Blame…the Middle Class?

“There’s a simple reason that since the 1980s the world has witnessed thousands of suicide bombings: It’s the most efficient form of violence at close range. The spread of this seemingly unstoppable technique has made political violence much more potent by enlisting an unlikely cadre of perpetrators—the middle class.”

Of course, this isn’t the first to accuse the middle class of violence. Many a revolution has been credited to them. The article isn’t really fantastic, either. For something called “Foreign Policy” I expected a lot better.

“Clandestine, confrontation-avoiding violence such as suicide bombing is a fourth pathway around confrontational tension. It succeeds only because the attacker is good at pretending that he or she is not threatening at all. People accustomed to the typical macho forms of violence are not good at this; gang members would make lousy suicide bombers. But mild-mannered middle-class people are ideal for it. Since they are not confrontational by nature, they do not have to control a blustering or threatening demeanor that would warn their victims.” Seriously? Where are we getting these ideas from?  “Self-directed introverts, they do not need to hear cheering as they stalk their prey.” Now, on the Discovery Channel, a very special show on the hunting habits of the middlus classus. “Middle-class culture is especially accommodative, adept at maintaining a smooth surface of conventionality. Whatever our private feelings, we learn not to express them on the job, in social situations, or in public. This is good training for carrying a bomb under one’s clothing until the target is so close that massive damage is certain.” I thought it made people sexually repressed, but that’s just me.

The whole, “it’s always that quiet kid that no one notices in the corner that finally snaps!” point is cute, but really it could have been done better. It’s a weak argument. Plus, their idea of the “middle class” confuses me. “I suggest it is because suicide bombing is the easiest form of violence for conventional middle-class people to carry out, if they decide to commit violence at all.” So what is it that finally makes the “middle class” snap? Is it the same catalyst in every single case? Would an Australian middle-class man in 1950 snap for the same reason as an Afghani middle class woman in 1970? They don’t define the parameters.  They just suppose that this phrase is so descriptive on its own. This chameleon “middle class” is perpetuating the violence. Any statistics? Any proof?

Oh gosh, should we watch the (shrinking) middle class closely now?