Discourses and Practices of Terrorism (original) (raw)
Related papers
2005
This dissertation explores and interrogates how terrorism is consistently brought into the political and controlled by the power structure, specifically the ways in which national security discourse is used to create a specific knowledge structure and the ways in which discursive practices represent the mobilization of power. In addressing the role of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation is based on the strength, tenacity, support, and encouragement of a variety of people. To all of these people lowe immense gratitude. Nevzat Soguk has been the best advisor one could ask for! Throughout this project, he guided my intellectual development and consistently provided me the confidence needed by always being available for advice, feedback, and the much-needed encouragement. I also appreciate the input and expertise of Drs. Henriksen, Henningsen, Manicas, and Shapiro. I thank Margot Henriksen for her guidance and close reading of the chapters; Manfred Henningsen and Peter Manicas for their support and skepticism that challenged me to defend my ideas and enhance my arguments; and to Michael Shapiro for his encouragement and contributions to my theoretical development. The support of my entire committee and their contributions were invaluable. Coupled with the intellectual and emotion support garnered from my committee, this dissertation would still be only an idea if was not for the love, support, and encouragement of friends and family. To my mother, Shirley Campos, thank you for sharing in my dreams and visions. Your strength, knowledge, and love have been guiding forces throughout my life. Finally, to the most important person in my life, my fabulous wife, Marta GonzaIez-Lloret, this dissertation only came to fruition because of the unabated support, enthusiasm, and love you have consistently given to me and this project. IV DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father, Lawrence Eugene Campos, who taught me the value of independent inquiry and analysis. v
Security, Democracy, and the Rhetoric of Counter-Terrorism
Democracy and Security
The-war on terrorism‖ is both a series of institutional practices and an accompanying set of political narratives. Employing the methodology of critical discourse analysis, the study suggests that the language of the-war on terrorism‖ is not simply a neutral or objective reflection of policy debates and the realities of terrorism and counterterrorism; rather, it is a very carefully and deliberately constructed public discourse that is specifically designed to make the war seem reasonable, responsible, and inherently-good.‖ More importantly, as it is currently constructed, the language and practice of the-war on terrorism‖ poses severe challenges to the democratic state, including destabilizing the moral community, weakening democratic values and civic culture, undermining the legitimacy of democratic institutions, and preventing the articulation of potentially more effective counter-terrorism approaches. INTRODUCTION 1 The-war on terrorism‖ is both a set of institutional practices (military and intelligence operations, diplomatic initiatives, special government departments and security bodies, standard operating procedures, specific legislation, and so on), as well as an accompanying discursive project. That is, it is simultaneously a special political language of counterterrorism with its own assumptions, symbolic systems, rhetorical modes and tropes, metaphors, narratives and meanings, and its own exclusive forms of knowledge. It is a distinct discourse, analogous to discourses in other fields-advertising, medicine, education, art, psychology, and the like. If we are to fully understand how the-war on terrorism‖ functions as a particular kind of political project, I believe that in addition to explaining its military, political, and economic dimensions, we must also appreciate how this particular discourse has been constructed and how it functions to legitimize and normalize the institutional practices of counter-terrorism. The analysis of public political discourse as a methodological approach reveals how some forms of knowledge are privileged over others, how identity is constructed and maintained, how power is legitimized, how political and institutional practices are normalized, and in this case, how social and political consensus is produced and reproduced ideationally. Political discourses are not neutral reflections of social and political reality; rather, they are partly constitutive of that reality-they have a reality-making effect. The practice of the-war on terrorism‖ in its military and political dimensions would not be possible without the accompanying language or discourse of counter-terrorism: discourse and practice are interdependent or co-constitutive. Moreover, political discourses possess a clear ideological character; they are the construction and deployment of-meaning in the service of power.‖ 2 Or, more specifically, discourses act as constructions of meaning that contribute to the production, reproduction, and transformation of relations of domination in society. 3 Applying a critical discourse analysis (CDA) method, 4 the primary phase of this research involved an examination of over 100 speeches of senior members of the Bush administration from September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2003. These texts were a representative sample of
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.
Discourse on Terrorism, 2021
The aim of this thesis is to provide a complex overview of the development and current situation in the areas of terrorism and counterterrorism and objectively evaluate known and implemented mechanisms for countering terrorism. The thesis has 3 main parts. The first part describes the roots and underlying causes of emergence of terrorism, terrorist mentality, and terrorist groups. The second part analyzes the current state and developments in the area of counterterrorism, the main mechanisms, possible improvements with author’s recommendations. The third part evaluates the US War on Terrorism and Biden’s recent decision to exit Afghanistan based on the acquired theoretical knowledge.
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.
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.
Nemzetbiztonsági Szemle, 2021
The primary goal of the paper is to examine how the Turkish and Russian Governments are using the term terrorist in their diplomatic communication towards the Syrian conflict. Following the introduction, the study outlines the theoretical framework – namely the securitisation theory –, then presents a concept of terrorism, which is focusing on the instrumentalisation of the terrorist label in discursive processes. Henceforward, the paper attempts to accomplish the aforementioned goal by examining the Turkish and Russian security discourses on two interrelated issues of the Syrian war: Turkey’s Operation Peace Spring in October 2019, and the Russian–Syrian offensive codenamed Operation Dawn of Idlib between April 2019 and March 2020. Based on the detailed analysis of relevant speeches and articles given or written by high-ranking Russian and Turkish diplomats, the paper displays how the two states justified their military interventions, defined their own roles, and framed the non-gov...
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.