...
FOUNDATION FOR THE STUDY OF POLITICAL PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
Andrew Hammer, Executive Director presents

MICHAEL VLAHOS on WAR, TERRORISM, SACRIFICE & iDENTITY

Michael Vlahos is a scholar who writes about how war, terrorism, sacrifice, and identity intertwine—not just as matters of strategy and policy, but as deeply symbolic, psychological, and ritual phenomena. Below is a summary of some of his key ideas related to the psychology of warfare and terrorism, including some critical reflections.

Who is Michael Vlahos

Key Ideas: Warfare, Terrorism, Sacrifice, Identity

  1. Sacrifice as central to war and terrorism
    Vlahos argues that sacrifice is more than just a byproduct of war or insurgency; it is the mortar of collective belief and belonging. In his view, war (and terrorism) is ritualized sacrifice — not just inflicting harm but offering something up, through loss, in order to affirm identity, purpose, and transcendence. Library of Social Science+2Library of Social Science+2

    Some implications of this view:

    • Terrorist acts are powerful not only because of their physical damage but because they provide ritual, symbolic action — death, martyrdom, symbolic violence that reverberates through collective consciousness. Library of Social Science+1

    • The target of terrorism (or war) is often not merely the physical opponent but the idea of the other, the symbolic Other who embodies what the group sees as evil, corrupt, or the obstacle to transcendence. Library of Social Science+1

  2. War as transcendence, ritual, and myth-making
    Vlahos sees war not simply as a functional instrument (a means to policy ends) but as a deeply symbolic theatre through which communities attempt to transcend ordinary life — to affirm what is sacred, what matters most, what identity or meaning is worth dying for. Library of Social Science+1

  3. American exceptionalism, civil religion, and counterterrorism
    Vlahos examines how the U.S.’s self-understanding (“America as set apart,” “redeemer,” etc.) frames terrorism not just as a security issue but as existential threat to national identity. Library of Social Science+2Library of Social Science+2

    • One theme is that counterterrorism has shifted: from an earlier ideal of transformation, democracy-building, universal redemption, etc., toward a more retributive justice model (purging threats, more militaristic approaches, seeing terrorism almost as evil incarnate). Library of Social Science+1

    • This shift has psychological impact both domestically (how Americans see themselves, their fears, the role of sacrifice) and internationally (how those viewed as targets experience counterterrorism). Library of Social Science

  4. The role of narrative, myth, symbolism
    For Vlahos, narratives aren’t incidental extras; they are foundational. They define what the war is about, who “we” are vs. “them”, what the stakes are — psychologically, morally, spiritually. yris.yira.org+1

    • Terrorism leverages narrative: martyrs, enemies, holy war (or ideological struggle), symbolic acts to generate meaning, fear, and mobilize people. yris.yira.org+2Library of Social Science+2

    • Counterterrorism also uses narrative (often through exceptionalism, through framing the fight as a cosmic struggle between good and evil) which in turn has its own psychological effects (on identity, on fear, on allegiance) and risks. Library of Social Science

  5. Risks / Critiques of current approaches
    Some of Vlahos’s concerns or warnings:

    • When the rhetoric around terrorism becomes more about eliminating evil rather than understanding grievances or building political legitimacy, there is a risk of overreach, of violating principles, of alienating potential allies. Library of Social Science+1

    • The emotional / symbolic dimension can consume discourse. Sacrifice, revenge, hate get foregrounded; nuance, moral complexity, cultural/contextual understanding can be sidelined. This can lead to policies driven more by fear than strategy. Library of Social Science

    • The narrative of American exceptionalism, while powerful, can become self-limiting: when it’s less about universal values and more about defending identity against existential threat, it can justify harsh measures, erode civil norms, and make reconciliation or understanding harder. Library of Social Science

Psychological Implications

Putting these together, what does Vlahos’s thinking imply about the psychology of warfare and terrorism?

  • Sacrifice and transcendence: Individuals involved in conflict (on either side) often frame their actions as calls to something higher — protection of values, community, faith, honor — that require personal cost. This can mobilize strong commitment and loyalty, willingness to accept high risk, to endure suffering.

  • Identity and belonging: Conflict provides strong collective identities. Terrorist groups often offer belonging, narratives of purpose, which can be psychologically appealing especially where other sources of meaning are lacking.

  • Fear, othering, symbolic power: Terrorism is not just about damage; it’s about psychological shock, about instilling fear, about making the Other appear demonized, sacred, monstrous. The symbolic damage (to identity, to the sense of security) may outstrip physical losses.

