Are the Tsarnaev Brothers Terrorists?
“Captured! The hunt is over,” was the tweet posted by Boston Police on Friday evening. But is it really over? While the two brothers, Tamerlan and Dzokhar A. Tsarnaev, have indeed been taken out of action, in reality the chase has not come to an end. Admittedly, the two brothers can now do no further harm — one is dead, the other has been arrested — but whether it is the example of them or of Mohamed Merah in France one year ago, we can see that a number of individuals feel the desire to fight against our societies.
This situation is not close to ending, for two principal reasons. First of all, the number of unsettled people, misfits or outsiders like the Caucasian brothers themselves is incessantly increasing as a result of the economic crisis, globalization and the inequality generated by modern capitalism. Were they dangerous terrorists with links to a radical Islamic group? No, they genuinely were not. But it is surprising to see that as soon as their identities were revealed, the immediate reaction was a confounding of Muslim-sounding names and terrorism. However, there is most certainly no comparison to be made between Tamerlan and Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev and what we could qualify as being a “traditional terrorist” — that is to say, people who for political reasons systematically use acts of violence to spread insecurity and who are part of a wider network of indoctrination. Nevertheless, the brothers are considered to be as much and maybe always have been.
As Chechen nationals, they must have, from the moment they arrived on American soil in 2003, been perceived as suspicious despite not even having done anything. Our society, with its preconceived ideas and stigmatizations, creates a breeding ground for self-hate and hate toward others. As philosopher Hans Magnus Enzensberger notes, such a social culture produces “radical losers” who often find escape from their sense of failure through acts of extreme violence. Violence is a way for them to get rid of individuals who are reflections of their unrealized ambitions. In order to destroy the negative image that is constantly imposed on them, radical losers take out the agents of such an image.
In this sense, the Boston Marathon, the chosen target of the Tsarnaev brothers, is the symbol of the American cult of performance, of sporting success. Moreover, the desire for recognition in our societies continues to increase. And so, as Philippe Baumard writes, we have all become miniature publicity factories of which we are the producers of our own private show, the media strategist, the propagandist and the customer. “No gods, no masters.” Each and every one of us can glean pieces of ideology here and there, whatever they may be. The trail the brothers left behind on social networks show that they are anchored in hypermodernity, mixing together religious principles and fulfillment of personal desires. This “dabbling” certainly allowed the two brothers to make contact with terrorist groups. This does not make them professional terrorists.
Their trail also shows their desire to be recognized. And sadly, what better way to be well known than to kill or burn? Our society makes it easy to become the new Herostratus. With a few homemade bombs, two young individuals succeeded in provoking chaos in one of the biggest American cities. Through their actions, they managed to ensure worldwide fame for themselves.
The hunt is not over, and it is not by reinforcing security or information services that we can stop such behavior, for such services are inadequate in the face of this new threat. Indeed, it is impossible to seek out all potential Herostrati. The only solution is evidently one of a different nature, which requires us to rethink the model of our society, to make it less focused on hyperindividualization and the logic of performance recognition, and more on our societies' ability to value difference and collective action. It is unbelievable, in the U.S. as in France, that governments who uphold these values have not been able to incite changes to common points of reference. And so all that this feeling, this impression, actually does is accentuate the outcasts' anger.
This situation is not close to ending, for two principal reasons. First of all, the number of unsettled people, misfits or outsiders like the Caucasian brothers themselves is incessantly increasing as a result of the economic crisis, globalization and the inequality generated by modern capitalism. Were they dangerous terrorists with links to a radical Islamic group? No, they genuinely were not. But it is surprising to see that as soon as their identities were revealed, the immediate reaction was a confounding of Muslim-sounding names and terrorism. However, there is most certainly no comparison to be made between Tamerlan and Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev and what we could qualify as being a “traditional terrorist” — that is to say, people who for political reasons systematically use acts of violence to spread insecurity and who are part of a wider network of indoctrination. Nevertheless, the brothers are considered to be as much and maybe always have been.
As Chechen nationals, they must have, from the moment they arrived on American soil in 2003, been perceived as suspicious despite not even having done anything. Our society, with its preconceived ideas and stigmatizations, creates a breeding ground for self-hate and hate toward others. As philosopher Hans Magnus Enzensberger notes, such a social culture produces “radical losers” who often find escape from their sense of failure through acts of extreme violence. Violence is a way for them to get rid of individuals who are reflections of their unrealized ambitions. In order to destroy the negative image that is constantly imposed on them, radical losers take out the agents of such an image.
In this sense, the Boston Marathon, the chosen target of the Tsarnaev brothers, is the symbol of the American cult of performance, of sporting success. Moreover, the desire for recognition in our societies continues to increase. And so, as Philippe Baumard writes, we have all become miniature publicity factories of which we are the producers of our own private show, the media strategist, the propagandist and the customer. “No gods, no masters.” Each and every one of us can glean pieces of ideology here and there, whatever they may be. The trail the brothers left behind on social networks show that they are anchored in hypermodernity, mixing together religious principles and fulfillment of personal desires. This “dabbling” certainly allowed the two brothers to make contact with terrorist groups. This does not make them professional terrorists.
Their trail also shows their desire to be recognized. And sadly, what better way to be well known than to kill or burn? Our society makes it easy to become the new Herostratus. With a few homemade bombs, two young individuals succeeded in provoking chaos in one of the biggest American cities. Through their actions, they managed to ensure worldwide fame for themselves.
The hunt is not over, and it is not by reinforcing security or information services that we can stop such behavior, for such services are inadequate in the face of this new threat. Indeed, it is impossible to seek out all potential Herostrati. The only solution is evidently one of a different nature, which requires us to rethink the model of our society, to make it less focused on hyperindividualization and the logic of performance recognition, and more on our societies' ability to value difference and collective action. It is unbelievable, in the U.S. as in France, that governments who uphold these values have not been able to incite changes to common points of reference. And so all that this feeling, this impression, actually does is accentuate the outcasts' anger.
Previous article![]( "Obama's Dilemma: No Good Options in Syria")