Why Do Some People Sacrifice Everything For Their Cause?
Human beings have always been influenced by a series of ideas and creeds that justify their way of being and living. From religious dogmas, generational habits or ideology, we have almost always lived according to a series of ideas that we rarely question. However, there are cases in which these beliefs and “paths of thought” become so deeply rooted in our convictions that we go to the point of sacrificing everything for them… and even wanting to sacrifice the rest for them. It is blind faith.
Centuries ago, divine revelations delegated to rulers were what conditioned our societies, cultural values and the way we related to others. On the other hand, it could be said that today, what directs the global world are the ideologies to which we have access, in large part, thanks to globalization.
If before to obey someone it was not necessary for the vassal to fervently believe in what he was doing, today, beyond cases of kidnapping, the most extreme actions must be committed by people who fervently believe in the causes for which they sacrifice everything. For this reason, something similar to a “war of ideas” has been unleashed. The case of terrorism promoted by ISIS fanaticism is an example What leads these people to act like this?
The word sacrifice has a trick. The context, values and semantic perception of the offering will provide a different degree of intensity between the groups. For example, sacrificing oneself for the spread of Islam is not the same for an illiterate farmer in Iraq as it is for a young man raised since childhood in Spain.
However, more generally, sacrifice involves the deprivation of the well-being of each individual for a specific reason whether religious or ideological, survival or reward.
Now, what gives rise to sacrifices are convictions, something that, currently, is greatly influenced by the war of ideas.
The ideological war
It was around 1947 when this term “ideological war” began to be used. An armed conflict had ended to enter a new one. The two victorious world powers of the conflict, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, saw a military confrontation as incompatible as the convergence between their political and social ideas. Each bloc wanted to impose its area of influence on the territory it dominated.
These events marked the beginning of a new trend and way of controlling people, to establish rules of the game that had little to do with violence, until today. Regional conflicts have replaced global ones, domestic wars are increasingly present throughout the world and there is a current of neoconservatism that rescues the most primary behaviors of man: struggle and sacrifice.
What drives people to sacrifice everything?
How can there be people willing to sacrifice their lives, or even that of their children, for a cause? What motivation do people have who are willing to die to fight an enemy? An interesting study carried out by a group of English psychologists from Artis International in armed conflict zones such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, reveals some surprising data, to say the least.
This study was carried out “on the ground”, on the front line, asking combatants from all the factions involved: the Islamic State (ISIS, Daesh), the Kurdish Democratic Forces, the Iraqi Army and Sunni militias, among others. In all cases the same common denominator is met: the commitment to the cause or idea being defended, which for some is sacred even without being theological in nature: that is, something that goes beyond the material.
Traditionally, in groups or organizations (governments, pressure groups) with desires for armed conflict, the cause lay purely in the material, in economic and political power, controlling the means of production or territories of commercial nature and interest. However, in the modern era, fanatical insurgent minority groups have contributed to greater participation in the political sphere and the world of ideologies.
That is, the cause is no longer material, wealth or power. It is rather a vindicating motive, an idea that is sacred for these groups with little combat capacity or military equipment. Furthermore, these causes are usually non-negotiable, a fact that gives them a certain power to balance forces with, in most cases, the government they face. Let us remember that the State is the only one that displays legitimate violence (or, at least, legitimized by civilians).
The emotional replaces the material
Based on the interviews and experiences lived in hostile territory, the researchers who carried out the study highlight the idea of the “sacred” as a casuistic element of their struggle. “The Kurdish” as a territorial, historical and cultural claim of the Kurdish people in Arab territory. “The Arab” as an idea of recovering independence and culture in the face of the loss of state institutions derived from the Second Gulf War of 2003, which led to the illegal invasion by the US. Finally we find “Islam” as idea to refound a caliphate that existed in periods after Muhammad
The concept takes on “sacred” value when the combatant or affected person assures that no material amount (whether in property, land or fiduciary money) can compensate for the cause of his struggle. Take, for example, democracy for the West, a fact that cannot be renounced under any circumstances. Nothing and no one is in a position to negotiate the denial of voting in States of Law.
In addition to on-site research in conflict zones, Artis International also conducted online surveys of civilians who had suffered terrorist attacks, as well as soldiers regulars based in Europe. In the first group, non-combatants assert that their families and friends are above any political-religious creed, although they are willing to make sacrifices if these values are affected.
In the case of the second group, soldiers from different armies, they point to a relationship between their superiors or leaders above the cause for which they are willing to fight. That is to say, added value is given to the comrade they follow, not so much to the ideas themselves. Gaddafi loyalists, for example, were willing to “give their lives for him.” However, this may be because the person is the best way to conceive of an ideal, while what one is striving for is rarely thought of in abstract terms.
Searching for meaning in discomfort
It is quite possible that people who fall into extreme fanaticism do so, in part, to avoid having to come to terms with the idea that their suffering is in vain.
When the region in which one lives is constantly mistreated, it is very easy to invent motivations that lead one to think about something bigger than oneself: for example, one can think that what is being attacked is not one’s own well-being, but rather an essence. which is everywhere: Western culture, God, etc. Knowing how to discriminate between the real and the essences is key so as not to fall into these traps.
