There’s something about ‘lone wolf terrorism’ debates that stinks. I can’t quite find a singular source of the smell, but after further investigation, it seems the relatively recent surge in the use of the category ‘lone wolf’ to describe individual acts of political violence draws on extremely rank racist, sexist, and alarmist logic. When you compare the sparse literature on lone wolf terrorism and the slough of articles on the topic, one thing is clear: definitions of lone wolf terrorism are “fuzzy”, disparate, and often rely on contradiction and assumptions about mental health and motivation. The defining feature of the lone wolf terrorist is his or her (actually it is almost always a male) lack of wolf pack (I can’t get past the Hangover reference either, but stay with me). They are loners, committing political violence. Below, I raise several questions about the literature and discussion on lone wolf terrorism in the hopes of inviting dialogue and debate about why this term has such political purchase.
1. Is it possible that ‘lone wolves’ are neither lone nor wolves? The problems with definition:
The US Government defines terrorism as “premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” The overarching argument is lone wolf terrorism differs from ‘regular’ terrorism in that it is orchestrated by an individual. Yet the existing definition of terrorism seems to include agents as well as groups. So what purpose does ‘lone wolf’ serve? If ‘lone wolves’ are defined as acting politically, doesn’t this assume- by definition- the affiliation, or at least association, with a larger group? Recent research into 119 lone-actor terrorists in the United States and Europe, concluded that the individuals clearly expressed their beliefs and grievances to others, primarily family, friends, or an online community. This seems to indicate that ‘lone wolves’ aren’t that lonely.
2. Is ‘lone wolf’ code for scary brown men?
Historically, ‘lone wolf’ terrorism was associated with everything from anti-abortion, white supremacist, and religious violence. However, today it is primarily used by the media today to refer to ‘radicalized’ men, many of whom are ‘recent converts’ to Islam. In Canada last year Martin Rouleau-Couture drove a car into two military members- killing one. Two days later a Canadian soldier was shot outside of Parliament by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. Both incidents were described as acts of ‘lone wolf’ terrorism, with the media focusing on their religious affiliations. The Canadian version of Time Magazine included a feature article on “The Rise of the Lone Wolf Terrorist,” which included a timeline of lone wolf terrorist attacks. All of the incidents were led by men, and all but two (US Pilot Andrew Joseph and Anders Breivik) were described in relation to Islam. In an excellent and comprehensive feature on lone wolf terrorism, Matthew Harwood concludes that indeed “‘lone wolf’ has largely become a stand-in for ‘Islamic terrorist,’ with most analysis ignoring the long history of individual acts of political violence. What seems missing from even the critical analysis of this term is its roots in white supremacist movements and the ways in which it mimics other racialized discourses about the inherent threat posed by black, brown (and non white) men.
3. Does lone wolf further associate/conflate mental illness with terrorism?
Literature and articles on lone wolf terrorism are HUGELY problematic in this vein. Terms like ‘normal’ ‘pathological’ ‘loner’ ‘troubled’ get tossed around with abandon. In an article on the psychology of lone-wolf terrorists, Sophia Moskalenko and Clark McCauley describe one perpetrator as having a ‘history of mental illness’ another as a ‘loner’ and yet emphasize how ‘normal’ most lone-wolf terrorists are. Neumann says “lone wolves are more likely to suffer from social isolation and mental health problems than “normal” terrorists.” Such moves fail to take seriously the various types of mental health issues that the public- and individuals accused of ‘lone wolf’ terrorism- may be struggling with, and inadvertently links mental health issues with a propensity for violence and social terror.
4. Does the use of ‘lone wolf’ terrorist justify extreme national security policies?
Despite the varying, vague, and contradictory definitions of lone wolf terrorists, national governments seem convinced that concrete policies are needed to combat this apparently rising phenomena. Despite its ambiguity and the lack of data on incidents, Peter Neumann, Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization and Political Violence in London directly links lone wolf terrorism to al-Qaeda, claiming “it was adopted as a deliberate strategy by al-Qaeda in the late 2000s.” Although the two Canadian perpetrators mentioned earlier had no explicit affiliations, and did not express loyalty to ISIS or ISIL, Canada’s Public Safety Minister, Steven Blaney described the actions of Rouleau as “clearly linked to terrorist ideology.” This association between individual acts of violence and global terrorism create panic and justify counter-terrorism bills that violate or infringe on personal rights and liberties.
5. What are the gendered politics of the lone wolf term?
I could go on forever here. But in the name of sparing you from another discussion of the band of brothers I’ll just remind readers that the entire ‘problem’ with lone wolf terrorists is that they lack a pack- that they are solo. This characterization solidifies the sanctity of the armed group/band of brothers/wolf pack (ok, stop thinking about the Hangover monologue) as much as it pathologizes solo political violence. Never mind characterizations of lone wolves as “fanboys” who envy the comradarie of al-Qaeda or ISIS- the gender analysis does itself here.
So it seems that the real value of the ‘lone wolf’ category is to further legitimize racist, sexist, and anti-Islamic beliefs, policies, and security strategies. The term also creates social panic in giving the impression that certain men may be terrorists who could strike anywhere, anytime, and with any means. Moreover, it and associates mental illness with violence and creates anxiety around loneliness, or being alone.
Line actor terrorism is a useful descriptor to differentiate between methods rather than mentality. Ie: individuals who may radicalize and then mobilize largely due to material on the internet vs old-school cells. Or individuals targeted and recruited within a community, etc. I don’t believe it to be a conspiracy.
