Is terrorism equal to psychopathology

The DSM IV defines mental disorders as:
behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.

There is a debate to be had whether DSM IV's definition of mental health is adequate and whether it needs an overhaul to reflect a more comprehensive biopyschosocial formulation and being able to reconcile the boundary between mental and physical illnesses/suffering. See this article for why is it tricky and dangerous to use diagnoses.

We however are not going to get in to the debate whether terrorism per se is a diagnoses. Suicide bombing, inflicting pain on somebody are all very disturbing things.

The question arises who are the people who bring themselves to commit atrocities. This is nothing new and has been present since the conception of time. When man is faced with a question of survival, he is capable of anything. It is a basic instinct. There is something to be said about an individual's survival versus survival of a group and the differences in it, but the common denominator is survival. In religious views identification with a group or a higher power is transcedental but at the core it is still survival.

I will use the example of an oppositional child. In interviews and it happens to be a DSM criteria also, a child feels that a wrong is being done to it. Unfairness about circumstances that make up its world view abound. Usually it leads to a vicious circle with increased punishment on part of parents and a worsening sense of unfairness to the child.

In its effort to operationalize behaviors the DSM calls this situation as Oppositional defiant disorder. Whether that is a good thing or not is open to debate. But the important thing is that it attempts to put a "real life situation" in the domain of language. In this domain of language, the abstraction acquires substance and collaboration from multiple domains and areas can be used to understand this and work towards a solution.

Does early intervention, therapy or medications, or even the recognition of this phenomenon change the outcome of the vicious cycle. It certainly changes something. I do not think research is at a point where it can confidently say that it is for the better or the intervention leads to a predictable result all the times. There are too many factors that cannot be quantified.

Now let us take a look at the jail population. Psychopathology is usually the rule in the inmate population, rather than an exception. Usually these people have had difficulty conforming their behaviors to the rules and regulations of the norms. Regardless of "free will" and the behavioral concept of punishment, being able to mentally and physically adjust to the society is something these people have not been able to do.

Does terrorism also follow similar patterns? Does extremism also follow similar patterns? Does lack of flexibility and tolerance also follow similar patterns?

I think the answer to all the above questions is in the affirmative. Terrorists, extremists, rigid individuals are caught up in a vicious circle which is being propogated by the non terrorists, non extrmists and flexible individuals as much as themselves.

Then if terrorism is equal to psychopathology, is not non terrorism also equal to psychopathology. Do you blame the oppositional child or the parent. Do you blame the society or the inmate.

Now that I have put forward a dichotomous view of things, I would like to re iterate my fundamental belief that if in any case a polarized view of the world is seen, we are stuck in field which is one dimensional.

In this case it is a dimension of survival. The Constant operator!
The only way out of this mess is work in the transitional zone. Which keeps in mind the inner values of terrorists and non terrorists. A jump to a transition is a jump to a higher dimension. A dimension in which multiple answers exist. Either/or stops being the problem. With the change in perspective and vision, there comes a change in solutions.

In the words of Henry Clay, "A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied".