The appeal, the myth, and the unhelpfulness, of a the single-cause explanation

In order to process and make sense out of absurd violence, we often scramble to find a single explanation for its origin: He/She “…was a terrorist,” “…was motivated by religion and ideology” “…was a misfit, a malcontent,” “…was mentally ill,” or “…was in possession of firearms.” We desire to boil things down to one cause, probably because it helps us make sense out what otherwise seems to be unexplainable. (Also, we do this because it allows us to promote a specific political goal.)

I think this desire for the single cause, though understandable, is a mistake. It is a mistake because, for one, it is not realistic. We think we have found the single cause, until we think of other people who were subject to that same factor, yet never acted out in a violent manner. It is also a mistake, though, because it leaves us with little information about how we might intervene in order to prevent future violent instances. The single explanation leaves us only one possible place where we might make a difference, and causes us to overlook anything else that may have contributed to the violent act.

A more productive approach is to let the problem remain complex. This means refusing the temptation to understand the problem as “Factor A = Result Z,” and instead understanding it as “Factor A + Factor B + Factor C, etc. = Result Z.” When we do this, we understand that there are many, many points at which some influence may be had upon the outcome, pertaining to everything from social conditions which predisposition one towards certain acts and make them vulnerable to certain influences, to policies and laws which affect these social conditions and allow the violent act to proceed without interruption. This approach does not deny the uncertainty and mysteriousness of the individual human will. The fact is, preconditions and conditions may be nearly identical for any two people, yet each may respond in nearly opposite ways. Nonetheless, identifying preconditions and conditions in which actions occur allows for a realistic degree of influence (which is different than control) over outcomes.

Breaking down a problem in this way invites specialists in a variety of areas to become involved. This includes people who are parents, teachers, law enforcers, scientists, politicians, religious leaders, and even friends. People in each of these categories have unique windows through which they interact with the lives of others, and can alter one of the conditions that contributes towards that final outcome. This is not merely a hopeful, Pollyanna-ish perspective, nor is it merely a political avoidance of the words, “radical Islamic terrorism.” It is a realistic way of understanding the factors that result in certain people committing certain violent acts. Until we stop seeing problems myopically, as the result of simply this or that cause, we will not begin working towards change that has promise of improvement concerning outcomes of violence. The cost of this perspective, though, is that it makes us all accountable for being the best possible people towards each other, in each of the unique roles, relationships, and capacities we hold.