Jarvis Spaces and Faces of Critical Terrorism Studies · The Spaces and Faces of Critical Terrorism Studies LEE JARVIS Department of Politics and International Relations, Swansea
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Security
Dialogue, Vol 40/Issue 1, pp.5-27, February 2009 by SAGE Publications
The Spaces and Faces of Critical Terrorism Studies
LEE JARVIS
Department of Politics and International Relations, Swansea University, UK
Lee Jarvis is a Lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Swansea University, UK; email: [email protected]. He would like to thank Richard Jackson, Magnus Ryner, Laura J. Shepherd, Jill Steans, Paul D. Williams, the editor of Security Dialogue and four anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
The Spaces and Faces of Critical Terrorism Studies
LEE JARVIS
Department of Politics and International Relations, Swansea University, UK
This article explores the burgeoning academic interest in establishing a critical terrorism studies research programme. It begins by reviewing the debates over definition, causation and response that still dominate mainstream discussions on terrorism. The analytical and normative limitations of these debates, it argues, open considerable space for the emergence of a critically oriented body of literature. The second section of the article then explores two distinct attempts at overcoming these limitations: the broadening and interpretivist faces of critical terrorism studies. The broadening face refers to attempts to expand our conception of terrorism beyond non-state violence, while the interpretivist face comprises critical explorations of terror in image and narrative. Although each of these approaches offers the scholar of terrorism a more engaged role than the problem-solving orientation of the mainstream debates, the article argues that the interpretivist face is alone capable of addressing their analytical limitations. The article concludes by calling for further attention to the notion of critique within the relevant literature.
The recent surge of interest in terrorism and counter-terrorism has been well documented
(Pedhazur et al, 2002:141; Turk, 2004: 271; Gunning, 2007:363). From the fields of
Security Studies, International Relations and beyond, many have now argued that
established theories and concepts require revisiting to incorporate transformations in the
character and agents of violence (Philpott, 2002; Agathangelou & Ling, 2004; Der
Derian, 2004; Smith, 2004). With a new set of research questions suddenly and audibly
thrust into view, enduring complaints over the neglect of these issues appear increasingly
anachronistic. If ‘terrorism studies’ was, indeed, once a minority pursuit (Gordon, 1999;
Richardson, 2006:1), it is increasingly difficult to argue this still.
This paper contributes to one of the more interesting developments within these
discussions: the demand for a critical terrorism studies programme (Gunning, 2007;
Jackson, 2007a: 172; Booth, 2008; Burke, 2008). Echoing earlier appeals for a Critical
Security Studies to counter the ‘iron cage of political realism’ (Booth, 2005:4, see also
Dalby, 1997; Smith, 2000), many are now seeking greater attention to the analytical and
normative commitments that characterize studies of terrorist violence. With this demand
to transcend the failings of ‘orthodox’ or ‘mainstream’ terrorism studies already
attracting critical discussion (see Jackson, 2007a; Horgan & Boyle, 2008), this article
reflects on the spaces available for such an engagement, and the faces such an
engagement may take. Such an exploration, I argue, raises difficult questions, not least
concerning the status of academic responsibility and critique.
Motivated thus, I begin my discussion by tracing the major issues and concerns of
terrorism studies as constituted at present. Although we need be wary of constructing a
monolithic straw man for critique (Horgan & Boyle, 2008:57-59), I argue that this body
of knowledge remains overwhelmingly oriented around three related, and enduring,
questions: those of denotation, causation and response. In this sense, I approach terrorism
studies as an exemplar of problem-solving theory in the Coxian sense (Cox, 1996:88, see
also Gunning, 2007): an exemplar characterized by considerable meta-theoretical and
normative limitations. Rendering these limitations visible and explicit, I suggest, sheds
light on the spaces available for more critically oriented discussions.
The second part of this article introduces the emergence of two broadly critical
frameworks that go some way towards addressing the limitations of the mainstream
debates. Although these frameworks by no means exhaust the relevant scholarship in this
area, their common engagement with the meaning of terrorism renders them central to
any rethinking of the politics of violence in this context. The first of the two, referred to
here as the broadening face of critical terrorism studies, relates to efforts at extending the
terrorism studies agenda beyond an unnecessarily limited, and perhaps arbitrary, concern
with unconventional violence. These discussions, I argue, offer a useful reminder that
terrorism need not be approached as the preserve of non-state actors alone: a reminder, if
not lost within mainstream discussions, then certainly marginalized (compare Horgan &
Boyle, 2008:56-57; Stohl, 2008:5-6). The second, interpretivist, face concerns the
altogether more radical attempts at rethinking the politics of terror away from any
residual essentialism. Focusing not on terrorism as practice or strategy, but rather on
‘terrorism’ as production or performance, these disparate literatures reflect on the
enabling and disciplinary functions performed by constructions of this behaviour,
identity and threat. I conclude my discussion by arguing that although each of these faces
offers a powerful normative response to orthodox terrorism studies, the interpretivist
approach is alone capable of addressing the discipline’s continuing analytical limitations.
Terrorism studies: A problem-solving pursuit
In order to better understand the need for any form of critical terrorism studies, the
following section traces the core questions and concerns motivating more orthodox
works in this area. As outlined below, these literatures remain overwhelmingly
dominated by efforts to capture their object of knowledge – the problem of definition; to
explain that object’s conditions of existence – the problem of causation; and to offer
possible pathways for preventing or combating terrorism – the problem of response.
Although a comprehensive review of the perspectives brought to these discussions is
pragmatically impossible, I argue that the continued centrality of these debates sheds
considerable light on this discipline’s self-image as a problem-solving enterprise.
The problem of definition
Where the history of terrorism as a behaviour or strategy has spawned considerable
debate, the birth of this concept is typically traced more specifically to the French
Revolution (Halliday, 2002:72; Booth & Dunne, 2002:8). At least since the League of
Nations’ 1937 attempt at definition (Laqueur, 2003:233), however, the problem of
accurately, consensually or even objectively denoting this term has generated
considerable academic and political interest (Badey, 1998:90; Kennedy, 1999:15-18;
Laqueur, 2003:232-238). Although the relevant terrorism studies literature appears no
closer than ever to resolving this problem, recent events have been interpreted as adding
impetus to the need to revisit this question. Following 11 September 2001 in particular, at
least two related justifications have been posited here.
First, the need for a coherent and consensual definition of terrorism has been identified
by a number of authors as an essential foundation for better understanding, and perhaps
condemning, attacks such as those of 9/11 (Coady, 2004:3). Denoting our concepts
clearly and accurately, in this broad sensibility, remains an absolute pre-requisite for
patient and considered academic reflection. As Meisels suggests in a recent contribution
to these discussions (2006:465-466):
Resorting to analytical tools is perhaps no more than a philosopher’s means of despair, yet it is vital to understanding current events and appropriately influencing future ones. ...A canonical and consistent definition of “terrorism” can and should be pursued by theorists, and particularly by philosophers. Such definitions and their corresponding normative codes, which are desirable for legal systems and the states they represent, are absolutely essential for moral philosophers if they are to contribute anything at all to modern affairs. If lawyers require definitions, moral and legal philosophers cannot do without them.
Although this postulated union of definition and understanding is neither unique to the
post-9/11 political climate (Merari, 1993:214; Richardson, 1999:209), nor, of course, to
the issue of terrorism, the significance of recent events here offers further grounds for re-
engaging with this long-standing question of denotation.
