If the homeland is the battlefield, where is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s home?

Many sensible people have preached patience and prudence in the aftermath of the Boston bombings. I particularly agreed with the concerns of those who advocated against “fear”, such as Stephen Walt who argues we have given a disproportionate amount of attention to this issue. Michael Cohen of the Guardian similarly writes,

“But by letting one fugitive terrorist shut down a major American city, Boston not only bowed to outsize and irrational fears, but sent a dangerous message to every would-be terrorist – if you want to wreak havoc in the United States, intimidate its population and disrupt public order, here’s your instruction booklet.”

While I full-heartedly agree with these perspectives, my post will focus on the role of culture and identity in this case. The facts show that the surviving bomber is a ethnic Chechen who was born in Kyrgyzstan, came to the US from Russia as a legal refugee a decade ago, and recently became naturalized as an American citizen just last year. This can be very confusing to the traditional media narratives which explain terrorism and political violence. We often have a very essentialized perspective of what constitutes a terrorist, and prescribe pre-conceived identities to explain what we do not understand. Thus, it can be disconcerting when a person like Tsarnaev can appear to hold multiple identities and loyalties.

Yet it has been argued by many scholars (especially of the traditions of anthropology, post-colonialism, and philosophy) that modern society is characterized by a sense of rootlessness, in that our identities have become “de-territorialized”. Edward Said’s experiences as a Palestinian refugee who was effectively exiled from his homeland shaped his own philosophy, described this new world as “a generalized condition of homelessness”.

Like Said, the Tsarnaev brothers were also exiles, like the many refugees who left their homelands to avoid persecution and strife. While it is possible that the heart of an exile can bleed for the imagined home, reality shows that life is infinitely more complicated. Immigrants are torn between multiple identities, as they belong neither “there” or “here”. As a first generation Vietnamese-American, I can empathize with the difficulties of “fitting in”, when I am automatically prescribed an Asian identity at first look.

I do not know where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev considers home. His brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev has been quoted to not have any American friends or understand Americans; it is understandable that he may feel a sense of social exclusion from American society. Yet similar accounts by Dzhokhar’s peers describe Dzhokhar as quite sociable, “one of the crowd”, and even attended a party on that fateful night. It isn’t impossible that Dzhokhar feels connected to the country he spent the last decade in.

Yet it will be easier to think of Dzhokhar and his brother as external threats who snuck into the country and became radicalized by extremist ideology. This will be convenient to leaders who want to restrict immigration flows or restrict civil liberties in the interests of national security. This is why some have called for Dzhokhar to be tried as an “enemy combatant”, to further demonstrate his potential foreign ties. Lindsey Graham is leading the charge, along with other Republican lawmakers who seek to designate Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant.

“My concern is intelligence we can get from him, whether other people were involved, whether he’s dealt with other Islamist terrorists in the past, is there a Chechen base overseas [the Tsarnaev family is from Chechnya], [ties] to the Mideast, other cells?”

The media have proven quick to demonize Chechnya, and even the Czech ambassador had to disassociate his country from the geographically-ignorant to avoid the Internet rage. Even the Chechens themselves in Russia have denied involvement (why would it attack a country who is at worst, antipathetic to their interests and at best, a buffer against further Russian persecution?).

But even if Dzhokhar wakes up in the hospital and spouts undying loyalty to his lost homeland, why does this matter? We’re quick to associate a terrorist’s origins as the principal determinants to their violent motives, but this is still an incomplete picture of one’s identity. Amartya Sen argues in “Identity and Violence” that we possess multiple identities, and retain the agency to choose who we want to be at any particular moment. While it is granted that the menu of “choices” will be inherently limited by external circumstances (such as political exile), one’s culture is not one’s destiny as we still have the ability to choose. At that precise moment the Tsarnaev brothers chose to bomb the marathon, their chosen identity was the role of murderous criminals. While it may prove to be the case that Dzhokhar will express grievances about the Chechens’ plights, it would be insufficient to explain why he chose the citizens of Boston as his target.

We are making a classic (what is known in conflict resolution) “Type II” error when we overvalue Dzhokhar’s cultural identity as an ethnic Chechen to explain his actions. This leads the media and politicians seek to investigate and emphasize his foreign identity, which will more easily fit into the overcooked narratives of terrorists being from another country. A Type II error can define “culture as an agent capable of action on its own terms, essentialize culture toward a single and unified expression, (and) homogenize all group members toward invariant behavioral stereotypes” (from the Kevin Avruch article linked to above).

When we overemphasize one’s culture, one’s religion, or one’s homeland as the sole determinant of one’s actions, we ignore the individual’s responsibility to their own deeds. I can say it no better than Sarah Kendzior, who wrote, “Look to the two men who did it – and judge them by what they have done, not from where their ancestors came.” Therefore I hope we treat this man as a criminal, not another Orientalized bogeyman from abroad sent to provoke another round in our perpetual war on terror.