Why do some people sacrifice everything for their cause?

In some cases, fanaticism can reach extremes that lead to self-destruction.

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 set of ideas and creeds that justify our way of being and living.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 extreme of sacrificing everything for them... and even wanting to sacrifice others for them. This is blind faith.

Centuries ago, it was the divine revelations delegated to rulers that conditioned our societies, cultural values and the way we related to others. On the other hand, it could be said that today, what drives the global world are the ideologies to which we have access, in large part, thanks to globalization.

If in the past, in order 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 the fanaticism of ISIS is an example. What drives these people to act like this?

What do we mean by sacrifice for a cause?

The word sacrifice has a catch. The context, the values and the semantic perception of the offering, will provide a different degree of intensity between groups. For example, sacrificing oneself for the spread of Islamism does not mean the same thing for an illiterate farmer in Iraq as it does for a young man raised from childhood in Spain.

However, in a more generic way, sacrifice entails the deprivation of each individual's well-being for a given reason, whether religious or ideological.whether religious or ideological, for survival or for reward.

Now, what gives rise to sacrifice are convictions, something that, at present, is very much influenced by the war of ideas.

Ideological warfare

It was around 1947 when the term "ideological warfare" came into use. An armed conflict had ended in order to enter a new one. The two victorious world powers, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, saw a military confrontation as incompatible as the convergence of 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 a new tendency and way of controlling the people.These events marked the beginning of a new trend and a new way to control people, to establish rules of the game that had little to do with violence, up to the present day. Regional conflicts have replaced global ones, domestic wars are increasingly present all over the world and there is a current of neoconservatism that rescues the most primal behaviors of man: fight and sacrifice.

What drives people to sacrifice everything?

How can there be people willing to sacrifice their lives, or even their children's lives for a cause? What is the motivation of people 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 or Libya, reveals some surprising data.

This study was carried out "at the foot of the gun", on the front line, asking fighters 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 there is the same common denominator: 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 a desire for armed conflict, the cause was purely material, economic and political power, control of the means of production or territories of commercial character and interest. In the modern era, however, 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. Rather, it is a vindicating motive, an idea that is sacred to these groups with little combat capability. for these groups with little combat capability or military equipment. Moreover, these causes are usually non-negotiable, a fact that gives them a certain power to balance forces with, in most cases, the government they are confronting. Let us remember that the State is the only one that holds legitimate violence (or, at least, legitimized by civilians).

The emotional replaces the material

Based on interviews and lived experiences in hostile territory, the researchers who conducted 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 resulting from the Second Gulf War of 2003, which involved the illegal invasion by the U.S. Finally, we find "Islam" as an idea of re-establishing a caliphate in the Arab world. idea of re-founding a caliphate that existed in periods after Muhammad..

The concept takes on a "sacred" value when the combatant or affected person is assured that no material amount (whether in goods, land or fiat money) can compensate for the cause of his struggle. Let us take democracy for the West, for example, since this condition cannot be renounced under any circumstances. Nothing and no one is in a position to negotiate the denial of the right to vote in states governed by the rule of law.

In addition to on-site research in conflict zones, Artis International also conducted online surveys of civilians who had been Artis International also conducted online surveys of civilians who had suffered terrorist attacks, as well as regular soldiers based in Europe. based in Europe. In the first group, non-combatants assert that their families and friendships are above any politico-religious creed, although they are willing to make sacrifices if these values were to be 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. In other words, value is placed on the comrade they follow.not so much to the ideas themselves. Qaddafi 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, whereas one rarely thinks of what one is fighting for in abstract terms.

Searching for meaning in discomfort

It is quite possible that people who fall into extreme fanaticism do so, in part, in order not to have 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 of something greater than oneself: for example, one can think that what is being attacked is not one's own well-being, but an essence that is everywhere: Western culture, God, etc. Knowing how to discriminate between the real and the essences is the key to not falling into these traps. not to fall into these traps.