A second, related, argument for revisiting this problem relates more explicitly to the
formulation of security policy. In this line of thought, the absence of any coherent or
shared conception of terrorism renders cooperation on tackling this behaviour far more
problematic than necessary. With definitional contestability presented as an obstacle not
only to understanding but also to praxis, resolving this issue of definition becomes here
urgent on analytical and political grounds. In Ganor’s (2005:2) formulation:
As long as there is no agreement as to “what is terrorism?” it is impossible to assign responsibility to nations that support terrorism, to formulate steps to cope on an international level with terrorism, and to fight effectively the terrorists, terror organizations and their allies.
If this transaction between discursive and political mastery also has its precursors within
earlier literatures (Malik, 2000: 57-59), impetus is added to this discussion by linking the
problem of definition to posited transformations in terrorist conduct (on this, see Jenkins,
2001:5; Stohl, 2005:146). Against this new climate of uncertainty and change, then
eschewing this question of definition emerges as an abdication of intellectual, moral, and
political responsibility.
These calls for revisiting this problem of definition already speak powerfully to the self-
image of contemporary terrorism studies. Even if an objective formulation of this
concept remains as illusory as ever, the simple demand for further engagement with this
question demonstrates an unambiguous desire for ontological certainty and policy
relevance. However frequently the well-known obstacles of embedded political interests
(see Held, 2004:66; Mustafa, 2005:78-79) or etymological change (see Halliday,
2002:72-73; Mathiesen, 2002:86), are raised in these discussions, terrorism studies
remains largely committed to removing terrorism from the realm of subjectivity and
coherently, consensually, even objectively, defining this behaviour (Halliday, 2002:47;
Wilkinson, 2001:1).
The problem of causation
If events such as 9/11 sparked a renewed determination to address the long-standing
problem of definition, they also reinvigorated a similarly enduring search for the causes
of terrorism. Although contributors to this discussion typically caution against the
existence of any single explanatory schema (Laqueur, 1987:183; Pedhazur, 2004:842-
843), reflecting on the individual and structural dynamics beneath political violence
remains a central concern within the relevant literature. For the purposes of this paper,
the following section offers a brief typology of the perspectives brought to bear on this
debate: a typology focusing not on the arguments of specific authors or schools, but
rather the diversity of positions available to scholars of terrorism. The continuing
prominence accorded this second debate, I argue, again speaks loudly on the present state
of terrorism studies.
An intuitively appealing location from which to commence the search for the causes of
terrorism is by reference to the individual agent turning to violence. Such explanations
typically begin with the premise that relatively few actors engage in terrorism despite the
pervasiveness of socio-economic inequalities, religious beliefs, political grievances or
other potentially relevant structural dynamics (Crenshaw, 1981:380). In Laqueur’s
(2003:22-23) typically forthright formulation: “...if terrorists are, indeed, as some claim,
“people like you and me” – there would be billions of terrorists, but there are only
relatively few”. With this apparent disjuncture in mind, one response has been to search
for psychological similarities within the personality profiles of terrorist actors, albeit with
a frequent scepticism towards any universal model of ‘the terrorist mind’ (Post, 2002:47-
49; Kruglanski & Fishman, 2006; Richardson, 2006:61). Although popular images of
terrorists as deviant, pathological, or irrational fanatics are frequently rejected (Braungart
& Braungart, 2002:96; Ruby, 2002; Whittaker, 2002:82), personality traits such as a
desire for certainty or fixity of identity, or paranoia fuelled by perceptions of loss or
injustice, have been discussed here as potentially relevant factors (Post, 2002:48; Scruton,
such, a more popular individual-level explanation approaches terrorism as a rational
tactic or utility-oriented strategy aimed at achieving specific (political) ends. Whether
intended to stimulate an over-reaction from particular targets (Rogers, 2004:156-158); to
coerce those targets into policy change (Pape, 2003:344); or to mobilize popular support
within potentially sympathetic populations (Jenkins, 2001:13), terrorism remains
explicable for many as an instrumentalist calculation undertaken by an individual or
group (Kruglanski & Fishman, 2006; Freedman, 2007). Crenshaw’s (1981:380) earlier
definition of terrorism as “…a form of political behaviour resulting from the deliberate
choice of a basically rational actor” summarizes this sensibility succinctly.
Conceptualized thus, there is nothing qualitatively distinct about the decision to engage
in terrorism vis-à-vis other forms of action: terrorism, quite simply, offers “... a choice
among alternatives” (McCormick, 2003:474).
Alongside the more explicitly agential explanations, a number of structural accounts have
also emerged to explain the continuing presence of unconventional violence. In the first
instance, we encounter discussions tying terrorism to the experience of absolute or
relative poverty: explanations with their precursors in earlier theories of relative
deprivation and social injustice (De la Hodde, 1987; Goldman, 1987). Although
assertions of a direct causal linkage are relatively rare in contemporary debate (see
Krueger & Malekcova, 2003), several prominent authors remain keen to identify global
economic stratification as a significant systemic factor behind contemporary terrorism.
Habermas’ (2003:32) account of the division of world-society into winner, beneficiary
and loser countries, for example, here resonates with Benjamin Barber’s (2003:xxxi)
conception of 9/11 as a reactionary backlash against advanced capitalism:
Capitalism fails miserably at distribution and hence at safety and justice... Internationally, there is only a raging asymmetry that is the first and last cause of an anarchism in which terror flourishes and terrorists make their perverse arguments about death to young men and women who have lost hope in the possibilities of life.
Conceptualized thus, the feelings of discontent, hopelessness and frustration engendered
by a last instance of neoliberal globalization emerge as meaningful factors underpinning
engagements in political violence (see also Wolfensohn, 2002; Alam, 2003).
A second broadly structural account of terrorism focuses on the significance of religious
systems of belief. Explanations of this type have achieved a growing prominence in
recent years, with several authors seeking to subsume the ostensibly political demands of
contemporary actors beneath their theological claims. As Philpott (2002:92-93) suggests
in his discussion of ‘radical Islamic revivalism’:
…we must come to understand that these groups are defined, constituted, and motivated by religious beliefs, beliefs about the ultimate ground of existence. Out of these beliefs, they then construct a political theology as well as a social critique that measures the distance between that theology and contemporary social conditions and prescribes action accordingly.
Despite the critics’ repeated denial of any direct linkage between religion and terrorism
(Armstrong, 2001; Jackson, 2007b), many authors remain keen to approach Al-Qaeda
and their equivalents as deriving their inspiration from (radical) Islam. In this sense,
Islamic self-sacrificial ideals, extremist texts, and the continuing desire for a limited or
global caliphate emerge here as significant theological factors in their own right (Israeli,
2004). This Huntington-inflected view of contemporary world politics has led certain
writers to locate a tradition of belligerent bellicosity throughout the Islamic world. Both
Berman and Laqueur, for example, posit this linkage in recent discussions on terrorism,
arguing respectively, “...in every place where Muslim populations border on non-Muslim
populations – some kind of war, large or small, had broken out in recent years, Muslims
against non-Muslims” (Berman, 2003:15). And:
A review of wars, civil wars, and other contemporary conflicts shows indeed a greater incidence of violence and aggression in Muslim societies than in most others. If we ignore tribal warfare in sub-Saharan Africa (notably in Nigeria and Somalia as well as the Sudan), the Islamic factor has
been prominently involved; almost 90 percent of these conflicts appear to affect Muslim countries and societies (Laqueur, 2003:19).
