Towards an Understanding of Convergent Terrorism (original) (raw)
Related papers
Discourse in Terrorism Studies ( Room CC 1 . 18 )
This paper will suggest that there are a number of good reasons for persevering with the endeavour to reach a universally agreed definition of terrorism, notwithstanding the formidable obstacles. It will, firstly, consider whether there really is anything qualitatively distinctive about terrorism compared with other forms of political violence, and, if so, what it is that is unique about the former. It will then propose some preliminary assumptions that can be made when approaching the definitional issue. Finally, the implications of these assumptions for how one ultimately conceptualises terrorism will be considered, before a general definition of the phenomenon is offered. Asta Maskaliunaite (Baltic Defence College): Origins of the Concept of Terrorism and their Reflections in its Contemporary Use. Many books and investigations into terrorism start by lamenting the lack of an agreed definition of terrorism in the field. Already in the seminal work of 1982, Political terrorism, Alex Schmidt discussed 109 definitions of terrorism and disagreements among scholars as to their content. Later, in 2012, the Volume Contemporary debates on terrorism, edited by Jackson and Sinclair, dedicated three out of twelve chapters to the problem of defining and understanding of the phenomenon. Thus, even after half a century of focused research into the subject, the issues of the conceptualisation of terrorism are still as important as ever. At one and the same time, the choir of those who suggest that the term itself is too loaded to be useful and should therefore be abandoned is growing ever louder. In such circumstances, it might be useful to look at the concept of terrorism from a more detached historical perspective and investigate the controversies that first surrounded the term when it appeared in the political lexicon. Already from its inception during the French Revolution, terror and terrorism has been laden with serious normative weight and its justification or abnegation filled the concept with different contents. In the first of these positions, terrorism appears as rational, directed, morally justifiable (at least in some circumstances) and strategically plausible. In the other, it is seen as irrational, random, immoral and without any strategic purpose but destruction. The third understanding of terroroften forgottenis actually also present in the French Revolutionary discourse, namely the terror of crowds, which is seen as just, though unruly, and purposeful, though misguided. These positions never managed to overcome one another and their influence over policy and academic discourse has fluctuated over the last two centuries with one or another gaining (temporarily) the upper hand. Using Koselleck's 'history of concepts' and Laclau's and Mouffe's discourse theory as a theoretical background, I propose to look at the 'semantic struggle' surrounding the concept of terror in its earliest manifestations during the French Revolution and its immediate aftermath. I will then look into the usage of the term 200 years later at the height of 'war on terror' and explore the differences in the semantic fields surrounding terror then and now. I will argue that though the contemporary use of terror on the surface seems to have adopted it counter-revolutionary representation, this representation still operates in a semantic field where 'terror' needs to be connected to, juxtaposed or opposed to, the notions of 'virtue', 'liberty', 'democracy', 'violence' and 'despotism'. I will discuss the possibilities of salvaging terrorism as a term through looking at it as a 'floating signifier' which only gains its meaning inside a certain discourse. I will discuss the variations of this meaning through the lens offered by the three understandings of the French 2 David Boyns and James David Ballard, Developing a Sociological Theory for the Empirical Understanding of Terrorism, The American Sociologist ,(2004), p 5-25.
Introduction: Constructions of Terrorism
Constructions of Terrorism, 2019
Constructions of terrorism emanate from a wide range of sources. Governments and international organizations create criminal laws and administrative lists defining who is a terrorist or what acts constitute terrorism. In society, discussions among its members and the press play a major role in how the words terrorism and extremism are used and applied, which in turn influences public understanding and government policy. Terrorist groups themselves contribute to these constructions through the rationales and justifications they use for their actions. Today we are seeing the continual reference to terrorism in everyday language, government policy, news reporting, and international diplomacy and from various groups and uprisings. With the term being used to describe a wide range of violence, it is difficult to formulate effective government responses aimed at prevention and eradication. It further makes things difficult in societal settings for creating conducive environments for reconciliation. This volume seeks to establish appropriate research frameworks for understanding how we construct understanding(s) of terrorism. From the perspective of countering terrorism and extremism, if there is not a well-developed understanding of the object of these frameworks, they will not be effective. Assessments of the literature of terrorism have revealed consistent and troubling shortcomings. Lum, Kennedy, and Sherley and Andrew Silke carefully examined studies of terrorism published over the previous decades and the great explosion of terrorism research after 9/11. 1 The most germane findings about terrorism and counterterrorism research in their two studies help frame the contributions that have been reviewed here. The first finding is that most of the publications on terrorism have been contributions by scholars who were relatively new to the subject. These scholars discovered terrorism as a problem, usually after a particularly
Conceptualizing Terrorism: problems of Defining and Building Consensus
This article examines various problems in defining and building consensus on the most controversial term—terrorism—in contemporary politics. The objective is to clarify the relativist enmesh to be able to distinguish between what constitutes freedom fighting and what would fall under the category of terrorism. The article attempts to authenticate the legitimacy of freedom movements which the states against which these are launched dub as terrorism. It is, therefore, argued that liberation movements which are recognized by the UN should not be termed as terrorism. However, the use of violence against noncombatants puts the legitimacy of such movements in doubt. Moreover, in order to come out of the relativist confusion regarding the popular saying—“one man’s terrorist, another man’s freedom fighter”—it is necessary to evolve a clear definition to separate the two activities.
