Suicide Terrorism: Motivations beyond Religion and the Role of Collectivism

More than fifteen years after the 9/11 attacks, Americans still lack an understanding of what motivates people to commit an act that causes such horror and devastation. This article attempts to explain suicide bombing by considering some deep underlying cultural dimensions of this act. It focuses on the type of society that supports suicide bombers and the conditions that lead communities to condone such attacks. Social support is one of the strongest constraints on the use of suicide bombing. The article argues that members of a collectivist society are more willing to support extreme measures when they are threatened by foreign attack or occupation of their land. But absent this outside pressure, their support wanes. The complex phenomenon of suicide bombing is a global threat that is unlikely to disappear anytime soon

A test of some theories of political violence: the case of the Iranian revolution

Not availabl

Theories of collective action and the Iranian revolution

Most analyses of the collective actions that led to the Iranian revolution rest upon one of two classical models: social breakdown or social movement. These explanations emphasize such factors as the politicization of recently uprooted migrants, the growth of a new middle class opposing autocracy, the authority of the clergy, and specific aspects of Shiite Islam. Conflicts of interest, capacity for mobilization, coalition formation, and the structure of opportunities that shaped the collective actions of various groups and classes are ignored or downplayed. This paper argues that mobilization and collective action against the monarchy resulted from the adverse effects of state development policies on bazaaris, industrial workers, white-collar employees, and professionals. Bazaaris' mobilization provided an opportunity for other social groups and classes to oppose the government. A coalition of disparate interests, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, brought down the monarchy.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45662/1/11206_2005_Article_BF01115123.pd

Unicellular eukaryotes as models in cell and molecular biology : critical appraisal of their past and future value

Unicellular eukaryotes have been appreciated as model systems for the analysis of crucial questions in cell and molecular biology. This includes Dictyostelium (chemotaxis, amoeboid movement, phagocytosis), Tetrahymena (telomere structure, telomerase function), Paramecium (variant surface antigens, exocytosis, phagocytosis cycle) or both ciliates (ciliary beat regulation, surface pattern formation), Chlamydomonas (flagellar biogenesis and beat), and yeast (S. cerevisiae) for innumerable aspects. Nowadays many problems may be tackled with "higher" eukaryotic/metazoan cells for which full genomic information as well as domain databases, etc., were available long before protozoa. Established molecular tools, commercial antibodies, and established pharmacology are additional advantages available for higher eukaryotic cells. Moreover, an increasing number of inherited genetic disturbances in humans have become elucidated and can serve as new models. Among lower eukaryotes, yeast will remain a standard model because of its peculiarities, including its reduced genome and availability in the haploid form. But do protists still have a future as models? This touches not only the basic understanding of biology but also practical aspects of research, such as fund raising. As we try to scrutinize, due to specific advantages some protozoa should and will remain favorable models for analyzing novel genes or specific aspects of cell structure and function. Outstanding examples are epigenetic phenomena-a field of rising interest