A final set of structural explanations focuses more explicitly on this behaviour’s
narrowly political determinants. Frequently counter-posed to the above religious
accounts, these approaches locate the actions of Al-Qaeda and similar groupings within
the context of either corrupt state regimes (Tan, 2003:134-135) or American global
hegemony and associated foreign policy (Green, 2002; Jackson, 2005:54-57). From such
a perspective, Cronin (2003:33), for example, argues that “...terrorism always has a
political nature. It involves the commission of outrageous acts designed to precipitate
political change.” In this sense, “...Anti-American terrorism is spurred in part by a desire
to change U.S. policy in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions as well as by growing
antipathy in the developing world vis-à-vis the forces of globalization” (Cronin, 2003:
52). In similar vein, Burke (2003:24) takes us beyond a restrictive focus on the
theological output of these organisations, arguing that Bin Laden’s “... agenda is a
basically political one, though it is couched, of course, in religious language and
imagery”. While for Bergen (cited in Byman, 2003:145), finally, it is crucial not to
reduce the political dimensions of Bin Laden’s world-view to a simplistic conception of
religious or cultural differences:
… [he] does not rail against the pernicious effects of Hollywood movies, or against Madonna’s midriff, or against the pornography protected by the U.S Constitution. Nor does he inveigh against the drug and alcohol culture of the West, or its tolerance for homosexuals. He leaves that kind of material to the American Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell.
As the above discussion suggests, reflection on the causes of terrorism remains a central
concern within contemporary terrorism studies. For the purposes of this article, my
interest in this debate relates far more to the questions asked than the answers forwarded
by particular contributors. Bluntly, it matters less that the student of terrorism is
encouraged to view this phenomenon as a product of agential or structural factors, or of
politics or religion, for example, than that the student is encouraged to enquire into its
causes at all. A shared attempt to reduce this behaviour to a number of identifiable, and
perhaps directly observable, points of origin clearly traverses contributions to this
literature despite the genuine diversity of perspectives on offer. As outlined below, this
attempt once more offers evidence of a remarkably coherent research agenda within
contemporary studies of terrorism.
The problem of response
The final question dominating contemporary debate builds directly on the two considered
above. For many, indeed, those questions of definition and causation appear preparatory
to the most urgent problem confronting us all: how to combat or respond to this threat
(Flint, 2003:166-167). As Turk (2004:280) suggests in a recent review of the sociological
literature on terrorism, “Efforts to understand terrorism have generally been incidental or
secondary to efforts to control it”. A theme developed by Jentleson (2002:181) from an
International Relations perspective:
It is both in the discipline's self-interest and part of its societal responsibility to link its scholarly mission more to the challenges that face the world. This was true before September 11; it is even truer since then. Policy relevance needs to be brought back in to international relations and to political science more generally.
Although it is rare for a single solution to be advocated by authors addressing this issue,
recommendations to-date may be broadly divided into militarising, criminalizing and
liberal approaches. For the purposes of this article again, however, this shared concern
for producing policy relevant research is of far greater interest than the specific solutions
on offer. As argued below, it is this concern that ensures terrorism studies remains
constituted around a restrictively narrow conception of academic responsibility: a
conception tied not to critical enquiry, but to problem-solving analysis.
Militarising approaches typically conceptualize terrorism as a category of warfare –
albeit an unconventional one. Presented in these terms, the most appropriate mechanisms
for confronting or preventing this behaviour are unsurprisingly located within the
purview of military measures. In recent times, this orientation has led several to discuss
the utility of preventative force as a strategy for confronting this particular threat (Litwak,
2002; Schultz & Vogt, 2003:25-26). In Steinberg’s (2005:70) account, for example:
The threat or use of preventive force is neither a magic bullet nor anathema; but the Bush administration is correct in asserting that some threats simply cannot be addressed by waiting until they become actual or ‘imminent’ as traditionally understood.
Other discussions locatable within this militarising rubric include debates over the
appropriateness of psychological warfare as a counter-terrorist instrument (Kimhi &
Even, 2004:833); calls for greater strategic clarity in military responses to terror (Omand,
2005:109-111); and demands for a reinforcement of homeland security (Pape, 2003:356-
357). In each of these accounts, terrorism as a form of unconventional warfare must be
confronted as such: traditional practices of bargaining and negotiation simply cannot
succeed in countering this threat (Chellaney, 2002:107-108).
A second approach to this problem of response treats terrorism not as a military issue, but
rather one of criminality (Katzenstein, 2002:53; Dhanapala, 2005:23). In its
internationalist guise, supporters of this perspective advocate international law to
prosecute those associated with ‘terrorist’ acts (Archibugi & Young, 2002; Drumbl,
2002:359-360; Parker, 2007), and to reduce future attacks through the development and
employment of international conventions (Wirtz, 2002; Raphaeli, 2003:80). More
domestically-oriented contributions include explorations into the appropriateness of
intelligence-gathering as a counter-terrorist mechanism (Gregory, 2003:141; Jordan &
Boix, 2004:12-14). The frequently impassioned debate over the balancing of liberty and
security in counter-terrorist policy may be approached as a discussion on the limits of
this criminalizing perspective (compare Waldron, 2004; Meisels, 2005), with questions
of ‘liberal democratic torture’ having received particular attention in contemporary
In the absence of a more appropriate signifier, the final set of approaches to this question
of response may be termed liberal. These approaches differ, importantly, from each of
the above in mobilising a potentially far deeper conception of causality. Rather than
understanding terrorism as a technical problem to be countered, eliminated or managed,
they typically view this behaviour as a symptom of underlying structural dynamics. In
this sense, recommendations include increasing attention to diplomatic efforts for
resolving local sources of conflict (Haleem, 2004; Stevenson, 2006) and demands for the
temporal and spatial extension of international democracy and human rights norms
(Cotton, 2003:167-168). Although not necessarily eschewing targeted military
intervention, or the seeking of better intelligence, these approaches offer a longer-term
approach to the resolution of terrorism. As Nossel (2004:131) suggests in a recent
contribution, “Unlike conservatives, who rely on military power as the main tool of
statecraft, liberal internationalists see trade, diplomacy, foreign aid, and the spread of
American values as equally important”.
Although these liberal approaches offer a coherent political alternative to the militarising
and criminalising perspectives, a shared concern with the efficacy of counter-terrorist
strategy clearly transcends their differences. Despite the differing models of causality
underpinning their contributions, then, a discernible ‘problem-solving’ orientation may
be identified across all of these literatures. As argued below, it is this common ambition
towards policy-relevant research that opens considerable space for the emergence of a
critical terrorism studies programme.
The spaces of critical terrorism studies
So diverse are the standpoints represented in the above debates that it would be a little
disingenuous to approach them as anything akin to a Kuhnian paradigm of normal
terrorism research (Kuhn, 1996, see also Wilkinson, 1987). One prominent figure in the
discipline, indeed, has long-lamented the failure of terrorism studies to progress to the
level of a mature and explanatory framework of knowledge (Silke, 2001; 2004:2). By
approaching those discussions collectively, however, it is possible to identify two
common points of reference within the field as presently constituted. The first relates to
the overwhelming preference for an essentialist conception of terrorism as a coherent and
bounded object of knowledge. The second, the related preference for producing policy-
relevant research. By exploring these commonalities, this section reflects on the
analytical and normative spaces available for a more explicitly critical framework of
analysis: however we are to interpret that label.