Critical Studies on Terrorism Why terrorism can, but should not be defined
This article seeks to turn the debate about the definition of terrorism on its head by arguing: (1) that the definitional debate has served to obscure the substantial scholarly consensus that actually exists on what terrorism is; (2) that this consensus is, however, largely unnecessary and irrelevant to the effective use of the term in the heterogeneous contexts within which it is employed; and (3) that by focusing on the quest for a definition of terrorism, terrorism scholars have largely missed the really interesting question about the word, namely, why it is that, given the heterogeneous purposes and contexts for which the word is used, we nonetheless continue to use a single word for all. In other words, how is it that we continue to know terrorism when we see it?
Terrorism, Security, and the State: Reframing terror for a new dialogue
Journal of International Relations Research Violence and Terrorism, Issue 1, 2012
This article will address the ways in which the state articulates itself as a domain of knowledge and power in the discourse on Terrorism and Violence. Specifically this article will explore the language utilized within the dialogue of security in regard to terrorism. The language utilized is highly social, meaningful, and consistently entrenched in a social contexts that incorporate experiences and histories. Words are essentially empty and only gain meaning through language and dialogue. Taking the concept that language is action in a dialogue with social context, several items can be deduced. Primarily, the interaction of language dialogue involves a level of power. In the existence of power relations, all interaction is subject to values and norms enacting themselves. Given the existence of this power relation, dialogue is synchronic and diachronic in that dialogue is connected to other events that occur concurrently or have historical relevance. This synchronic and diachronic nature of discourse is enacted in the intertextuality of discourse (Der Derian & Sahpiro, 1989). Finally, given power relations and the intertextuality of dialogue, multiple interpretations are possible as they are connected to the location and understanding of the individual participants – speaker, listener, and viewer. Interpretations are loaded with the values that affect the power of dialogue as it pushes at the parameters of what is typically seen as violence and terror, and ask questions regarding the dynamics of terror and violence.
Discourses and Practices of Terrorism
2010
The material and discursive consequences of counter-terror discourse on the organization of life in democratic societies are already apparent, but what about the functions of this discourse in and of itself, as a mode of communication and engagement? Through the expression and transmission of fear and paranoid anxiety this discourse justified the extension of security agency powers and legitimizes a "politics" of securitization, by redefining political and social subjectivity in terms of security and safety through "worst case scenario" thinking. But does this description of effects not read history backwards and neglect other functions of this discourse? The increased significance of emotion in public discourses as a substitute for traditional politics in the last fifteen years is not addressed by the conventional criticism that politicians have solely an instrumental orientation towards emotion. The more immediate concerns of the political elite and media producers, to connect meaningfully with the public, are not considered in such claims.
Journal of Pragmatics, 2009
Complex, socio-political constructs such as terrorism can be difficult to define objectively. Gatekeepers of the international community, consistent with their individual agendas, frame what the media and public understand by such terms, using illusive and metaphorical representations of a diverse range of socio-political situations. Based on a critical analysis of a corpus of political and media discourses, the paper proposes to account for such discursive practices and interpretations in public domains, of which the discourses of terrorism are a prime example.
The Construction of the Discourse on “Terrorism”
The aim of this paper is to run a critical analysis – at a theoretical level – of the production of knowledge, specifically, the one on “terrorism”. The main argumentation is that the way this is created resembles in many ways the way scientific knowledge is produced in a society. In this sense, this paper seeks to draw a reflection on the creation of the discourse that constructs “terrorism”. The starting point is, hence, the fact that, as the creation of scientific truths is never neutral, so is the one related to this kind of specific violence. As a matter of fact, as other ones, this “regime of truth” on terrorism is created through specific processes that reify certain relations of powers. It is because of this reason that the “knowledge on terrorism” should not be accepted uncritically but analyzed and questioned.