  • Memory, myth, ritual, storytelling: How events are remembered, narrated, mythologized matters hugely — memorials, anniversaries, martyrs, stories of heroism / villainy shape future identity and conflict.

  • Moral emotions: Shame, humiliation, indignation, revenge are often powerful drives—not just ideological or strategic calculations. Vlahos emphasizes how feelings and beliefs around sacrifice and identity often trump material calculations.

  • Sacred vs secular tension: Even in ostensibly secular states and conflicts, Vlahos suggests there’s a quasi-religious dimension: collective rituals, sacred values, holy war mythologies, moral universes. The sense that something is sacred tends to intensify conflict, make compromise harder, amplify psychological stakes.

Possible Uses / Policy Relevance

Understanding these aspects helps with:

  • Designing counterterrorism strategies that engage with identity, meaning, narratives — not just military or law enforcement tools. For example, offering alternative narratives, counter-myths, rituals of reconciliation.

  • Recognizing the cost of ignoring symbolism: overreacting in ways that increase grievances, deepen identity-based divisions.

  • Being wary of framing: the narratives a state uses to describe terrorism (good vs evil, exceptionalism, existential threat) have psychological consequences and shape what policies are possible or acceptable.

  • Understanding recruitment, radicalization not only from socioeconomic grievances or ideology, but from a psychological need for belonging, sacrifice, identity, purpose.

Critical Reflections / Questions

While Vlahos provides rich insight, there are some challenges or points that need careful thought:

  • The symbolic/ritual frame can risk downplaying material, political, socioeconomic causes of terrorism (poverty, governance, repression). These are often deeply intertwined with identity and symbolism, but policy has to balance both.

  • The risk of romanticizing sacrifice or myth: recognizing their power is one thing; elevating them is another. There’s a delicate path between understanding the sacred dimension of war and embracing the mystique of violence.

  • Applicability: Different contexts have different religious, cultural, political structures. What works in one cultural idiom may not in another; narratives have to resonate locally.

  • Empirical testability: Symbolic/ritual / narrative dimensions are harder to measure, compare, or test in policy evaluation than say counts of attacks or economic variables.

Here are some more detailed excerpts from Vlahos’s work, plus a comparison with other thinkers, showing how his ideas fit into the larger literature on terrorism, war, and identity

Excerpts / Key Passages from Vlahos

Below are a few passages or summaries from Vlahos’s essays & book that illustrate his ideas in his own terms.

Work Key Themes / Passages
Counterterrorism, American Exceptionalism, and Retributive Justice Vlahos argues that U.S. counterterrorism policy reflects a shift in the civil-religious idea of exceptionalism: from a mission of transforming / redeeming the world (spreading democracy, freedom) toward a more retributive posture — purging threats, “just kill them,” seeing terrorists not just as threats but as embodiments of evil. Library of Social Science
Three Kinds of Terrorist He distinguishes three types of terrorist in the American imagination: the heretic (who breaks from norms but might repent), the apostate (who rejects the American idea wholesale), and the stranger (alien, foreign, or otherwise outside, creating fear of internal subversion). These categories help reveal how identity & belonging are managed, both in how terrorists are viewed and in how policy responds. Library of Social Science+1
Rites of Spring: Sacrifice, Incarnation, and War Vlahos makes the case that the mass death of the 20th century (WWI, WWII, etc.) is not just about political or economic causes, but about the “vision that drove them” — a kind of collective desire for transcendence, for symbolic birth through sacrifice. He explores how the ritual, symbolic, religious, and mythic dimensions of war (incarnation, sacrifice) persist even in modernity. Library of Social Science
Terrorism’s Sacred Heart: The Sacrifice This essay emphasizes how sacrifice is central to terrorism’s power. Terrorism works on the level of belief and identity: sacrifice enacts a kind of ritual, transforming loss into meaning and strengthening collective belonging. Also, that in order to counter terrorism effectively, one must understand (not dismiss) the role of sacrifice, ritual, symbolism. Library of Social Science
Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change In his book, Vlahos explores how non-state actors draw strength from identity (the “spirit,” or geist) and how globalization has disrupted older forms of identity, creating voids that insurgent or terrorist groups can fill. He argues that old strategies (just military/tactical responses) are insufficient; strategic culture, narrative, myth, identity work are essential. Bloomsbury Publishing

Comparison with Other Thinkers

To understand what’s distinctive & where Vlahos stands in the broader literature, it helps to compare him with other scholars who look at terrorism, identity, narrative, etc.