In social science more broadly, several authors have identified a growing hostility
towards essentialist thinking (Sayer, 1997:453-454; Edgley, 2005:134). Whatever the
accuracy of this observation, the above discussion suggests that this development is yet
to reach the domain of terrorism studies. With the relevant literature still overwhelmingly
dominated by those quests for definition, causation and effective response, terrorism is
very rarely approached as anything other than a fully formed, and extra-discursive, object
of knowledge. Attributed an existence entirely independent of the viewing subject’s
perceptions or values, terrorism is presumed to exist not as social construction,
performance or representation, but, rather, as an objective entity that is given, not made.
Although the difficulties of achieving a single definition or explanatory schema are often
noted, the reasons for this are frequently presumed contingent (relating to political
exigencies and so forth) rather than inherent to the tasks themselves. For the majority of
those working in this field, then, there is little reason to suspect terrorism in principle
incapable of capture by our linguistic (and subsequently legislative) frameworks. As such,
the problem of defining and explaining this bringer of violence remains as urgent and
valid as ever.
Although it may be possible to identify strategic, even normative, grounds for
conceptualising terrorism as a coherent object of knowledge, this essentialist orthodoxy
is unfortunate for two reasons. First, by attributing terrorism an objective existence,
mainstream terrorism studies offers very limited space for reflecting on the historical and
social processes through which this identity, behaviour or threat has itself been
constituted. With the interpretive, symbolic and discursive contexts of its creation – to
say nothing of the relations of power traversing these contexts – here presumed irrelevant
for understanding this phenomenon, terrorism remains consistently and artificially
detached from the processes of its construction. In this sense, we could do far worse here
than remember Foucault’s (1981:67) famous cautionary note when encountering claims
to speak the truth about terrorism: “We must not imagine that the world turns towards us
a legible face which we would have only to decipher”.
Foucault’s meta-theoretical caution will not, of course, convince everyone of the need for
further critical reflection in this field. By turning to the very specific, and narrow, essence
attributed to terrorism within the mainstream debates, however, it may be possible to
garner further support for such a research programme. As the above discussion suggests,
existing studies remain overwhelmingly structured by a conception of their object as an
unconventional form of illegitimate violence. With relatively few exceptions, the
majority of scholars working here are content to tie their understanding of this violence
both to the activities of particular non-state actors, and to the targeting of particular
victims: non-combatants or (more emotively) ‘innocent civilians’. With reflections on the
nature and causes of terrorism already framed around this double condemnation, then,
discussions relating to the legitimacy of terrorism, or, indeed, the possibility of state
terrorism, become systematically excluded from this field of enquiry before they emerge.
As outlined below, it is an attempt to contest these exclusionary practices that largely
motivates the first, broadening, face of critical terrorism studies.
Given the above preference for a specific and narrow essentialist framework, it is perhaps
unsurprising that terrorism studies has tended towards producing policy-relevant research.
In seeking not only to define and explain, but also to prevent or resolve their object of
knowledge, this structuring of the discipline necessarily mobilizes a very limited
conception of academic responsibility. In Robert Cox’s famous terminology, as noted by
Gunning (2007), terrorism studies has overwhelmingly functioned as a problem-solving
pursuit that:
… takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and power relationships and the institutions into which they are organized, as the given framework for action. The general aim of problem solving is to make these relationships and institutions work smoothly by dealing
effectively with particular sources of trouble. (1996:88).
As Cox’s remarks suggest, the problem-solving approach to the study of terrorism is
normatively problematic in its reducing academic responsibility to a technical exercise of
risk governance or management. At best, such a reduction militates against any notion of
critical enquiry aimed at contesting or destabilizing the status-quo: of ‘saying the
unsayable’ in Booth’s (2008:68) terminology. At worst, it simply reifies a tired and
unstable inside/outside dichotomy that functions to legitimize the state’s continued
monopoly on violence. In this sense, then, the continued structuring of the mainstream
literature around the above three debates fails to offer any meaningful participatory role
for active or engaged scholarship.
In sum, although characterized by considerable diversity, the terrorism studies literature
suffers from key analytical and normative limitations. Analytically, the preference for a
narrowly essentialist framework not only neglects the processes of terrorism’s
construction, it also reduces the space available for discussing the (il)legitimacy of
particular violences. Normatively, the preference for producing policy-relevant and
problem-solving research works to detach academic responsibility from any notion of
critical enquiry. These limitations, I argue, open considerable space for the emergence of
a critical terrorism studies framework.
The faces of critical terrorism studies
The remainder of this article explores the implications of two rather different styles of
critical response to the above limitations. Although much of the literature drawn on
below avoids explicitly locating itself under a critical terrorism studies heading, a shared
attempt to radically rethink the politics of terror renders a collective exploration of these
accounts useful. This is not, of course, to negate or diminish the important differences in
normative and analytical stance separating these works. Rather, to identify critical points
of entry into an otherwise relatively bounded field of enquiry. As outlined above, the two
responses are referred to as the broadening and interpretivist faces of critical terrorism
studies.
The first face of critical terrorism studies: broadening our understanding of terror
The most high profile approach to rethinking the study of terrorism takes its cue from the
earliest achievements of the Critical Security Studies literature. For scholars associated
with the Copenhagen and Welsh schools alike, a key strategy for resisting the orthodoxy
of political realism was to be found in extending the concept of security beyond its
restrictively militaristic connotations (Smith, 2005). By demonstrating the capacity of
ecological, societal and economic structures to function as pervasive challenges to the
survival of individuals and communities, these discussions were remarkably successful in
broadening the discursive and political parameters of a previously narrow sub-field. That
we are no longer surprised to encounter the framing of HIV/AIDS, climate change or
poverty within the lexicon of security studies should offer us a powerful reminder of
those scholars’ attainments.
For some time now, a similar project has been gaining momentum within the literature
on terrorism and unconventional violence. Most strongly associated with the writings of
Noam Chomsky (1991; 2001:89-91; 2002a:7; 2002b:71), these works encourage us to
rethink the unnecessarily restrictive yet pervasive conception of terrorism employed in
the mainstream debates. By extending our understanding of this term beyond its narrow
attachment to non-state violence on civilians, this work has been key in drawing our
attention to the possibility that states also engage in behaviour we may meaningfully
term terrorist. As Halliday (2002:72) suggests, “…it is important in any evaluation of the
use of violence in politics, and in adjudication of crimes against humanity committed in
the contemporary world, not to lose sight of what one can term ‘terrorism from above’.”
Such an understanding is crucial, according to Wilkinson, for “Historically, states have
conducted terror on a far more massive and lethal scale than groups” (2001:19).
Although predicated on an analytical challenge to the mainstream discussions, the appeal
of this first face of critical terrorism studies is clearly normative. By effectively offering a
more consistent or honest understanding of terrorism, advocates of this approach offer a
means of contesting the selective (mis)application of this signifier for reasons of mere
political expedience (on this, see George, 1991:77; Held, 2004:66). In this sense, adding
breadth to the language of terrorism is depicted as an important critical moment in the
(increasingly urgent) effort to “…wrest control of the terminology of terrorism away
from the politic-military elites of the world, to keep them from using it to flog their real
or imagined enemies” (Mustafa, 2005:76). For, as Sorel (2003:370) suggests:
…if one keeps searching for acts of terrorism without defining terrorism itself, then its denunciation is encouraged more than its understanding by confusing the reasons for an action with its explanation, definition and support. In place of proper definitions we have to cope with descriptions of terrorist behaviour, which is more a social judgement than the comprehension of a global phenomenon.
