From the standpoint of criminal psychology, occupation should be conceptualized not as a temporary security arrangement but as a long-term criminogenic process. Political analyses often frame occupation in terms of territorial control, sovereignty, or resistance; however, psychological criminology draws attention to how sustained domination restructures cognition, opportunity, and moral reasoning on both sides of the conflict. Every strategic choice made by an occupying power—particularly those related to cultural and linguistic control—carries latent risks that may only materialize years later. Among these risks is the paradoxical production of an “enemy within”: individuals who possess intimate linguistic and cultural knowledge of the occupier while remaining psychologically and politically excluded from it.
Occupation, Chronic Strain, and Psychological Adaptation
Occupation exposes the occupied population to persistent stressors that are largely uncontrollable, including surveillance, restricted movement, coercive authority, and collective punishment. Psychological research on chronic stress and trauma demonstrates that prolonged exposure to such conditions increases anger, perceived injustice, and hostility toward authority (Herman, 1992). In criminological terms, this aligns with General Strain Theory, which posits that sustained strain combined with blocked legitimate coping mechanisms increases the likelihood of criminal and violent outcomes (Agnew, 1992).
Crucially, individuals adapt psychologically to occupation rather than remaining static victims. Over time, they learn the rules, routines, and vulnerabilities of the occupying system. Criminal psychology emphasizes that adaptation under coercive environments often produces strategic, rather than impulsive, forms of offending. Violence emerging from such contexts is therefore better understood as calculated behavior shaped by environmental learning than as irrational extremism.
Language as Criminogenic Capability
Language acquisition under occupation is frequently treated as a tool of governance or normalization. From a psychological perspective, however, forced or instrumental language learning functions as a form of cognitive exposure. Language is not merely communicative; it structures perception, categorization, and moral judgment (Boroditsky, 2011). When the occupied population learns the occupier’s language, it gains access to its institutional logic, security discourse, bureaucratic routines, and cultural signals of trust and suspicion.
This creates a criminogenic paradox. By imposing linguistic assimilation, the occupier reduces cultural distance while maintaining political exclusion. Social Identity Theory suggests that proximity without inclusion intensifies identity conflict rather than resolving it (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Individuals become fluent in the occupier’s world but remain morally alienated from it. From a criminal psychology perspective, this combination of familiarity and grievance transforms motivation into capability.
Routine Activity Theory is instructive here. Crime becomes more likely when motivated actors gain access, knowledge, and reduced guardianship (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Linguistic fluency expands access and reduces cognitive guardianship by allowing individuals to blend in, anticipate responses, and exploit institutional blind spots. In this sense, occupation does not merely provoke hostility; it actively lowers the barriers to effective internal attack.
The Psychological Logic of the “Enemy Within”
What emerges over time is not simply resistance from outside but threat from within. Criminal psychology literature on insider offending emphasizes that individuals with legitimate access and cultural fluency pose qualitatively different risks than external adversaries. They do not need to penetrate the system; they already understand it. Under occupation, this insider threat is structurally produced rather than individually deviant.
This dynamic is psychologically intensified by perceived illegitimacy of authority. Research on procedural justice demonstrates that when authority is viewed as unfair or imposed, compliance erodes and moral disengagement increases (Tyler, 2006). Violence against the occupier can then be cognitively reframed as justified, defensive, or restorative. Moral disengagement mechanisms—such as dehumanization and displacement of responsibility—enable individuals to commit violence without self-condemnation (Bandura, 1999).
Importantly, linguistic and cultural familiarity does not humanize the occupier in this context; instead, it personalizes the conflict. The occupier becomes an intimate adversary rather than a distant abstraction, enabling violence that is strategically targeted rather than symbolic.
Counterterrorism and Revenge-Based Crime
When attacks originate from individuals who speak the occupier’s language and navigate its society with ease, they are often perceived not merely as security breaches but as acts of betrayal. Criminal psychology predicts that perceived betrayal intensifies emotional responses, particularly anger and revenge motivation. Counterterrorism measures under occupation therefore risk shifting from instrumental deterrence to expressive retaliation.
Revenge-based responses resemble what criminologists describe as retaliatory or expressive crime, where punishment serves emotional rather than preventive functions (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 2001). Collective arrests, indiscriminate surveillance, and punitive restrictions may temporarily assert control but simultaneously reinforce narratives of injustice. Psychological research consistently shows that such measures increase group cohesion around violent actors rather than weakening them (Atran, 2010).
Escalation, Trust Collapse, and Cycles of Violence
Language again plays a central role in escalation. Counterterrorism efforts rely heavily on local intermediaries, informants, and translators. Criminal psychology research on social control indicates that the exposure or coercion of informants rapidly erodes community trust (Innes, 2000). As trust collapses, intelligence quality deteriorates, prompting authorities to rely more heavily on force. This produces a self-reinforcing cycle in which coercion generates silence, silence generates suspicion, and suspicion generates further coercion.
Both terrorism and counterterrorism thus become embedded in a shared psychological structure of revenge and moral justification. Each side frames its violence as a response to prior harm, creating what criminal psychology recognizes as mutually reinforcing retaliation. Over time, this cycle becomes normalized, transmitted through collective memory and social learning.
Conclusion
From a criminal psychological perspective, occupation is inherently unstable because it attempts to combine domination with normalization. Linguistic and cultural assimilation imposed without political inclusion transforms grievance into capability and produces an internalized threat. The occupier’s effort to control risk paradoxically generates it, shifting danger from the external battlefield to the internal social sphere.
Every policy choice under occupation therefore constitutes a long-term psychological gamble. Language becomes not a bridge but an instrument through which the boundaries between outsider and insider collapse. When counterterrorism responds to this collapse with revenge rather than legitimacy, violence ceases to be preventable and instead becomes self-perpetuating. Occupation, in this sense, is not only a political risk but a criminogenic strategy that manufactures the very threats it seeks to eliminate.
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87.
Atran, S. (2010). Talking To The Enemy: Faith, Brotherhood, And The (Un)Making Of Terrorists. New York, NY: Ecco.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality And Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62–65.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma And Recovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Innes, M. (2000). Understanding Social Control. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
McCullough, M. E., Worthington, E. L., & Rachal, K. C. (2001). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 73(2), 321–336.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology Of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey The Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.