Nationalism, Madness,and Terrorism

by Liah Greenfeld Liah Greenfeld, Professor of Sociology, Political Science, and Anthropology atBoston University, is Visiting Professor at Lingnan University, Hong Kong. Sheis the author of Nationalism:Five Roads to Modernity, The Spiritof Capitalism: Nationality and Economic Growth, and Mind, Modernity, Madness: The Impact of Culture on HumanExperience. 19.05.2013

BOSTON – If we want to understand what drove the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, to terrorism, the answer almost certainly does not lie in Dagestan, where the brothers lived before moving to the United States, or in the two wars fought in Chechnya in the last 20 years. Instead, a key to the Tsarnaevs’ behavior may perhaps be found in developments in England 500 years ago.

Several new phenomena appeared in sixteenth-century England that revolutionized human experience. English society was redefined as a “nation” – that is, a sovereign community of equal members. With that, the era of nationalism began, and social mobility became legitimate. 

At the same time, a special variety of mental illness was first observed, which we would later call schizophrenia and depressive disorders – different from a multitude of mental illnesses already known. It called into being a new term, “madness,” the first medical specialization (eventually named “psychiatry”), and special legislation regarding the “mad.”

Madness expressed itself in degrees of mental impairment, the common symptoms of which were chronic discomfort in one’s environment (social maladjustment), uncertainty about oneself, oscillation between self-loathing and megalomania, and sometimes a complete loss of identity. Suicide became common, and the nature of violent crime changed, with a new type – irrational and unconnected to self-interest – becoming increasingly prevalent. 

These phenomena were connected. It was nationalism that legitimated mobility; the two of them together that produced madness; and the new mental disease that expressed itself in suicide and irrational violence.

Nationalism implied a specific image of society and reality in general – a consciousness that was to become the cultural framework of modernity. In its original, English, form it was essentially democratic. As it spread, it carried the seeds of democracy everywhere.

By considering a living community sovereign, nationalism implicitly but drastically reduced the relevance of God; even when combined with religion and presented in a religious idiom, it was essentially secular. National consciousness, dramatically different from the fundamentally religious, hierarchical consciousness that it replaced, shapes how we live today. 

Nationalist principles emphasize the self-governing individual, including the right to choose one’s social position and identity. But this liberty, empowering and encouraging the individual to choose what to be, complicates identity formation.

A member of a nation cannot learn who or what s/he is from the environment, as would an individual in a religious and rigidly stratified social order, in which everyone’s position and behavior is defined by birth and divine providence. Modern culture cannot provide us with the consistent guidance that other cultures give to their members. By providing inconsistent guidance (for we are inevitably guided by our cultural environment), nationalism actively disorients us – a cultural insufficiency called anomie. 

Because a clear sense of identity is a necessary condition for adequate mental functioning, malformation of identity leads to discomfort with one’s self and social maladjustment, reaching clinical proportions among the more fragile of us. That is why the addition of madness to the roster of familiar mental illnesses coincided with the emergence of nationalism. The more choices for the definition of one’s identity that a society offers – and the more insistent it is on equality – the more problematic the formation of identity in it becomes.

That is why the most open and freest society today, the Unites States, leads the world in rates of severe mental disease – supplanting England, yesterday’s freest and most open society. Indeed, foreigners at one time considered madness “the English malady.” 

Most examples of violent crime by mentally ill people were committed first in England, and then in the US, often seeming politically motivated, even when mediated by religion. The first such case was likely that of Peter Berchet, a young Protestant, who felt that he had to kill the royal councilor Christopher Hatton, also a Protestant, whom Berchet believed to be a Catholic sympathizer. Attempting to answer this calling, Berchet murdered another Protestant whom he mistook for Hatton.

To all appearances the act of a Puritan fanatic, the authorities suspected Berchet of being a part of an organized Puritan conspiracy. He was to be questioned to divulge the names of his co-conspirators and then executed. But it was quickly revealed, instead, that he was suffering from a “nawghtye mallenchollye.” 

It was as natural for an Elizabethan Protestant to see the cause of his mental discomfort in a government overrun by Catholic sympathizers as it is for someone with a Muslim connection in the US today to see this cause in America as the embodiment of Western offenses against the faith.

Blaming one’s existential discomfort on external factors is a kind of self-therapy. A story is constructed, which rationalizes one’s discomfort as reflecting an awareness of some general evil. One may then join an organization committed to fighting that evil or be impelled to act on one’s own – to the point of committing murder. 

The thinking behind such acts bears the most distinctive mark of delusion: the loss of the understanding of the symbolic nature of human reality, confusing symbols and their referents, and seeing people in terms of what they represent. It is precisely this modern irrationality – a product of modernity itself – that the terrorist attack launched by the Tsarnaev brothers reflected.

Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences, 2013.

This article is brought to you by Project Syndicate that is a not for profit organization.

Project Syndicate brings original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by esteemed leaders and thinkers from around the world to readers everywhere. By offering incisive perspectives on our changing world from those who are shaping its economics, politics, science, and culture,  Project Syndicate has created an unrivalled venue for informed public debate. Please see:

Should you want to support Project Syndicate you can do it by using the PayPal icon below. Your donation is paid to Project Syndicate in full after PayPal has deducted its transaction fee. Facts & Arts neither receives information about your donation nor a commission.

Called "one of the most original thinkers of the current period" and "the great historian of Nationalism," Liah Greenfeld is University Professor and Professor of Sociology, Political Science, and Anthropology at Boston University, and Distinguished Adjunct Professor at Lingnan University, Hong Kong. She is the author of "Mind, Modernity, Madness: The Impact of Culture on Human Experience" (Harvard University Press, 2013) and other books about modern society and culture, including the ground-breaking "Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity" (Harvard University Press, 1992) and "The Spirit of Capitalism: Nationalism and Economic Growth" (Harvard University Press, 2001; Donald Kagan Best Book in European History Prize). Greenfeld has been a recipient of the UAB Ireland Distinguished Visiting Scholar Award, fellowships from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey, the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, D.C., the Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem, Israel, and grants from Mellon, Olin, Earhart, The National Council for Soviet & East European Research, and The German Marshall Fund of the United States. In 2004, she delivered the Gellner Lecture at the London School of Economics on the subject of "Nationalism and the Mind," launching the research connecting her previous work on modern culture to a new perspective on mental illness.

In another life-before she moved with her parents from Russia to Israel-she tried her hand at being, first, a child-prodigy, playing violin on TV at the age of 7, and then a poet, receiving the Krasnodar Region's Second Prize for poetry (and a bust of Pushkin) at 16 and publishing a collection of poems, under a properly Russified alias in Komsomol'skaya Pravda.


Rate this article

Click the stars to rate

Recent articles