These demands that researchers participate in the broadening of terrorism studies
function as a powerful call for critical distance in scholarship. By drawing our attention
to the possible intrusion of political and institutional contexts into academic inquiry, they
remind us that analytical frameworks and constructs are themselves embedded in
historical, discursive and ultimately social problematics. With this in mind, we do need to
be wary here of constructing a dubious ethical binary between the noble academic and
the murky world of raison d’etat. We also need to be aware that conceptual overlaps or
programmes of funding linking scholars and policy-makers do not necessarily indicate
Boyle, 2008:59-60). That said, it is, of course, desirable that academia resists the
temptation of becoming an ideological state apparatus passively internalising the threats
occupying political elites. In this sense, this first face offers an attractive and doubly
emancipatory promise: a promise to free not only scholars from outdated concepts, but
also to free the direct or indirect victims of violence from nefarious political
manoeuvrings. If at times implicit, this offer of an engaged and active political
scholarship renders the broadening moment an appealing normative alternative to the
mainstream debates.
Turning to the analytical limitations of the mainstream literature on terrorism, this first
face of critical terrorism studies becomes unfortunately less productive. Although a
willingness to contest this field’s central concepts potentially facilitates our escaping the
narrow essence frequently attributed to terrorism, we are ultimately left with the same
problem-solving quest for denotation, causation and response. Terrorism, in these
approaches, remains in place as an extra-discursive object of knowledge and a problem to
be resolved: albeit a problem that extends beyond its commonly denoted parameters.
Chomsky’s (1991:12) distinction between the propagandistic and literal approaches to
the study of terrorism demonstrates this similarity nicely:
Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon – concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious – and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as “terrorist” just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed “retaliation” or “self-defense”.
As Chomsky’s discussion suggests, attempts to broaden our understanding of terrorism
ultimately reinstate the same ontological and epistemological certainties encountered in
the orthodox discussions. Once again, terrorism is approached here as an objective reality
external to the student of terrorism. Once again, scholars are deemed able to access this
reality. In this sense, this approach takes us no further towards exploring the important
historical, social, political and discursive conditions by which terrorism emerges as an
identity, problem or threat for policy-making, academic and popular audiences. As
outlined below, we need to turn to an alternative body of critical literature to address
these concerns.
In sum, this first face of critical terrorism studies takes not only its cue, but also its
strengths and weaknesses from key contributions to the earlier Critical Security Studies
project. Where useful in contesting moments of inconsistency in uses of this signifier,
this broadening approach clearly facilitates a more engaged role for the student of
political violence. By ultimately condemning itself to the same analytical project as the
mainstream discussions, however, this approach is far less valuable as a corrective to
their meta-theoretical limitations.
The second face of critical terrorism studies: contesting constructions of terror
An alternative critical route into the politics of terror derives its inspiration from a
considerable and broad body of post-positivist literature (see, for example, Doty, 1993;
Campbell 1998a, 1998b; Neumann, 1999). Although again not always explicit in
adopting the critical terrorism studies label, this work offers another important departure
from the mainstream debates. In contrast to the first face, these literatures function as a
collective attempt to disturb rather than replace conventional understandings of
terrorism: an attempt to substitute the search for a more accurate language of terror with
an exploration of terror’s constructions, representations and performances. This focus, I
argue, renders this work capable of addressing the normative and analytical limitations of
the mainstream literatures in a way that the first face was unable to do.1
One of the more interesting dimensions of this second critical face concerns discussions
of the ways in which specific events are constructed as acts of terrorism. Reflections on
the sustained recycling of the 9/11 footage, for example, have been very productive in
illustrating the importance of these practices for inscribing significance and
incomprehensibility into those events (Robinson, 2003; Feldman, 2005: 213; Tracy,
2005). In Morris’s (2004:405) excellent summary:
When the second plane hit the World Trade Center in New York, it not only proved that this was not an accident but an intentionally produced event, it inaugurated a period of constant imagistic repetition, the function of which was not to explain the event but to declaim it as having occurred and, thus, to produce a reality effect. While the images threatened to introduce a question about the verity of ‘real-time’ coverage by extending the duration of the event almost indefinitely, their repetitious broadcasting also made them resistant to analysis. Saturating every television screen, they seemed to testify only to the incomprehensibility of the event/image.
Investigations into framings of those attacks from a range of discursive sites have been
similarly productive in unpacking the assumptions and implications of specific narratives
of terror (see Edkins, 2002; Silberstein, 2002:1-17; Zelizer, 2002; Kennedy, 2003;
1 Although the focus here is on contemporary literatures, earlier works of relevance to this second face include Feldman (1991) and Zulaika & Douglass (1996).
2005:70; Tracy, 2005). Reflecting on the dehumanising and depoliticising impact of this
language, these analyses improve our understanding of its centrality in further
legitimising aggressive counter-terrorist strategies. By also reflecting, finally, on the
return to Orientalist discourse in recent productions of terrorism, this literature further
sheds light on the differential implications of counter-terrorist practices for specific
individuals, communities and states (Lazar & Lazar, 2004: 234-236). As Salter
(2002:163) provocatively summarizes:
In rhetorically distancing these terrorists as ‘barbarians’, the administration hopes that all manner of extra-legal international violence will be tolerated by the society of nations and that other Muslim countries may be appeased and co-opted to the American alliance.
The above discussion demonstrates the considerable departure made by this second face
of critical terrorism studies. Where the first face offered a rigorous normative challenge
to the orthodox debates, this body of work addresses their analytical and normative
limitations. In the first instance, by resisting the appeal of a more accurate lexicon of
terrorism, these accounts offer us far more than the promise of substituting one set of
definitions or explanatory typologies for another. By reversing the gaze to explore not
terrorism per se, but, rather, representations of terrorism, they pose considerable potential
for removing us from an irresolvable and ultimately foundation-less empiricist game: an
empiricist game constructed around the trading of truths about terrorism. Approached in
this way, this work holds significant potential for scholars seeking to resist the
essentialism characterising each of the above bodies of literature.
Although less immediately obvious than the first face above, this second broad critical
approach also mobilizes a far more engaged normative project than the mainstream
debates. By highlighting the contingent structuration, exclusionary construction, and
politico-strategic functions of narratives, images and discourses of terror, this face opens
considerable space for a ‘counter-memorializing’ (Ashley & Walker, 1990:385)
alternative to the militaristic framings that continue to dominate discussions of terrorism.
In so doing, this work holds significant opportunity for an engaged and critical
scholarship seeking to contest, destabilize and intervene in the politics of terror. This
ethical commitment to otherness – other readings of terror, other responses to terror, and,
ultimately, other ways of life – I argue, offers the scholar of terrorism a genuine
alternative to the ameliorative, problem-solving role of the above mainstream and first
face discussions (on this, see, for example, Campbell, 1998a: 4-5; Roffe, 2004:44). As
such, if the critical terrorism studies programme is to succeed in radically reframing
discussions of political violence, it will ultimately only do so from further attention to
this interpretivist sensibility.
