When Violence Overflows
Understanding What Makes People Cross the Line

By Louis Perez y Cid

In certain contexts, the line between civilian and combatant blurs. October 7, 2023, was a brutal illustration of this. But these shifts don't arise from nowhere; they are part of human, social, and political dynamics that history, as well as field experience, helps to illuminate. Understanding them is not excusing, but refusing to view violence without clear-sightedness.

The attacks of October 7, 2023, shocked people with their brutality. But beyond the legitimate emotion, they raise a broader question, essential for anyone interested in conflicts: how do ordinary individuals come to participate in extreme violence, sometimes against civilians?

Contrary to a reassuring notion, this phenomenon is neither new nor exceptional. History is replete with examples of civilians participating in massacres, in the Balkans, Rwanda, and other conflicts where the lines between combatants and non-combatants become blurred.

Hannah Arendt's work demonstrated that mass violence is not solely based on "monsters," but on ordinary mechanisms.

Stanley Milgram, for his part, showed how readily individuals can obey authority, even when it means harming others.

First, there is "group dynamics." In a crowd, individual responsibility fades. Individuals act less on their own behalf than on behalf of a collective, which unleashes behaviors they would not have exhibited alone. Added to this is "the dehumanization of the adversary." When the enemy is no longer perceived as a human being, but as a threat or an abstraction, moral boundaries recede.

Then comes "context." No conflict arises in a vacuum. The case of Gaza illustrates an accumulation of factors: poverty, confinement, repeated trauma, and a sense of injustice. Researchers like Ervin Staub have shown that these elements fuel a logic of revenge and radicalization, particularly among younger generations. This doesn't excuse anything, but it partly explains why some people are radicalized.
We must also consider "ideology and indoctrination." In all conflicts, organized actors exploit frustrations to mobilize people. Anthropologist Scott Atran reminds us that commitment is not based solely on ideas, but on bonds of loyalty and belonging; people act for their group, for their loved ones, sometimes more than for an abstract cause.

Finally, an often underestimated element plays a central role: "humiliation." It can be felt or exploited. It fuels violence as a psychological driver, but it also becomes a weapon. Humiliating the adversary makes an impression, provokes a reaction, and sometimes even unites one's own side. In many modern conflicts, this logic is accepted.

One sensitive question remains: the role of civilian populations. Images of support, silence, or ambiguity raise questions. But the social sciences urge caution. Between genuine support, fear of reprisals, and social pressure, behaviors are rarely straightforward. Generalizing often leads to analytical errors and dead ends.

Ultimately, extreme violence is not the product of a single cause. It arises from a complex interplay of factors: political context, psychological dynamics, actors' strategies, and sometimes the instrumentalization of religion. Reducing these phenomena to a single explanation, whether cultural or ideological, prevents us from understanding, and therefore from anticipating, future events.

For those who have experienced these situations firsthand, one reality is undeniable: the line between order and chaos is more fragile than we think. Understanding the mechanisms of violence is not about excusing it. It means refusing to submit to it blindly.

It is also, perhaps, a condition for better containing it.