the barometer) is prior to B1 (rain), which translates into the opposite B2 → B1. This order contradicts the logical order, as rain is not a consequence of the falling of the barometer.
Directedness Implies Coherence
Directedness implies coherence, because considering something to be logically prior to something else implies that the two can be considered logically consistent. For example, B1 and B2 “I believe that dogs have wings” and “I believe that dogs can fly” described earlier as having a coherent connection can also be considered to have a directed connection, so that B1 → B2.
Figure 7. Overview of belief connections.
On the other hand, not every coherent belief connection can be considered directed. Take the example of the belief connection between beliefs B1 “I believe that the street is wet” and B2 “I believe that I am wet.” B1 and B2 can be considered logically consistent, because both address the state of being wet. However, B1 cannot be considered a logical antecedent of B2, or vice versa.
Figure 7 indicates this relationship between coherent and directed belief connections. It also includes unconnected beliefs.
Belief Systems
As described earlier, cognitive maps are illustrations of belief systems. Belief systems provide in-depth insight into the mechanisms underlying human behavior, such as political violence. My study examines belief systems to show how humans can reach decisions to take up arms against their state, or to refrain from doing so (Chapters 4–6). Providing the framework for this analysis, this section lays out the basic structure of belief systems. The next section deals with the semantics and some structural aspects specific to belief systems related to political violence.
Belief systems consist of belief connections. Belief connections follow certain rules, and belief systems therefore offer a consistent method to trace the microlevel mechanisms motivating human behavior. There are two types of belief connections: direct belief connections, which I have discussed above, and indirect belief connections, which consist of more than one direct belief connection. The indirect connections between beliefs can be called chains of beliefs. Those that include directed (rather than only coherent) belief connections can be called directed chains of beliefs. They can be represented in the following way:
Directed Belief Chain: B → B → B → B → B
Each belief system includes at least two belief chains. Inside a belief system, every belief is directly connected to at least one other belief and indirectly connected to all the other beliefs of the system. In the system, each belief chain shares at least one and at most all but one belief or belief connection with another chain. In principle, belief systems can involve an infinite number of belief chains. Moreover, they can address various types of factors (see “Belief Typology”). Accordingly, belief systems can be highly complex.
If belief systems are considered unlimited, it is not immediately obvious how to identify particular belief systems, such as those related to violence. It is therefore helpful to note that cognitive scientists more or less generally assume that beliefs are context dependent (Österholm 2010: 41). This suggests that belief systems can be limited by reference to certain contexts.14
If belief structures are limited, it is possible to identify particular belief systems and examine these in their entirety. In such systems, it is possible to identify various types of beliefs by referring to their position in the structure (rather than based on the issues they address). This significantly advances the analysis. Specifically, it allows the researcher to identify the logical order between connected beliefs and to systematically explore what is logically prior to certain behavior. In particular, this can be achieved by identifying three types of beliefs:
Pure Antecedents: beliefs that are only logical antecedents and never logical consequents of another belief in the system;
Intermediate Beliefs: beliefs that are both logical antecedents and logical consequents of other beliefs in the system;
Pure Consequents: beliefs that are only logical consequents and never logical antecedents of other beliefs in the system.
Figure 8 presents a simple example.
Figure 8. Example of a simple belief system.
These beliefs identify the beginning, middle, and end of belief chains. They indicate how reasoning processes begin, proceed, and end. Since beliefs address what motivates human behavior (see “Belief Typology”), pure antecedents, intermediate beliefs, and pure consequents provide in-depth knowledge about the underlying structures of human behavior. Specifically, pure antecedents can indicate what triggers the reasoning processes motivating certain behavior. Intermediate beliefs can show what constitutes the micro-level mechanisms underlying the behavior. Finally, pure consequents can identify the behavior itself. In the following analysis, pure antecedents and intermediate beliefs identify the microlevel mechanisms motivating people to engage in political violence, whereas pure consequents identify the behavior itself.
Belief Systems Related to Political Violence and Nonviolent Activism
This book investigates belief systems about political violence. Political violence is a particular type of behavior. Given the discussion so far, it is not immediately obvious how a type of behavior can be addressed by beliefs. It is also unclear what the belief contexts of beliefs about political violence may be. This section clarifies these points. Specifically, it shows how political violence can be represented by beliefs, and provides thoughts on possible belief contexts motivating beliefs about political violence.
Beliefs Addressing Violent and Nonviolent Activism
There are two types of beliefs that can address political violence or nonviolent activism: beliefs that address things that have a material existence in the external word (Type 1) and beliefs that describe abstract ideas that may be observable (Type 3). There is an additional type of belief I discuss in the following section: beliefs that address decisions to perform certain actions.
Beliefs of Type 1 address something that has a material existence in the external world. They are based on people’s ability to store in memory the things they observe in the world. Drawing on Alfred Schütz, it is not only possible to store those things in memory but also to generalize them into types (in the order thing → type) (Schütz 1973, drawing on Max Weber’s ideal types).15 Types are generalizations that indicate not only the “factual existence” of things but their “typical being-thus-and-so” (230). Their configuration establishes meaning-contexts in which certain things can be understood and meaning be imposed on entire situations. For example, “four-footed, wags its tail, barks” establishes a meaning-context that, together with a “theme” such as “bites,” can provide a meaning structure for a situation where somebody is bitten by a dog (231).
The typology provided by Schütz provides helpful insight about how beliefs can address political violence or nonviolent activism. Specifically, it suggests that beliefs can address certain things in the world that have a configuration of “typical beings” that can be generalized into “political violence” and “nonviolent activism,” in the order