Conclusion
If the critical terrorism studies programme is to replicate the achievements of the Critical
Security Studies project(s), further reflection on the notion of critique employed by its
advocates is likely to be crucial. As we have seen, the differences between the two faces
explored in this article largely follow their distinct approaches to critical enquiry. At the
risk of homogenising several considerable bodies of literature, those working within the
first, broadening, face offer a form of juxtapositional critique in substituting one
conception of terrorism for an alternative – more accurate – account. Although an
appealing normative call to detachment and distance in scholarship, this approach
ultimately functioned to reinforce the questions and paradigms structuring the
mainstream debates. In this sense, it was unable to escape their significant analytical
limitations. Trading truths about terrorism, I argued, is critical only up to a point.
The second face of critical terrorism studies, by contrast, offers an alternative approach to
critique as a practice of destabilisation or discursive intervention (on this, see Campbell,
1998a: 4-8). Although this style of enquiry has its parallels in practices of immanent
critique and deconstruction (see, for example, Roffe, 2004:44; Wyn Jones, 2005:228),
Foucault’s (1988:154-155) famous synopsis still remains useful:
A critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest. ...Criticism is a matter of flushing out that thought and trying to change it: to show that things are not as self-evident as one believed, to see that what is accepted as self-evident will no longer be accepted as such. Practicing criticism is a matter of making facile gestures difficult.
As argued above, by encouraging us to contest specific constructions of
(counter)terrorism alongside their political functions and implications, this second face
offers the responsible scholar of terror a far more active and analytically sound strategy
for practising criticism than either of its alternatives.
References
Agathangelou, Anna & L.H.M. Ling, 2004. ‘Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11’, International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 517-538. Alam, Anwar, 2003. ‘The Sociology and Political Economy of “Islamic Terrorism” In Egypt’, Terrorism and Political Violence 15(4): 114-142. Archibugi, Daniele & I.M. Young, 2002. ‘Toward a Global Rule of Law’, Dissent 49(2): 27-32. Arena, Michael & Bruce Arrigo, 2005. ‘Social Psychology, Terrorism and Identity: A Preliminary Re-examination of Theory, Culture, Self and Society’, Behavioural Sciences
and the Law 23(4): 485-506. Armstrong, Karen, 2001. ‘Was It Inevitable?: Islam Through History’, in James Hoge & Gideon Rose, eds., How Did This Happen?: Terrorism and the New War. New York: Public Affairs (53-70).
Ashley, Richard & Rob Walker, 1990. ‘Conclusion: Reading dissidence/writing the discipline: crisis and the question of sovereignty in international studies’, International
Studies Quarterly 34(3): 367-416. Badey, Thomas, 1998. ‘Defining International Terrorism: A Pragmatic Approach’, Terrorism and Political Violence 10(1): 90-107. Barber, Benjamin, R., 2003. Jihad Vs. McWorld: Terrorism’s Challenge to Democracy. London: Corgi. Bellamy, Alex, 2006. ‘No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror’, International Affairs 82(1): 121-148. Berman, Paul, 2003. Terror and Liberalism. London: W.W. Norton and Company. Booth, Ken & Tim Dunne, 2002. ‘Worlds in Collision’, in Ken Booth & Tim Dunne, eds., Worlds in Collision: Terrorism and the Future of Global Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave (1-23). Booth, Ken, 2005. ‘Critical Explorations’, in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies
and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner (1-18). Booth, Ken, 2008. ‘The human faces of terror: reflections in a cracked looking-glass’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(1): 65-79. Braungart, Richard & Margaret Braungart, 2002. ‘From Protest to Terrorism: The Case of SDS and The Weathermen’, in Harvey Kushner, ed., Essential Readings on Political
Terrorism: Analyses of Problems and Prospects for the 21st Century. Nebraska:
University of Nebraska Press (78-118). Burke, Anthony, 2008. ‘The end of terrorism studies’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(1): 37-49. Burke, Jason, 2003. Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror. London: I.B. Tauris Burnett, Jonny & Dave Whyte, 2005. ‘Embedded Expertise and the New Terrorism’, Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media 1(4): 1-18. Byman, Daniel, 2003. ‘Al Qaeda as an Adversary: Do We Understand Our Enemy?’, World Politics 56(1): 139-163. Campbell, David, 1998a. National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in
Bosnia. London: University of Minnesota Press. Campbell, David, 1998b. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics
of Identity (Revised Edition). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Chellaney, Brahma, 2002. ‘Fighting Terrorism in Southern Asia: The Lessons of History’, International Security 26(3): 94-116. Chomsky, Noam, 1991. ‘International Terrorism: Image and Reality’, in Alexander George, ed., Western State Terrorism. Cambridge: Polity (12-38). Chomsky, Noam, 2001. 9-11. New York: Seven Stories Press. Chomsky, Noam, 2002a. Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism
in the Real World (2nd Edition). London: Pluto.
Chomsky, Noam, 2002b. ‘September 11 Aftermath: Where is the World Heading?’, in Phil Scraton ed., Beyond September 11: An Anthology of Dissent. London: Pluto (66-71). Coady, C.A.J., 2004. ‘Defining Terrorism’, in Igor Primoratz, ed., Terrorism: The
Philosophical Issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave (3-14). Collins, John, 2005. ‘Terrorism’, in John Collins & Ross Glover, eds., Collateral
Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War. London: New York University Press (155-173). Cotton, James, 2003. ‘Southeast Asia after 11 September’, Terrorism and Political
Violence 15(1): 148-170. Cox, Robert, W., 1996. ‘Social forces, states, and world orders: beyond international relations theory (1981)’, in Robert W. Cox with Timothy J. Sinclair eds., Approaches to
World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (85-123).
Crenshaw, Martha, 1981. ‘The Causes of Terrorism’, Comparative Politics 13(4): 379-399. Croft, Stuart, 2006, Culture, Crisis and America’s War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cronin, Audrey, 2003. ‘Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism’, International Security 27(3): 30-58. Dalby, Simon, 1997. ‘Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas in Contemporary Security Discourse’, in Keith Krause & Michael Williams eds., Critical
Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. London: UCL Press (3-31). Das, Veena, 2002. ‘Violence and Translation’, Anthropological Quarterly 75(1): 105-112. De la Hodde, Lucien, 1987. ‘The Disaffected’, in Walter Laqueur, & Yonah Alexander, eds., The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology (2
nd Edition). New York: Meridian
(184-189). Der Derian, James, 2004. ‘9/11 and Its Consequences for the Discipline’, Zeitschrift fur
Internationale Beziehungen 11(1): 89-100. Devetak, Richard, 2005. ‘The Gothic scene of international relations: ghosts, monsters, terror and the sublime after September 11’, Review of International Studies 31(4): 621-643. Dhanapala, Jayantha, 2005. ‘The United Nations’ Response to 9/11’, Terrorism and
Political Violence 17(1/2): 17-23. Doty, Roxanne, 1993. ‘Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counter-Insurgency Policy in the Philippines’, International Studies Quarterly 37(3): 297-320. Drumbl, Mark, 2002. ‘Judging the September 11 Terrorist Attack’, Human Rights
Quarterly 24(2): 323-360. Durodié, Bill, 2007. ‘Fear and Terror in a Post-Political Age’, Government and
Opposition 42(3): 427-450. Edgley, Alison, 2005. ‘Chomsky’s Political Critique: Essentialism and Political Theory’, Contemporary Political Theory 4(1): 129-153. Edkins, Jenny, 2002. ‘Forget Trauma? Responses to September 11’, International
Relations 16(2): 243-256. Edwards, John, 2004. ‘After the Fall’, Discourse & Society 15(2-3): 155-184. Feldman, Allen, 1991. Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political
Terror in Northern Ireland. London: The University of Chicago Press. Feldman, Allen, 2005. ‘On The Actuarial Gaze: From 9/11 to Abu Grahib’, Cultural
Studies 19(2): 203-226. Flint, Colin, 2003. ‘Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Geographic Research Questions and Agendas’, The Professional Geographer 55(2): 161-169. Foot, Rosemary, 2006. ‘Torture: The Struggle over a Peremptory Norm in a Counter-Terrorist era’, International Relations 20(2): 131-151. Foucault, Michel, 1981. ‘The order of discourse’, in Robert Young, ed., Untying the
Text: A Poststructuralist Reader. London: Routledge (48-77). Foucault, Michel, 1988. ‘Practicing Criticism’, in Lawrence Kritzman, ed., Michel
Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977-1984. London: Routledge (152-156). Freedman, Lawrence, 2007. ‘Terrorism as a Strategy’, Government and Opposition 42(3): 314-339. Ganor, Boaz, 2005. The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle: A Guide for Decision-Makers. New Jersey: Transaction.
