Defining Terrorissm

Rachael Feldhausen

Professor Shirk

Global Politics of Terrorism

1/29/17

The Definition of Terrorism in the 21st Century

            After September 11th 2001, the current president George W. Bush, declared a ‘war on terror’. His grandiose statement left many scholars questioning the definition of terrorism. There are many interpretations of terrorism, and even now, seventeen years after the ‘war on terror’ was declared, there is still no scholarly consensus regarding the definition. In order for terrorism to be studied, analyzed, and fought against, it must be viewed as finite instead of a socially constructed thought. The U.S. State Department defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”. ^[1] In addition to this definition, terrorism also contains the use of violence is a tactic or strategy to further one’s political agenda. This political goal does not have to be a reaction or opposition to the current social order. The idea that only non governmental groups and organizations can commit acts of terrorism is too narrow minded, and protects governments that abuse the rights of their own citizens or blatantly harm the citizens of other countries. Therefore, the U.S. State Department provides an outline for the definition of terrorism that should be used universally with the addition of defining terrorist acts as a strategy for political gain that can be committed by both state and non-state actors.

            In his article, “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11,” David C. Rapport describes four waves of terrorism that existed throughout the last 135 years.^[2] While each wave represents a different aspect of terrorism, every wave is connected by the overarching idea that terrorism can be defined as actions against non-military personnel by non-state actors for a political purpose. The first wave that Rapport describes is the “anarchist wave” that started in the 1880’s and lasted for roughly 40 years.^[3] The anarchist terrorists of the time, including groups such as the Sons of Liberty, believed that “modern society contain[ed] huge reservoirs of latent ambivalence and hostility” which is “muffled and diffused” through “moral conventions” that work to generate guilt and that terrorism “is the quickest and most effective means to destroy” said conventions.^[4]  This example details a group with a political motive and philosophy that specifically targeted leaders, or non-combatants,with violence.

This overarching theme of Rapport’s paper is almost identical to the definition of terrorism provided by the U.S. State Department. Rapport’s analysis can be seen and used as a justification and explanation of the U.S. State Department’s definition of terrorism. However, Rapport fails to include state actors in his definition of terrorism, believing only non-governmental organizations capable of terrorism. Under the dictatorship of Hitler, the German government committed many atrocities against their own citizens who were ethnically Jewish or supported the Jewish communities. Hitler ordered the imprisonment, enslavement, and death of thousands of Jews for the purpose of creating a purely arian society. In other words, the German Government, under the leadership of the democratically elected Hitler, committed extreme acts of terror against their own, non-military civilians, for political gain. The actions now known as the Holocaust exemplify the necessity to expand Rapport’s definition of terrorism to include actions taken by both state and non-state actors. Given the nature of the word terrorism to spur world action, including states into the definition of terrorism creates a society in which it is no longer okay for states to abuse the rights of civilians.

            The actions taken by organizations for political goal should be defined as a tactic or strategy. Charles Tilly, is a political scientist who has analyzed and created a definition of terrorism in his article “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists”. Tilly defines terrorism as the “widely recurrent but imprecisely bounded political strategy” which includes the “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies”. ^[5] In other words, Tilly believes that “terrorists range across a wide spectrum of organizations, circumstances and beliefs”and that “the strategy of terror appears across a wide variety of political circumstances”.^[6] The way in which terrorism is used is a phenomenon that can only be described by a overarching theme attributing the use of terror as a strategy for political gain. Tilly provides a very broad interpretation of terrorism from which aspects can be taken in order to create a more coherent and tangible definition of terrorism.  However, Tilly fails to properly define what ‘political’ actually means. Terrorism is centered on violent actions taken for the goal of political change. Political change is any attempt to change a current government or societal structure.

Philip Bobbitt, in his work, “Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century”, proposes his own definition of terrorism by analyzing acts of terrorism spanning from the 1500s until the 21st century. Bobbitt defines terrorism as any politically oriented violent acts taken in opposition or reaction to the current world order.^[7] Terrorism has evolved and changed over time as social order evolves and changes. Terrorism will always be a reaction to the current order. This does not have to be the order of the state in which the terrorist group comes from, but could also be a reaction to the world order. For example, Bobbitt defines terrorism of the 21st century as a reaction to globalization and transnationalism.^[8] However, Bobbitt’s definition of terrorism is too constricting. Not all terrorism that is politically oriented and committed against non-combatants by state or non-state actors is made in reaction to the current order. For roughly 200 hundred years of the America’s history, colonists brutally attacked Native Americans, wiped out their culture, and forced them to flee their native homelands for the purpose of garnering more land. Most attacks committed by colonials were not justifiable and resulted acts that can be viewed as acts of terror. These actions were not committed as a reaction or opposition to the current order, but for the selfish need for more land and wealth. This is just one example of a form of terrorism existing outside Bobbitt’s definition, and shows how Bobbitt’s definition needs to be extended. While terrorism can be a reaction to the current world order, it does not always have to be.

In order for terrorism to be fought against and understood by society, it is important to regard terrorism as a finite and definable, studyable subject. Lisa Stampnitzky, author of the book, Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism”, believes that terrorism is a socially constructed term created for political gain that is “inherently associated with a moral judgement,” to mean “unacceptable violence”.^[9] Stampnitzky’s justification is that acts viewed as terrorism today were previously considered the work of rational, honorable actors. While terrorism may be used by governments and organizations to justify certain actions, the idea that it is a socially constructed concept that cannot and should not be defined allows for the continued maluse of the term. If terrorism is clearly defined and understood by both civilians and government officials then the term cannot be misused for political gains by elected officials. In order to properly combat terrorism one must know who they should be combating, and needs a solidified definition in order to do this.

Given the current lack of a solid and universally accepted definition of terrorism combined with the need for such a definition, it is important to analyze different political theories and from those theories, find the best and most applicable definition. Terrorism should be viewed as any violent action committed against non-combatants for political gain. Furthermore, this action should be a tactic or strategy used for the advancement of one’s political ideology and can be undertaken by both state and non-state actors. These goals merely have to be politically motivated. They do not have to be in reaction or opposition to the current order. This definition allows governments and civilians across the world to fully understand what it means to be a terrorist or commit an act of terrorism, and act accordingly on said actions.

---

^[1] Lecture “Lecture 1 Global Politics of Terrorism,” Mark Shirk, POL 357 A

^[2] David C. Rapport, “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11,” in Anthropoetics: the Journal of Generative Anthropology Vol. VIII, No. 1, 2002.

^[3] Rapport, “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11”.

^[4] Rapport, “The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11”.

^[5] Charles Tilly, “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists” in Sociological Theory Vol. 22, No. 1, “Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium”. Washington D.C.: American Sociological Association, 2004. Pg 5.

^[6] Tilly, “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists”, Pg. 11-12.

^[7] Philip Bobbitt, Terror and Consent: The Wars For the Twenty-First Century, New York: Alfred A Knopf, 2008. Pgs 26-63. 

^[8] Bobbitt, Terror and Consent: The Wars For the Twenty-First Century.

^[9] Lisa Stampnitzky, Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism”, United Kingdom: University of Cambridge Press. Chapters 1 & 3.