Scholar / Work Shared Ground with Vlahos Points of Divergence or Complementarity
Benedict Anderson — Imagined Communities Both focus on how collective identity is constructed — how communities imagine themselves, what stories, symbols, myths are raised up. Vlahos’s heretic/apostate/stranger framework echoes how imagined communities set boundaries of inclusion/exclusion. Anderson is more descriptive, historical, cultural; less concerned with the psychological dimension of sacrifice or terror specifically. Vlahos adds the dimension of ritual, sacrifice, mythology in constructing identity under stress.
Carl Schmitt Schmitt’s friend–enemy distinction is relevant: defining the Other is central to identity; for Vlahos the narrative of terrorism often situates terrorists as existential enemies. Schmitt is more legal-philosophical and less interested in ritual, myth, or sacrifice; Vlahos draws in religious studies, theology, symbolic analysis. Also, Schmitt tends to privilege state sovereignty, whereas Vlahos gives more emphasis to non-state actors, their narrative power, and symbolic warfare.
René Girard Girard’s ideas about sacrifice, scapegoating, violence, the role of the victim, mimetic desire — there is resonance with Vlahos’s arguments about how sacrifice functions to bind community, how violence is ritualized. Vlahos is less concerned with mimetic theory per se, but more with how collective identity and national myth use sacrifice, and how the hero/terrorist/martyr figure is constructed. Girard is broader: more about origins of culture and violence in human societies, less about contemporary strategy.
Terrorism studies / radicalization literature (e.g. Marc Sageman, Fathali Moghaddam) The radicalization literature often looks at identity, grievances, narrative, emotions — so there is overlap. Vlahos adds the dimension of sacred meaning, how identity is bound up with myth and ritual. Many radicalization scholars emphasize micro-level causes (social networks, ideology, psychology) or political/institutional causes. Vlahos emphasizes macro‐cultural narrative, symbolic frames, civil religion. Also, much radicalization literature is more empirical, more focused on preventing or reversing radicalization; Vlahos gives more philosophical/historical framing which may be less operational but richer in meaning.
Political Theology (e.g. Carl Jung, Paul Tillich, theological scholars of war & religion) Very close: Vlahos treats war, sacrifice, identity in religious or quasi-religious terms; myth and the sacred are central. The idea of sacrificial violence, incarnation (the idea of a body, blood, martyrdom) are very theological. Vlahos tends toward applying these themes to American civil religion, modern warfare, terrorism. Some political theology is less focused on strategy; Vlahos tries to draw implications for policy, for how counterterrorism and strategy must be rethought in light of symbolic, mythic, and identity dimensions.

What Vlahos Adds / What Stakes It Raises

From these passages and comparisons, some of Vlahos’s distinctive contributions / stakes can be drawn out:

  1. Symbolic power is often more foundational than material power.
    Non-state actors often lack military strength in conventional terms, but their ability to craft narratives, embody sacrifice, define what the conflict means gives them disproportionate influence.

  2. The role of sacrifice and martyrdom as central psychological levers.
    These are often under-appreciated in policy, which tends to focus more on material grievances, ideology, organizational structure. Vlahos pushes us to understand that sacrifice isn’t just expression of desperation, but can be a potent, even intentional tool — ritual, symbolic, mythic.

  3. The shift in American exceptionalism from universalist, transformative mission toward retributive justice represents a psychological transformation in how terrorism is conceived: not just as a problem to be solved or prevented, but as evil to be purged; identity under threat. That shift has consequences (moral, strategic, psychological).

  4. Need for alternative paradigms beyond military/tactical counterterrorism: narrative work, myth/culture, identity shaping, symbolic politics. Because if you ignore the symbolic dimension, you risk feeding the adversary’s narrative, reinforcing fear, etc.

  5. Awareness of identity politics globally: globalization unsettles old identities; this creates “spaces” that non-state groups can occupy by offering belonging, narratives of identity and meaning. So Vlahos suggests that many conflicts are in part struggle over identity, meaning — not just territory or resources.

Critiques / Points to Weigh

While Vlahos offers rich insight, there are also limits or potential critiques (some mentioned earlier but elaborated here):

  • Empirical difficulty: Because symbolic, mythic, sacrificial dimensions are less tangible, less quantifiable, it is harder to measure “success” of policies built on these insights. Governments prefer metrics, we may struggle to assess how well narrative or symbolic work actually alter behavior or reduce violence.

  • Overemphasis on elite narrative vs grassroots variation: While Vlahos examines identity and narrative from a macro level, there is a danger of underplaying how local, individual variation, specific grievances, material conditions, social networks matter. Sometimes narratives that elites push may not resonate locally; what looks like a myth or sacred identity may differ in actual belief or practice.