George, Alexander, 1991. ‘The Discipline of Terrorology’, in Alexander George, ed., Western State Terrorism. Cambridge: Polity (76-101). Glover, Ross, 2002. ‘The War on ___’, in John Collins & Ross Glover, eds., Collateral
Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War. London: New York University Press (207-222). Goldman, Emma, 1987. ‘The Psychology of Political Violence’, in Walter Laqueur & Yonah Alexander, eds., The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology (2
nd Edition).
New York: Meridian (193-198). Gordon, Avishag, 1999. ‘Terrorism Dissertations and the Evolution of a Speciality: An Analysis of Meta-Information’, Terrorism and Political Violence 11(2): 141-150. Green, Penny, 2002. ‘A Question of State Crime?’, in Phil Scraton, ed., Beyond
September 11: An Anthology of Dissent. London: Pluto (71-77). Gregory, Shaun, 2003. ‘France and the War on Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political
Violence 15(1): 124-147. Gunning, Jeroen, 2007, ‘A case for Critical Terrorism Studies?’, Government and
Opposition 42(3): 363-393. Habermas, Jürgen, 2003. ‘Fundamentalism and Terror: A Dialogue with Jürgen Habermas’, in Giovanna Borradori, ed., Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with
Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. London: The University of Chicago Press (25-43). Haleem, Irm, 2004. ‘Micro Target, Macro Impact: The Resolution Of The Kashmir Conflict As A Key To Shrinking Al-Qaeda’s International Terrorist Network’, Terrorism
and Political Violence 16(1): 18-47. Halliday, Fred, 2002. Two Hours that Shook the World: September 11, 2001: Causes and
Consequences. London: Saqi Books. Held, Virginia, 2004. ‘Terrorism, Rights, and Political Goals’, in Igor Primoratz, ed., Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave (65-79). Herman, Edward & Gerry O’Sullivan, 1991. ‘“Terrorism” as Ideology and Cultural Industry”, in Alexander George, ed., Western State Terrorism. Cambridge: Polity (39-75). Horgan, John & Michael Boyle, 2008. ‘A case against ‘Critical Terrorism Studies’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(1): 51-64. Howard, Michael, 2006. ‘A Long War?’, Survival 48(4): 7-14. Israeli, Raphael, 2002. ‘A Manuel of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism’, Terrorism and
Political Violence 14(4): 23-40. Jackson, Richard, 2005. Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-
Terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Jackson, Richard, 2007a. ‘Responses’, International Affairs 83(1): 165-177. Jackson, Richard, 2007b. ‘Constructing Enemies’: Islamic Terrorism in Political and Academic Discourse’, Government and Opposition 42(3): 394-426. Jarvis, Lee, 2008. ‘Times of Terror: Writing Temporality into the War on Terror’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(2): 245-262. Jenkins, Brian, 2001. ‘The Organization Men: Anatomy of a Terrorist Attack’, in James Hoge & Gideon Rose, eds., How Did This Happen?: Terrorism and the New War. New York: Public Affairs (1-14). Jentleson, Bruce, 2002. ‘The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In’, International Security 26(4): 169-183. Jordan, Javier & Luisa Boix, 2004. ‘Al-Qaeda and Western Islam’, Terrorism and
Political Violence 16(1): 1-17. Katzenstein, Peter, 2002. ‘September 11th in Comparative Perspective: The Antiterrorism Campaigns of Germany and Japan’, Dialogue-IO 1(1): 45-56.
Kennedy, Liam, 2003. ‘Remembering September 11: photography as cultural diplomacy’, International Affairs 79(2): 315-326. Kennedy, Robert, 1999. ‘Is One Person’s Terrorist Another’s Freedom Fighter? Western and Islamic Approaches to ‘Just War’ Compared’, Terrorism and Political Violence 11(1): 1-21. Kimhi, Saul & Shemuel Even, 2004. ‘Who are the Palestinian Suicide Bombers?’, Terrorism and Political Violence 16(4): 815-840. Krueger, Alan & Jitka Malekcova, 2003. ‘Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is there a Causal Connection?’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(4): 119-144. Kruglanski, Arie & Shira Fishman, 2006. ‘Terrorism Between “Syndrome” and “Tool”’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(1): 45-48. Kuhn, Thomas, 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3
rd Edition). London:
University of Chicago Press. Laqueur, Walter, 1987. ‘Introductory Note’, in Walter Laqueur, & Yonah Alexander, eds., The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology (2
nd Edition). New York: Meridian
(183-184). Laqueur, Walter, 2003. No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. London: Continuum. Lazar, Annita & Michelle M. Lazar, 2004. ‘The Discourse of the New World Order: ‘out-casting’ the double face of threat’, Discourse & Society 15(2-3): 223-242. Leudar, Ivan, Victoria Marsland & Jiří Nekvapil, 2004. ‘On membership categorization: ‘us’, ‘them’ and ‘doing violence’ in political discourse’, Discourse & Society 15(2-3): 243-266. Lewis, Jeff, 2005. Language Wars: The Role of Media and Culture in Global Terror and
Political Violence. London: Pluto. Litwak, Robert, 2002. ‘The new calculus of pre-emption’, Survival 44(4): 53-80. Lukes, Stephen, 2006. ‘Liberal Democratic Torture’, British Journal of Political Science 36(1): 1-16. Malik, Omar, 2000. Enough of the Definition of Terrorism. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Mathiesen, Thomas. 2002. ‘Expanding the Concept of Terrorism?’, in Phil Scraton, ed., Beyond September 11: An Anthology of Dissent. London: Pluto (84-93). McCormick, Gordon, 2003. ‘Terrorist Decision Making’, Annual Review of Political
Science 6(1): 473-507. Meisels, Tamar, 2005. ‘How Terrorism Upsets Liberty’, Political Studies 53(1): 162-181. Meisels, Tamar, 2006. ‘The Trouble with Terror: The Apologetics of Terrorism - a Refutation’, Terrorism and Political Violence 18(3): 465-483. Merari, Ariel, 1993. ‘Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency’, Terrorism and Political
Violence 5(4): 213-251. Morris, R. (2004) ‘Images of Untranslatibility in the US War on Terror’, Interventions 6(3): 401-423. Mustafa, Daanish. 2005. ‘The Terrible Geographicalness of Terrorism: Reflections of a Hazards Geographer’, Antipode 37(1): 72-92. Neumann, Ivan, 1999. Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Nossel, Suzanne, 2004. ‘Smart Power’, Foreign Affairs 83(2): 131-142. Omand, David, 2005. ‘Countering International Terrorism: The Use of Strategy’, Survival 47(4): 107-116. Pape, Robert, 2003. ‘The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism’, American Political
Science Review 97(33): 343-361.
