Why do some people sacrifice everything for their cause?

The human being has always moved influenced by a series of ideas and beliefs that justify his way of being and living from it. 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 extreme of sacrificing everything for them... and even to want 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. Instead, it could be said that today, what runs 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 believe fervently in what he did, today, beyond the 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?

• You may be interested in: "Conflict psychology: theories that explain wars and violence"

What do we understand by sacrifice for a cause?

The word sacrifice is tricky. The context, the values ​​and the semantic perception that one has for the offering, will seek 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 from a young age in Spain.

However, more generally, sacrifice supposes the deprivation of the well-being of each individual for a certain reason, whether religious or ideological, survival or reward.

Now, what gives rise to sacrifices are convictions, something that is currently highly 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 war, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, saw a military confrontation as incompatible as the convergence between their political ideas social. Each block wanted to impose its area of ​​influence on the territory it dominated.

These events marked the beginning of a new trend and way to control people, to establish some 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.

• You may be interested in: "Meditation as a remedy against fanaticism"

What leads people to sacrifice everything?

How can there be people willing to sacrifice their lives, or even their children's lives for a cause? What motivation do people willing to die to fight against an enemy have? An interesting study carried out by a group of British psychologists from Artis International in areas of armed conflict such as Iraq, Syria or Libya, reveal surprising data.

This study was carried out "at the foot of the cannon", on the front line, asking combatants of all 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 fulfilled: commitment to the cause or idea that is defended, that for some it is sacred even without being of a theological nature: that is, something that goes beyond what is material.

Traditionally, in groups or organizations (governments, pressure groups) with a desire for armed conflict, the cause lay purely materially, in economic and political power, control the means of production or territories of character and interest commercial. However, in the modern era fanatical insurgent minority groups have contributed to a greater participation in the political sphere and the world of ideologies.

This is, that the cause is no longer material, wealth or power. It is rather a claim motive, an idea that is sacred for these groups with little combat capacity or military equipment. In addition, 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 facing. Let us remember that the State is the only one that bears legitimate violence (or, at least, legitimized by civilians).

• Related article: "How a brain injury can cause religious fanaticism"

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 to recover independence and culture in the face of the loss of institutions derived from the Second Gulf War of 2003, which led to the illegal invasion by USA Finally we find "Islam" as idea for refounding a caliphate that existed in periods after Muhammad.

The concept acquires the value of "sacred" when the combatant or affected person assures that no material amount (whether in goods, land or fiduciary money) can compensate the cause of their fight. Let's take democracy for the West, for example, a fact that this condition cannot be waived under any circumstances. Nothing and no one is in a position to be able to negotiate the refusal to vote in the 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 Europe based regulars. 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 ​​were seen affected.

In the case of the second group, the soldiers of different armies, point to a relationship between their superiors or leaders over 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 "lay down their lives for him." However, this may be because the person is the best way to conceive of an ideal, while what you are striving for is rarely thought of in abstract terms.

Looking for a meaning to discomfort

It is quite possible that people who indulge in extreme fanaticism do so, in part, so that they do not have to accept the idea that their suffering is in vain.

When the region in which you live is constantly mistreated, it is very easy to invent motivations that lead you to think of something bigger than yourself: for For example, one may 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 reality and essences is key so as not to fall into these traps.