  • Moral ambiguity: If we accept that sacrifice, martyrdom, myth are central, how do we navigate their moral complexity? Some sacrifices are just, some unjust; some narratives are oppressive or exclusionary. Applying Vlahos’s insights risks valorizing sacrifice or inflating myth, or conflating “righteous” and “unrighteous” violence in dangerous ways.

  • Risk of essentializing identity or culture: Identity is often fluid, contested. There's a risk of treating “identity” or “religion” or “sacrifice” as monolithic, when in practice they are multiple and contested.

  • Policy translation: Translating myth/symbolic insight into concrete strategies is tricky. What does it mean for a government to “engage alternative narratives”? Who defines those narratives? They may conflict; governments interested in control may find it hard to allow messy, plural iden­tities.

Let’s map Michael Vlahos’s ideas onto the case of ISIS (Islamic State), especially in relation to the psychology of warfare and terrorism.

1. Sacrifice and Martyrdom

  • For Vlahos, sacrifice is the “sacred heart” of terrorism.

  • ISIS is a textbook example: it elevated martyrdom operations, publicized deaths of its fighters as sacred offerings, and presented battlefield losses as proof of transcendent commitment.

  • Suicide bombings weren’t only tactical; they were ritualized acts of sacrifice that gave participants (and their communities) a sense of sacred meaning and belonging.

👉 From a Vlahos perspective: these rituals of sacrifice explain ISIS’s appeal beyond mere politics or economics — they bind the group into a sacred community.

2. War as Ritual & Transcendence

  • ISIS framed itself not just as a militia but as the Caliphate: a project of cosmic renewal.

  • For many recruits, joining ISIS was framed as entering sacred history — a chance to live and die in service of God, with the promise of transcendence.

  • Public spectacles (executions, battles, propaganda videos) were carefully staged as ritual theatre, transforming violence into myth.

👉 Vlahos would say ISIS used war as a rite of passage, turning ordinary individuals into actors in a sacred drama of cosmic struggle.

3. Identity & Belonging

  • Globalization left many Muslims, especially second-generation immigrants in Europe, with fragmented identities.

  • ISIS offered a powerful narrative of belonging: you are not alienated, you are part of the Ummah, and the Caliphate is your true home.

  • Sacrifice sealed this belonging: through willingness to die, one proved ultimate loyalty.

👉 In Vlahos’s terms: ISIS filled the “identity void” of modernity with a sacred narrative of community and destiny.

4. Narrative and Symbolism

  • ISIS’s power was not primarily in tanks or guns, but in narrative.

    • The Caliphate symbolized the rebirth of sacred order.

    • Black flags, stylized videos, Qur’anic references: all symbols reinforcing the sacred mission.

    • The “us vs. them” story (true believers vs. corrupt West, apostate regimes) mirrored Vlahos’s categories of heretic, apostate, and stranger.

👉 From his lens, the Islamic State succeeded by mastering myth-making: offering a narrative of heroic transcendence, where sacrifice defeats corruption and evil.

5. American Exceptionalism & Counterterrorism

  • Vlahos argues the U.S. interprets terrorism through the lens of civil religion: America as chosen nation, terrorism as evil.

  • ISIS played directly into this: by provoking America, it amplified the narrative of a cosmic battle of Good vs. Evil.

  • In Vlahos’s view, this mutual myth-making risked entrenching the struggle, making it harder to see ISIS in political or social terms.

👉 Policy consequence: treating ISIS primarily as “evil to purge” risks feeding its narrative, reinforcing its sacred identity through opposition.

6. Psychological Dimensions

  • For fighters: Sacrifice and transcendence gave life meaning beyond material conditions.

  • For supporters: Identity and belonging to a sacred community were psychological magnets.

  • For enemies: ISIS’s terrorism worked by instilling fear and awe, demonstrating that they were not just rebels but mythic actors.

7. Where Vlahos’s Framework Shines

  • Explains why young men and women from comfortable Western backgrounds left everything to join ISIS: not poverty, but desire for meaning, belonging, sacrifice.

  • Explains ISIS propaganda’s obsession with spectacle: war as ritual, not just combat.

  • Explains why military defeat of ISIS’s territory hasn’t erased the narrative: the myth of sacrifice remains potent.

8. Limits / Critiques

  • ISIS also thrived on very material factors (Syria/Iraq’s civil wars, failed governance, economic collapse).

  • Some fighters were driven more by survival or coercion than by sacred meaning.

  • Vlahos’s symbolic lens can underplay these pragmatic or structural factors.

✅ In short:
Vlahos would see ISIS not just as a terrorist organization, but as a sacrificial cult of identity, a movement that offered transcendence through sacred war, framed in ritual and myth, and sustained through sacrifice.