Megan,
since this got quite lengthy as I wrote it, I’d like to respond to you point-by-point here, with each of these corresponding to one of your arguments:
1) Expressing beliefs and giving voice to grievances is just a plea for support, it doesn’t mean they’ll actually get any. Online communities would seem to offer some, but nothing material that’ll actually help you plan and execute a terrorist attack, and their public nature makes it very unlikely that a would-be terrorist would share details of his plans there in search for support. I haven’t done serious research on this, but I’ve followed a couple online communities in which disaffected political extremists gather for years. They often describe similar interactions with their environment, being rebuffed by relatives and friends who don’t want to hear about their non-mainstream beliefs, and subsequently turn to these communities to find like-minded people. They commiserate with each other and sometimes fantasize about committing political violence, but in a very unspecific way („just shoot all of the politicians“), and the anonymity and unpersonal nature of such venues clearly is a huge obstacle to developing the kind of trust which you’d need to let someone in on a specific plan and ask for their support. This inability to genuinely connect over things which they care deeply about does imply a great degree of loneliness that people who belong to organized radical groups won’t experience.
2) I have to confess I don’t understand your argument here. If „lone wolf“ really were a misapplied term with racist connotations, you’d have to show that it is not actually applied to white individuals who commit acts of political violence. The fact that some timeline only mentions two of these and is otherwise made up of Islamist „lone wolves“ doesn’t matter here unless it actually omits cases that would fulfill the technical definition above.
3) Just because individual terrorists are more likely to suffer from mental health issues obviously doesn’t mean that a significant number of people with such problems will turn to terrorism, and I’m also opposed to making unwarranted inferences from this observation. But arguing that the mere mention of such facts is „a huge problem“ strikes me as problematic in itself, because that would also preclude organized action to detect and treat these issues before the people suffering from them turn to violence. If you want to take mental health issues seriously, you need to talk about their consequences.
4) It’s the term „terrorism“ that is (ab)used to justify extreme national security policies, regardless of whether it’s the individual or group variety, so that’s not the decisive point. I’d think that there’s a major difference in how the state responds to attacks from the inside (to my knowledge, all „lone wolves“ fall under this category) and those from the outside, since most organized terror groups will tend to reside abroad. The first would probably center on infringements on civil liberties, while the second would focus on invasions, drone strikes and other military violence. That might be interesting to look into further.
5) The „entire problem with lone wolves“ is obviously not that they „lack a pack“, but that they turn to violence. I’ve yet to hear anyone praise terrorists who attack in groups for their band-of-brothers-ness (other than from other fanatics, of course). „Pathologizing solo political violence“ is completely justified, because, again, it’s violence, and it’s not like we assume group terrorists are „normal“ in a psychological sense. It’s just even harder to understand how people can radicalize themselves to this extent without the social dynamics, group pressure and systematic indoctrination which members of organized groups experience, so there’s a demand for further analysis in these cases.
So I think you’d need a lot more evidence on every one of these arguments to draw a conclusion that the specific category of „lone wolves“ furthers „racist, sexist and anti-Islamic beliefs“ more so than generic discussions of terrorism do. There’s obviously substantial evidence on the latter (though maybe not so much the sexist part to my knowledge), but I’m not seeing how „lone wolves“ are even more problematic here.
These are great points. Just to push back a little:
1. There seems to be some strong indications that online communities do indeed provide support (financial, advice, moral) to would-be terrorists. This is indeed why so many ISIS-related youtube videos and other sites are monitored closely. There is a slough of articles on ISIS and their online networks and capabilities for online terrorism. It is more than some lazy chat rooms, I think.
2. I’d like to study this in more depth- because it does seem that the term ‘lone wolf’ is less readily applied to white men who commit violence like Anders Breivik, Craig Hicks (who killed three Muslim youths and had expressed anti-Muslim anti-Christian sentiment online), Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook- although not expressly political, there have been speculations about his motives), Justin Bourque who recently murdered three RCMP officers out of hatred for authority. These are just random examples I can readily think of- it may be possible to show clear trends in a comprehensive analysis? I’d be interested to find out anyway.
3. I stand by my statement that the way mental health is dealt with in analysis and reports of lone wolf terrorism is a big problem. This doesn’t mean I deny the possibility that these individuals may be diagnosed with a particular condition, it means I reject the easy association of ‘craziness’ with individuals who commit violence. To see the worst sort of example of this, check out this author who has started calling it ‘loon wolf terrorism’ https://rt.com/op-edge/214711-sydney-hostage-lone-wolf-isis/
4. I agree with you here. Part of what I’m trying to say is that many of these instances are gun violence- criminal behaviour but not requiring the terrorism title.
5. The problem is violence, but the characterization of lone wolf assumes that there is a PARTICULAR problem posed by lone wolves. They are less predictable, visible, -possibly mentally unstable- and therefore posing new and severe threats (or so the narrative goes).
Food for thought Ms. MacKenzie. The cavalier “lone wolf” metaphor is an unthoughtful short-hand. Like many unfortunate memes, it’s used because it’s popular, not well considered.
If propensity for violence, terror, and anti-social behavior are part of mental illness descriptions, then many terrorist wolf packs (groups of individuals) are acting in a similar mentally ill state. Stripping one individual out of a community of mentally ill persons and affording them some special considerations doesn’t seem warranted.
That the term seems identified most often with men seems a little less problematic since men are far more apt to condone and engage in acts of violence. The argument that it’s use as a stand-in for “Islamic terrorist” seems warranted and further demonstrates it’s ill-considered use.
I would be interested in a future article in which you posit a set of alternative descriptors for consideration, as I agree, the collequial “lone wolf” is stimulating too many illogical or poorly described thoughts.