In defence of ‘terrorism’: finding a way through a forest of misconceptions

Abstract

This article offers a revisionary re-description of the central characteristics of terrorism in an attempt to put forward a persuasive definition under which scholars could converge. It accepts that there are valid reasons for rejecting the term, not least because it is a socially constructed label that has been misused in public discourse. Nonetheless, it argues that, based on a 'minimal foundationalist' ontological position, it is possible to define and describe the key characteristics of terrorist violence. The article then attempts to re-describe the characteristics of terrorism by dealing with a number of common misconceptions, such as the notion that terrorism is violence directed at civilians or non-combatants by non-state actors, before offering a contingent definition of terrorism relevant to the present historical moment. The article concludes by outlining a range of additional pragmatic and normative reasons for retaining the term as a research concept.

The similarities between Lombroso’s theories on political crime and contemporary terrorism issues

“…The majority of acknowledged authorities in the field of terrorism struggle with defining the term 'terrorism' (English, 2009;Gupta, 2008;Hoffman, 1998Hoffman, , 2006Jackson, 2011;as cited in Bryan, 2012;Townsend, 2002;Wilkinson, 2001Wilkinson, , 2006aWilkinson, , 2006bWilkinson, , 2011. As Banks (2013, p. 220) stated, the 'fundamental to any discussion of terrorism is an understanding of the meaning and scope of the term'.…”

“…Speculations indicate that the terrorist threat levels are inflated to suit political agendas and gain more funds (Jackson, 2011;Mueller, 2006). Thus, this research aimed at answering 'what is the level of the terrorist threat?…”

“…Most respondents explained that extremely high threat levels were perceived to be part of a political game that sustained new policing schemes and secured future resources for prescribed agendas. Critical terrorism studies consider that inflated levels of the terrorist threat induced governments to gain more power with the premise of safeguarding their countries (Jackson, 2011). On parallel thoughts, Lombroso stressed that the existence of policing and military entities would be in danger if major threats were to be extinguished:…”

Why terrorism can, but should not be defined

“…At first glance, the chances of such a consensus seem remote. In addition to countless more or less essayistic attempts to pinpoint the essential features of terrorism (see Teichman 1989;Gibbs 1989;Primoratz, 1990;Ganor, 2002;Sorel 2003;Shanahan 2010;Richards 2014; and many others), there have been several systematic efforts at synthesising a scholarly consensus out of many extant definitions (for example, Schmid, Jongman, and Stohl 1988;Weinberg, Pedahzur, and Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler 2004;Schmid 2004Schmid , 2011Jackson 2011). These efforts have resulted, in turn, in fresh definitions which, however, may not have settled matters any more than those that have preceded them.…”

“…Terrorism, it is pointed out, is ultimately a social construct. We do not after all have to use the word and, given its profoundly pejorative connotations, it is not a helpful analytical concept, but merely a label used by those with power to mobilise opinion against violence of which they disapprove (Jackson 2011;Bryan 2012).…”