Interpretation, judgement and dialogue: a hermeneutical recollection of causal analysis in critical terrorism studies

Abstract

This article problematises Critical Terrorism Studies's (CTS) seeming reluctance to engage in causal explanation. An analysis of the meta-theoretical assumptions on causation in both orthodox as well as critical terrorism studies reveals that the latter's refusal to incorporate causal analysis in its broader research agenda reproduces -despite its commitment to epistemological pluralism -the former's understanding of causation as the only sustainable one. Elemental to this understanding is the idea that causation refers to the regular observation of constant conjunction. Due to the positivist leanings of such a conception, CTS is quick to dismiss it as consolidating Orthodox Terrorism Studies's lack of critical self-reflexivity, responsibility of the researcher, and dedication towards informing state-led policies of counter-terrorism. Drawing on recent work in philosophy of science and International Relations, the article advances an alternative understanding of causation that emphasises its interpretative, normative, and dialogical fabric. It is therefore argued that CTS should reclaim causal analysis as an essential element of its research agenda. This not only facilitates a more robust challenge against orthodox terrorism studies' conventional understanding of causation but also consolidates CTS's endeavour of deepening and broadening our understanding that (re)embeds terrorist violence in its historical and social context.

Introduction: 10 years ofCritical Studies on Terrorism

“…More specifically, a survey of the journal supports the assessment that it has been successful in its goal of provoking and encouraging open and rigorous debate on a wide array of important issues, not least on the question of the intrinsic value of critical terrorism studies itself (see Horgan and Boyle 2008;Michel and Richards 2009), and the way in which the CTS field has evolved and developed over the years. In addition to many examples from previous volumes, in this special issue, two of the contributing articles raise questions about the way in which CTS has developed over the past decade that perhaps does not live up to some of its stated aims (see Toros 2017;Van Milders 2017). In our assessment, this speaks to the growing maturity and confidence of a field (and the journal) which can question its most fundamental and treasured assumptions, theories, approaches and values, including questions about emancipation, narrow versus wide conceptions of criticality, the reification of the "terrorism" discourse, and the like.…”