What is Terrorism? A Definitional Problem
Patrick Dancoes
Prof. Shirk
POL-357B
Defining Terrorism
1/29/18
What is Terrorism?
A Definitional Problem
Historically, violence and intimidation have gone hand in hand as strategies to further political and ideological goals. Nowadays, the prevalence of these tactics, commonly generalized as terrorism, on domestic and global soil have created the conditions for a regime backed by the United States to fight the proclaimed “war on terrorism.” To grasp exactly what the U.S. spends hundreds of billions of dollars on, it is best to have a clearly defined vocabulary of terrorism, as the absence of a universal definition encourages future terrorism, and also promotes the continuation of double-standards. Being so, this paper will attempt to synthesize terrorism into a compact definition and defend it against other possible definitions. Most succinctly, terrorism is “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (State Dept. ‘04 Definition)
The State Department’s definition successfully couples both very generalized and very specific language in regards to constructing a definition of terrorism. It specifically mentions intimidation as a tactic of fear-mongering to explain the aims of terrorism, yet references the victims with a broad stroke. This is important because terrorism can be waged against any segment of the world’s population, both non-combatants and combatants. Another crucial distinction made by this definition is of motivation and goals. It clearly mentions political or social ambitions as the motivating factor of a terrorist. Lastly, this definition acknowledges the criminal and moral aspects of terrorism. It labels terrorist activities as unlawful and forceful, suggesting the immorality of committing such acts. Together, these references best define the objective of terrorism, who can be affected by it, and the universal motivation behind it.
An analysis of other definitions of terrorism shows them to be either oversimplified or too specific. One such definition comes from Mike Rapport’s chapter in The Routledge History of Terrorism. In short, Rapport says that terrorism is political violence against non-military targets by non-states actors. This definition outlines only the motives (political), perpetrators (non-state actor) and victims (non-military targets). It fails to reference the criminal or immoral aspects of terror tactics. Omitting this important condition minimizes Rapport’s definition in regards to its ability to describe terrorism ethics. His definition also provides the opportunity for double-standards, because it exempts the State as a perpetrator of terrorism. Most importantly, it does not convey the resulting fear from acts of terror. Failing to mention this significantly weakens Rapport’s definition because fear and terror are at the root of what terrorism is intended to inspire. Being so, Rapport’s definition does not fully envelope what terrorism actually is. While his definition provides some characteristics of many terrorists, it fails to incorporate a universal understanding of terrorism.
Another definition of terrorism that is better than Rapport’s but still falls short belongs to Charles Tilly. Simply put, Tilly defined terrorism in Theories of Terrorism as using a strategy of terror tactics to further political or ideology goals, and can be used by any one individual or State. His definition outlines the same political motivation mentioned by Rapport, but also includes ideology as a goal. Tilly’s definition is more applicable and more universal because he allows for both individuals and the State to carry out terrorism, and explicitly mentions terror tactics as the root strategy. By including terror tactics as the sole strategy, Tilly semi-explains the morality of terrorism. Terror, being inherently bad, suggests that the perpetrator of terrorism is of immoral character. These attributes aside, however, Tilly’s definition falls short because it fails to mention who can be a victim, and in doing so, opens the door to debate over double standards. His definition of terrorism is therefore not the most comprehensive.
Historically, terrorism can be traced back many centuries to the age of crusaders and piracy. Philip Bobbitt included a passage in his book Terror and Consent that illuminates the crusaders for what they actually were – social terrorists. The crusaders in fact used unlawful force against the Muslims in hopes of regaining control of Jerusalem. They used both violence and force on combatants and non-combatants to carry out their crusade, motivated by political and social ambitions in search of control of foreign land. To acknowledge the crusaders as terrorists is an essential and objective characterization of historical events, defying a double standard. Even though Christians might consider the crusaders as men of a righteous movement, it would be unjust not to apply terrorism’s definition to cases where it clearly fits.
While this paper argues that the State Department’s definition of terrorism is the most comprehensive due to its well-placed use of specific and generalized vocabulary in key spots, the definition does have two major weaknesses: It omits religion as an objective and lacks reference to a perpetrator. Many recent terrorist attacks around the globe have been waged in the name of religion, with those carrying out fearful acts shouting religious prayers and references as they wreak havoc on society. The notion of avoiding politics and religion at the dinner table reveals that the two subjects are divisive and can prompt visceral reactions. For a definition written in 2004, the State Department’s definition of terrorism curiously lacks any reference to religious motivation. The definition would be much more complete and accurate if religion were added alongside political and social motivation as a root cause of terrorism. If the State Department thinks that political objectives always underlie an act of terrorism in the name of religion, they may be short-sighted in this presumption. In fairness, it should be stated that, oddly enough, all definitions reviewed for this paper include a reference to political aggression yet do not name religion as an accelerant of terrorism.
