What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fanatics: A Behavioural Approach to Political Violence
A penetrating analysis of the relationship between violence and politics, and the psychological bases of ideology.
- GenresPsychology
290 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 1991
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 20, 2018
This was an interesting and well written piece of research. There was a bit of redundancy but nothing that really detracts from the premise of the author.
Taylor seems to be heavily influenced by the theoretical models of B.F. Skinner. It is therefore only normal that he adopts a behavioral approach to the examination of political violence. There were a few short comings that I will present here.
P. 16: Taylor suggests that Hannah Arendt unsuccessfully attempted to link the Stalinist purges with Nazism, but he fails to explain exactly how. If a comment is made it should be supported as well with evidence.
P.213 The author writes about the Iranian terrorist Anis Naccache, and misspells the name as Avis. Most documentation lists him as Anis (A small oversight).
P. 251 the Author warns not to overemphasize the fact that many of the SS lower echelon troops came from dysfunctional family settings. While obfuscating this variable certainly enhances the authors theory, it is counterproductive to ignore such a contingency factor as exercising a determinant role in violent sociopathic or psychopathic behavior. Taylor tries to guide the reader away from the psycho-dynamic model to a more rule base behavioral model. However, to neglect the one in favor of the other is rather shortsighted.
P.240 THe case study for Joseph Mengele, while well written and useful for understanding the development of rule controlled behavior, cannot be generalized across an entire spectrum. An "N" population of one has minimal relevance in relation to the study of political violence in general.
One of the strongest points and some of the most pertinent arguments that the author made were not really articulated and that was the correlation that can be developed between religiously motivated terrorism and that of politically inspired nationalism such as displayed by the Nazi's during WWII.
The forms of social and economic deprivation, the the massive unemployment of young working aged males and a strong ideological base all parallel precisely the contingencies found within radical Islamic Terrorism today.
One point the author properly emphasizes is the fact that group dynamics, such as rule-based and ideological contingencies can serve as a force multiplier and a conduit to extremist violence.
All in all a very good book that will inspire profound reflection.
I distinguish between sociopath and psychopath by evaluating a degree of sensitivity to or empathy for others. also according to their behavior patterns. Note that some individuals display both types of personalities simultaneously. In this case the circumstances define their patterns of behavior.
My definitions are:
Sociopath: more impulsive, less reflection in their action. They are more obvious in their disdain for others and freely exhibit anti-social tendencies. They do not care about their actions as they pertain to others. They understand the difference between right and wrong but the rules do not restrain them.
Psychopath: More cunning, borderline narcissistic personalities, they are devious, shrewd in their calculations. They can live in open society without being remarked. They feel no remorse. They do not know or understand the difference between right and wrong. Think of the "ID" the reptilian brain dressed up to go out on the town in search of victims.
Taylor seems to be heavily influenced by the theoretical models of B.F. Skinner. It is therefore only normal that he adopts a behavioral approach to the examination of political violence. There were a few short comings that I will present here.
P. 16: Taylor suggests that Hannah Arendt unsuccessfully attempted to link the Stalinist purges with Nazism, but he fails to explain exactly how. If a comment is made it should be supported as well with evidence.
P.213 The author writes about the Iranian terrorist Anis Naccache, and misspells the name as Avis. Most documentation lists him as Anis (A small oversight).
P. 251 the Author warns not to overemphasize the fact that many of the SS lower echelon troops came from dysfunctional family settings. While obfuscating this variable certainly enhances the authors theory, it is counterproductive to ignore such a contingency factor as exercising a determinant role in violent sociopathic or psychopathic behavior. Taylor tries to guide the reader away from the psycho-dynamic model to a more rule base behavioral model. However, to neglect the one in favor of the other is rather shortsighted.
P.240 THe case study for Joseph Mengele, while well written and useful for understanding the development of rule controlled behavior, cannot be generalized across an entire spectrum. An "N" population of one has minimal relevance in relation to the study of political violence in general.
One of the strongest points and some of the most pertinent arguments that the author made were not really articulated and that was the correlation that can be developed between religiously motivated terrorism and that of politically inspired nationalism such as displayed by the Nazi's during WWII.
The forms of social and economic deprivation, the the massive unemployment of young working aged males and a strong ideological base all parallel precisely the contingencies found within radical Islamic Terrorism today.
One point the author properly emphasizes is the fact that group dynamics, such as rule-based and ideological contingencies can serve as a force multiplier and a conduit to extremist violence.
All in all a very good book that will inspire profound reflection.
I distinguish between sociopath and psychopath by evaluating a degree of sensitivity to or empathy for others. also according to their behavior patterns. Note that some individuals display both types of personalities simultaneously. In this case the circumstances define their patterns of behavior.
My definitions are:
Sociopath: more impulsive, less reflection in their action. They are more obvious in their disdain for others and freely exhibit anti-social tendencies. They do not care about their actions as they pertain to others. They understand the difference between right and wrong but the rules do not restrain them.
Psychopath: More cunning, borderline narcissistic personalities, they are devious, shrewd in their calculations. They can live in open society without being remarked. They feel no remorse. They do not know or understand the difference between right and wrong. Think of the "ID" the reptilian brain dressed up to go out on the town in search of victims.
Displaying 1 of 1 review