groups.
In addition, children are beginning to form simple group identities. They have
been shown to form biases against out-group members even without adult guidance or
overt stimuli. In this regard they are perfect candidates for indoctrination.
Fundamentalism is dependent on the group members forming a categorical identity and
having each individual’s self-concept be related to the group identity. The stronger the
group identity, the more pliable the members become to the desires of the group leaders.
This also creates greater possibilities for extremism and violence. If the group is
a minority, there is a greater chance of radicalism, since minority groups show more in-
group bias. This may be why American fundamentalist groups, which are aligned with
the Christian majority, are far less radical than Islamic fundamentalists, who are in the
minority amongst Muslims and view themselves as being a persecuted minority around
the globe. This fuels feelings of fraternal deprivation and injustice, which in turn fuels
individual discontent, because the individual’s identity is so closely tied to the group.
It has been theorized that right-wing authoritarianism is rooted in psychological
inadequacies and defense mechanisms. Right-wing authoritarianism appears to correlate
with dogmatism, need for cognitive closure, religious orientation, and fears about a
dangerous world. The Bush Administration has been openly involved in reinforcing each
of these characteristics in their in-group, as well as promoting binary thinking. The
combination of these qualities promotes an environment that limits human freedom.
Many of the same psychological forces that underlie right-wing authoritarianism
also underlie Islamic extremism. In addition to religious orientation, dogmatism, and a
reliance on subjective values, Islamic fundamentalists show evidence of in-group bias,
binary thinking, and feelings of both individual and fraternal deprivation. Most terrorists
have not shown symptoms of psychopathology, prior tendencies towards violence, or
particularly low education or socioeconomic levels. However, most were shown to be
underachievers who felt inadequacies and were relatively unsuccessful in their
occupations and personal lives.
Islamic fundamentalist indoctrination techniques are not radically different from
those of Western right-wing authoritarians. They use education through schools, media,
parents, and friends. They employ charismatic leaders to mold recruits and socialize them
into the traditions, methods, and goals of the group. The central purpose is to have the
recruits relinquish morality as defined by societal norms, and instead substitute the
morality of the fundamentalist group. One symptom of both groups is that they will
rationalize their positions in order to meet the desires of the group, even if the actions to
be taken logically contradict the basic premise of their religion.
Though religion itself may not be inherently wrong, there are immense dangers
in indoctrination. Children are targeted and trained to bypass reason and evidence. This
68
produces adults who are impressionable and susceptible to irrational and unreasonable
thought processes. Indoctrination perpetuates in-group bias, binary thinking, isolation,
and in extreme cases, radicalism and violence. If fundamentalist indoctrination continues
to fester, the rigid belief systems, limits to human freedom, and propensity towards
hostility and violence may have profound consequences on future generations. The
challenge is to separate religion from politics, education, categorical thinking, and
unwarranted certitude, a formidable task indeed.
References
1 Crouse, J.,and Stalker, D. “Do Right-Wing Authoritarian Beliefs Originate from Psychological
Conflict?” Psychoanalytic Psychology 24(1) (2007): 25-44.
2 Grimland, M., Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing: A Review of
Psychological and Nonpsychological Factors.” Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and
Suicide Prevention 27(3) (2006): 107-118.
3 Schweitzer, F. “Research in Religious Education: Perspectives for the Future.” Religious
Education 101(2) (2006): 166-169.
4 Hand, M. “Religious Upbringing Reconsidered.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 36(4)
(2002): 545-557.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Bering, J. M. “The Cognitive Psychology of Belief in the Supernatural.” American Scientist
94(2) (2006): 142-149.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Tennant, M. Psychology and Adult Learning. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2002.
11 Hand, M. “Religious upbringing reconsidered.”
12 Patterson, M.M., & Bigler, R.S. “Relations among Social Identities, Intergroup Attitudes, and
Schooling: Perspectives from Intergroup Theory and Research.” In A.J. Fuligni (Ed.), Contesting
Stereotypes and Creating Identities: Social Categories, Social Identities, and Educational
Participation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation (2007): 66-87.
13 Moghaddam, F. M. “The Staircase to Terrorism: A Psychological Exploration.” American
Psychologist, 60(2) (2005): 161-169.
14 Eisold, K. “Using Bion.” Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22(3) (2005): 357-369.
15 Ibid.
16 Patterson, M.M., & Bigler, R.S. “Relations among Social Identities, Intergroup Attitudes, and
Schooling: Perspectives from Intergroup Theory and Research.”
17 Ibid.
18 Aronson, E. The Social Animal. New York: Worth Publishers, 2007.
19 Patterson, M.M., & Bigler, R.S. “Relations among Social Identities, Intergroup Attitudes, and
Schooling: Perspectives from Intergroup Theory and Research.”
20 Eisold, K. “Using Bion.” Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22(3) (2005).
21 Moghaddam, F. M. “The Staircase to Terrorism: A Psychological Exploration.” American
Psychologist, 60(2) (2005).
22 Eisold, K. “Using Bion.”
23 Moghaddam, F. M. “The Staircase to Terrorism.”
69
24 Hindery, R. H. “The Anatomy of Propaganda within Religious Terrorism.” Humanist, 63(2)
(2003): 16.
25 Ibid.
26 Eisold, K. “Using Bion.”
27 Moghaddam, F. M. “The Staircase to Terrorism.”
28 Ibid.
29 Boston, R. Child-to-Child Evangelism Hits on Parents’ Religious Rights. Education Digest:
Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review 70(2) (2004): 47. and Hindery, R. H. “The
Anatomy of Propaganda within Religious Terrorism.”
30 Hindery, R. H. “The Anatomy of Propaganda within Religious Terrorism.”
31 Hindery, R. H. “The Anatomy of Propaganda within Religious Terrorism.” and Grimland, M.,
Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing.”
32 Hindery, R. H. “The Anatomy of Propaganda within Religious Terrorism.”
33 Boston, R. “Child-to-Child Evangelism Hits on Parents’ Religious Rights.” 47.
34 Ibid.
35 Hindery, R. H. “The Anatomy of Propaganda within Religious Terrorism.”
36 Grimland, M., Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing.”
37 Hindery, R. H. “The Anatomy of Propaganda within Religious Terrorism.”
38 Cohen, G. L., D.K. Sherman, A. Bastardi, L. Hsu, M. McGoey, and L Ross. “Bridging the
Partisan Divide: Self-Affirmation Reduces Ideological Closed-Mindedness and Inflexibility in
Negotiation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3) (2007): 415-430.
39 Crouse, J.,and Stalker, D. “Do Right-Wing Authoritarian Beliefs Originate from Psychological
Conflict?”
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Moghaddam, F. M. “The Staircase to Terrorism.”
45 Cohen, G. L., D.K. Sherman, A. Bastardi, L. Hsu, M. McGoey, and L Ross. “Bridging the
Partisan Divide”
46 Grimland, M., Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing.”
47 Moghaddam, F. M. “The Staircase to Terrorism.”
48 Grimland, M., Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing.”
49 Ibid.
50 Hindery, R. H. “The Anatomy of Propaganda within Religious Terrorism.”
51 Grimland, M., Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing.”
52 Herrenkohl, T., Hill, K., Chung, I., Guo, J., Abbott, R., & Hawkins, J. “Protective Factors
against Serious Violent Behavior in Adolescence: A Prospective Study of Aggressive Children.
Social Work Research. 27(3) (2003): 179-89.
53 Grimland, M., Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing.”
54 Ibid.
55 Moghaddam, F. M. “The Staircase to Terrorism.”
56 Grimland, M., Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing.”
57 Ibid.
58 Moghaddam, F. M. “The Staircase to Terrorism.”
59 Grimland, M., Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing.”
60 Moghaddam, F. M. “The Staircase to Terrorism.”
61 Ibid.
70
62 Grimland, M., Apter, A., & Kerkhof, A. “The Phenomenon of Suicide Bombing.”
63 Ibid.