Parker, Tom, 2007. ‘Fighting an Antaean Enemy: How Democratic States Unintentionally Sustain the Terrorist Movements They Oppose’, Terrorism and Political
Violence 19(2): 155-179. Pedahzur, Ami, 2004. ‘Toward an Analytical Model of Suicide Terrorism – A Comment’, Terrorism and Political Violence 16(4): 841-844. Pedhazur, Ami, William Eubank & Leonard Weinberg, 2002. ‘The War on Terrorism and the Decline of Terrorist Group Formation: A Research Note’, Terrorism and
Political Violence 14(3): 141-147. Philpott, 2002. ‘The Challenge of September 11 to Secularism in International Relations’, World Politics 55(1): 66-95. Post, Jerrold, 2002. ‘Terrorist on Trial: The Context of Political Crime’, in Harvey Kushner, ed., Essential Readings on Political Terrorism: Analyses of Problems and
Prospects for the 21st Century. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press (46-61).
Puar, Jasbir, K. & Amit S. Rai, 2002. ‘Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War on Terrorism and the Production of Docile Patriots’, Social Text 72 20(3): 117-148. Rai, Amit, S., 2004. ‘Of monsters: Biopower, terrorism and excess in genealogies of monstrosity’, Cultural Studies 18(4): 538-570. Raphaeli, Nimrod, 2003. ‘Financing of Terrorism: Sources, Methods, and Channels’, Terrorism and Political Violence 15(4): 59-82. Richardson, Louise, 1999. ‘Terrorists as Transnational Actors’, Terrorism and Political
Violence 11(1): 209-219. Richardson, Louise, 2006. What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Terrorist Threat. London: John Murray. Robinson, Cedric, J., 2003. ‘The Comedy of Terror’, Radical History Review 85(1): 164-170. Roffe, Jonathan, 2004. ‘Ethics’, in Jack Reynolds & Jonathan Roffe, eds., Understanding
Derrida. London: Continuum (37-45). Rogers, Paul, 2004. A War on Terror: Afghanistan and After. London: Pluto. Ruby, Charles, 2002. ‘Are Terrorists Mentally Deranged?’, Analyses of Social Issues and
Public Policy 2(1): 15-26. Salter, Mark 2002. Barbarians and Civilization in International Relations. London: Pluto Sayer, Andrew, 1997. ‘Essentialism, social constructionism, and beyond’, The
Sociological Review 45(3): 453-487. Schultz, Richard & Andreas Vogt, 2003. ‘It’s War! Fighting Post-11 September Global Terrorism Through a Doctrine of Pre-Emption’, Terrorism and Political Violence 15(1): 1-30. Scruton, Roger, 2002. The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat. London: Continuum. Sedgwick, Mark, 2004. ‘Al-Qaeda and the nature of Religious Terrorism’, Terrorism and
Political Violence 16(4): 795-814. Silberstein, Sandra, 2002. War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11. London: Routledge. Silke, Andrew, 2001. ‘The Devil You Know: Continuing Problems with Research on Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence 13(4): 1-14. Silke, Andrew, 2004. ‘An Introduction to Terrorism Research’, in Andrew Silke, ed., Research into Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. London: Routledge (1-29). Smith, Steve, 2000. ‘The Increasing Insecurity of Security Studies: Conceptualizing Security in the Last Twenty Years’, in Stuart Croft & Terry Terriff, eds., Critical
Reflections on Security and Change. London: Frank Cass (72-101).
Smith, Steve, 2004. ‘Singing our world into existence: International Relations Theory and September 11: Presidential Address to the International Studies Association, February 27, 2003, Portland, OR’, International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 499-515. Smith, Steve 2005. ‘The Contested Concept of Security’, in Ken Booth, ed., Critical
Security Studies and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner (27-62). Sorel, Jean-Marc, 2003. ‘Some Questions About the Definition of Terrorism and the Fight Against Its Financing’, European Journal of International Law 14(2): 365-378. Steinberg, James, 2005. ‘Preventive Force in US National Security Strategy’, Survival 47(4): 55-72. Stevenson, Jonathan, 2006. ‘Demilitarising the “War on Terror”’, Survival 48(2): 37-54. Stohl, Michael, 2005. ‘Is the Past Prologue?: Terrorists and WMD’, International Studies
Review 7(1): 146-148. Stohl, Michael, 2008. ‘Old myths, new fantasies and the enduring realities of terrorism’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(1): 5-16. Tan, Andrew, 2003. ‘Southeast Asia as the ‘Second Front’ in the War Against Terrorism: Evaluating the Threat and Responses’, Terrorism and Political Violence 15(2): 112-138. Tracy, James, F., 2005. ‘Bearing Witness to the Unspeakable: 9/11 and America’s New Global Imperialism’, The Journal of American Culture 28(1): 85-99. Turk, Austin, 2004. ‘Sociology of Terrorism’, Annual Review of Sociology 30(1): 271-286. Vågnes, Øyvind, 2005. ‘“Chosen to be Witness”: The Exceptionalism of 9/11’”, in Dana Heller, ed., The Selling of 9/11: How a National Tragedy Became a Commodity. Basingstoke: Palgrave (54-74). Waldron, Jeremy, 2004. ‘Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance’, Journal of
Political Philosophy 11(2): 191-210. Weber, Cynthia, 2008. ‘Popular visual language as global communication: the remediation of United Airlines Flight 93’, Review of International Studies 34(SI): 137-153. Whittaker, David, 2002. Terrorism: Understanding the Global Threat. London: Longman. Wilkinson, Paul, 1987. ‘Pathology and Theory’, in Walter Laqueur & Yonah Alexander, eds., The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology (2
nd Edition). New York: Meridian
(236-245). Wilkinson, Paul, 2001. Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. London: Frank Cass. Wirtz, James, 2002. ‘Counter-terrorism via Counter-Proliferation’, Terrorism and
Political Violence 14(3): 129-140. Wolfensohn, James, 2002. ‘Making the World a Better and Safer Place: The Time for Action is Now’, Politics 22(2): 118-123. Wyn Jones, Richard, 2005. ‘On Emancipation: Necessity, Capacity and Concrete Utopias’, in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner (215-235). Zelizer, Barbie, 2002. ‘Photography, Journalism and Trauma’, in Barbie Zelizer & Stuart Allan, ed’s., Journalism After September 11. London: Routledge (48-68). Zimmerman John, 2004. ‘Sayyid Qutb’s Influence on the 11 September Attacks’, Terrorism and Political Violence 16(2): 222-252. Zuk, Gerald & Carmen Zuk, 2002. ‘Negation Theory as a Cause of Delusion: The Case of The Unabomber’, in Harvey Kushner, ed., Essential Readings on Political Terrorism:
Analyses of Problems and Prospects for the 21st Century: Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press (70-77).
Zulaika, Joseba & William Douglass, 1996. Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables, and