Modelling Terrorism and Political Violence

Abstract

This article introduces some conceptual thoughts to the study of terrorism and provides answers to questions such as: can terrorism be studied like other crime phenomena? What are the conceptual and methodological challenges when framing terrorism as crime or military conflict? What are the epistemological consequences of studying a highly politicized object? What makes terrorist violence different from other forms of political violence such as guerrilla warfare and insurgency? For this purpose, in the first part of the article a review will be conducted to ascertain what criminologists have contributed to the conception of terrorism. In the second part a model of terrorism is elaborated that depicts the crucial parameters of this form of political violence and thereby bypasses some of the existing conceptual difficulties and misconceptions. We learn from the various definitions of terrorism that the singularity of terrorism has something to do with the victim, the purpose and the consequences of violence. Specifically the fact that terrorists are as indifferent to the various targets as they are to the various political consequences of their attack is what distinguishes terrorism from related phenomena of political violence.

Theorizing Cultures of Political Violence in Times of Austerity

“…Having this competence does not mean, and does not have to lead to, the use of violence in tandem. Worth stressing is that the meaning scope of political violence is there narrowed down to terrorist acts (Armborst 2010). The other types of political violence are thereby excluded from the approach on no evidence.…”

Framing Terror

“…Unlike other forms of political violence, however, terrorism is defined neither by the political view or the agenda of its actors nor by the legitimacy or illegitimacy of those views and agendas. Terrorism is “a method, a modus operandi, not an ideology or worldview” (Armbrost, 2010, p. 422). It is defined in the act.…”