The State Department’s otherwise excellent definition of terrorism also contains no explicit mention of who a terrorist can be. The implication of not mentioning who can or cannot be a terrorist indicates that anyone can be a terrorist while also leaving open the controversy of who is not a terrorist. If argued well enough, one could assert that an individual, a group, or even a state could be a terrorist, or not a terrorist. In fairness, the issue of double standards is partly addressed by the State Department’s definition because it implicitly indicates anyone can be the perpetrator and explicitly states anyone can be the victim. However, the absence of clear vocabulary as to who can be the wrongdoer creates a weakness in the definition.
The problem with defining terrorism is tantamount to the problem of defining religion or sports – any generalized characterization that attempts to define such broad terms is only as good as the argument supporting its definition. Like a bridge is only as strong as its supporting structure, the definition of an expansive concept such as terrorism is only as strong as its supporting elements. Unlike a bridge, however, the effort to convince others of a just definition of terrorism not only relies on supporting arguments, but also rests upon the individuals themselves. People regard things in ways that can vary slightly or greatly from person to person, so ultimately, there may be no true definition of terrorism because different people have varying opinions about what is and is not terrorism.
In conclusion, violence and intimidation have occurred since the beginning of written history to further political and social objectives. With the research of academics, this type of force in pursuit of social change has evolved into what we nowadays regard as terrorism. By and large, I believe terrorism is “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Despite not mentioning religion as a driving force behind terrorism, the State Department’s definition touches upon the most important aspects of terrorism and provides the clearest vocabulary to understand it. The definition’s drawback of not precisely mentioning the perpetrator may be entirely purposeful, owing to the fact that people have varying notions of who can be a terrorist.
Works Cited - in order of appearance
State Department, Definition of Terrorism, 2004.
Rapport, The Routledge History of Terrorism, Routledge, New York NY, 2015, Online.
Tilly, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium, Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, (2004), pp. 5-13. Online.
Bobbitt, Terror and Consent, Alfred A. Knopf, Toronto, 2008, Online.
I found your argument to be very interesting and insightful. The thing that struck me the most was the idea of separating religious goals and political goals. Today the two seem to be very intertwined, and I wonder whether there is indeed a difference. Many of the religiously motivated terrorist groups today have political motive. They want their religion to be a part of politics and they want to enforce religious law. The political actions that they carry out are often in the name of their religion. Is then religion not political? Even historically people have always had a hard time differentiating between the two. In the United States we have only ever elected one Catholic president because we are afraid that a Catholic president will be too tied to the Pope and that the Pope will try to control the United States.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a really interesting argument in your essay, and it is very well written. I like how you clearly define what terrorism should be from the very beginning, leaving little room for questioning your intent for the rest of the paper. Your argument that fear from acts of terror along with recognizing who potential victims of terrorism are is very important, and using both to disregard some of the definitions of terrorism we looked at in class was a good tactic. Religion is another very important aspect of terrorism, but I think it is unfortunate how so many in our country believe that religion is one of the only factors contributing to terrorism which can lead to labeling of whole groups when only some are truly inflicting terror. Do you think that Lisa Stampnitzky’s article has any relevance to your essay? You mention at the end that people have varying notions of who can be a terrorist and would this statement in itself be arguing that terrorism can be socially constructed? Or rather, would you argue that terrorism must have a stable and unchanging definition as you put forth in your introductory paragraph?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, as I re-read my essay I wish I had used the word 'ideology' in place of 'religion' because I believe any system of ideas and ideals, especially ones that form the basis of economic or political theory and policy should be included as a component in the definition of terrorism. This is to say that practicing the ideals of any religion in an orthodox approach would establish the basis of the political and social systems thereafter. My mentioning in the essay of those who are "carrying out fearful acts [while] shouting religious prayers" is only to reference the current climate of global terrorism. Secondly, Stampnitzky’s article does have relevance, and will be included in my revised edition. Thirdly, I would argue it would be best if the definition of terrorism was stable and unaffected by time, however, as I tried to establish in my essay this is most likely not the case because it is in fact socially constructed, to a degree.
Delete