Professional Documents
Culture Documents
doi:10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210141
F
O
Abstract
Critical terrorism studies (CTS) is founded firstly on a series of powerful
O
critiques of the current state of orthodox terrorism studies, including: its
poor methods and theories, its state centricity, its problem-solving
PR
orientation and its institutional and intellectual links to state security
projects. Defined broadly by a sceptical attitude towards accepted
terrorism ‘knowledge’, CTS is also characterised by a set of core
epistemological, ontological and ethical commitments, including: an
D
T
he argument for critical terrorism to develop an accepted definition of
N
studies (CTS) begins with four main terrorism and to formulate rigorous
criticisms of the traditional terror- theories and concepts (Schmid and
U
ism studies field. First, both past and Jongman, 1988); the descriptive, narra-
more recent review exercises of the field tive and condemnatory character of much
reveal an embarrassing list of methodo- terrorism research output; the domi-
logical and analytical weaknesses, includ- nance of orthodox international relations
ing among others: a reliance on poor (IR) approaches and a lack of inter-
research methods and procedures, an disciplinarity; the tendency to treat
over-reliance on secondary information contemporary terrorism as a ‘new’ phe-
and a general failure to undertake pri- nomenon that started on September
european political science: 00 2007 1
(1 – 8) & 2007 European Consortium for Political Research. 1680-4333/07 $30 www.palgrave-journals.com/eps
11th, 2001 and a persistent lack of States Air Force with deep ties to the
historicity (Silke, 2004c: 209); a re- American military and political establish-
stricted research focus on a few topical ments (Burnett and Whyte, 2005: 8). The
issues and a subsequent failure fully to main consequence of such links is that
engage with a range of other important together with certain state, military,
subjects, not least the issue of state think-tank and public intellectuals, the
terrorism (Silke, 2004c: 206); and an leading terrorism studies scholars now
overly policy prescriptive focus (Silke, constitute an influential and exclusive
2004b: 58; Ilardi, 2004: 215). ‘epistemic community’ – a network of
Second, traditional terrorism studies ‘specialists with a common world view
has its theoretical and institutional origins about cause and effect relationships
in orthodox security studies and counter- which relate to their domain of expertise,
insurgency studies (Burnett and Whyte, and common political values about the
2005: 11–13; Schmid and Jongman, type of policies to which they should be
Q1 1988: 182). An influential review de- applied’ (Stone, 1996: 86). From a
F
scribed much of the field’s early output Gramscian perspective, the core terror-
O
as ‘counterinsurgency masquerading as ism studies scholars can be understood as
political science’ (Schmid and Jongman, ‘organic intellectuals’ intimately con-
O
1988: 182). As a consequence, much nected – institutionally, financially, politi-
terrorism research adopts state-centric cally and ideologically – with a state
PR
priorities and perspectives and tends to hegemonic project.
reproduce a limited set of assumptions A fourth main criticism is that the
and narratives about the nature, causes dominant knowledge of the field is an
and responses to terrorism. Collectively, ideal type of ‘problem-solving theory’
D
ism (see Jackson, forthcoming, 2005). world as it finds it, with the prevailing
The key problem is that much of this social and power relationships and the
‘knowledge’ is highly contestable and institutions into which they are organised,
EC
largely unsupported by empirical re- as the given framework for action’, and
search. In effect, this means that the field then works to ‘make these relationships
is in large part dominated by ‘a cabal of and institutions work smoothly by dealing
R
virulent myths and half-truths whose effectively with particular sources of trou-
reach extends even to the most learned ble’ (Cox, 1981: 128–9). It does not
R
and experienced’ (Silke, 2004a: 20). question the extent to which the status
O
A third and related criticism of the field quo – the hierarchies and operation of
pertains to the ‘embedded’ or ‘organic’ power and the inequalities and injustices
C
terrorism scholars are directly linked to subaltern violence. Moreover, through the
state institutions and sources of power in use of social scientific language and
U
F
THE CORE COMMITMENTS edge about terrorism. It also evinces an
O
OF CTS acute sensitivity to the ways in which
terrorism knowledge can be deployed as a
O
In a broad sense, CTS refers to terrorism- political technology in the furtherance of
related research that self-consciously hegemonic projects and directs attention
PR
adopts a sceptical attitude towards to the interests that underlie knowledge
state-centric understandings of terrorism claims. Thus, CTS starts by asking: who is
and which does not take existing terror- terrorism knowledge for, and what func-
ism knowledge for granted but is willing to tions does it serve in supporting their
D
founded upon on a core set of epistemo- (Williams and Krause, 1997); in particu-
logical, ontological and ethical–normative lar, the false naturalism of traditional
R
commitments. Not every CTS scholar will theory and the political content of all
O
‘terrorism’ will tend to adhere to them. and understanding the aims of knowledge
production within terrorism studies, the
N
F
its inbuilt biases and assumptions. It thus
O
attempts to avoid the uncritical use of
labels, assumptions and narratives regar- ONTOLOGICAL COMMITMENTS
O
ding terrorism in ways that would
naturalise them or imply that they Ontologically, CTS is characterised by a
PR
were uncontested. Crucial in this respect general scepticism towards, and often a
is an appreciation of the inherently gen- reticence to employ, the ‘terrorism’ label
dered and Eurocentric character of domi- because it is recognised that in practice it
nant knowledge and discourse on has always been a pejorative rather than
D
ods and approaches. In this sense, CTS brute fact; while extreme physical vio-
refuses to privilege materialist, rationalist lence is experienced as a brute fact, its
and positivist approaches to social wider cultural–political meaning is
R
science over interpretive and reflectivist decided by social agreement and inter-
approaches (Price and Reus-Smit, 1998: subjective practices. In this sense, just as
R
ment to the narrow logic of traditional humankind do, so too ‘terrorism’ does not
social scientific explanation based on exist but classifications of different forms
C
linear notions of cause and effect, CTS of political violence do (Sluka, 2002: 23).
accepts that constructivist and post- That is, ‘The nature of terrorism is not
N
structuralist approaches that subscribe inherent in the violent act itself. One and
to an interpretive ‘logic of understanding’ the same acty can be terrorist or not,
U
can open space for questions and depending on intention and circumstance’
perspectives that are foreclosed by posi- (Schmid and Jongman, 1988: 101) – not
tivism and rationalism. This stance is to mention cultural and political context.
more than methodological; it is also For this reason, CTS refuses to define
political in the sense that it does not treat terrorism either in ways that de-legitimise
one model of social science as if it were some actors while simultaneously accord-
the sole bearer of legitimacy (Smith, ing the mantle of legitimate violence to
2004: 514). others, or in ways that legitimise violence
4 european political science: 00 2007 the core commitments of critical terrorism studies
simply because they are conducted in political metamorphosis is the observa-
particular circumstances, such as during tion that there are no less than four
war. Instead, CTS views terrorism funda- recognised ‘terrorists’ who have gone on
mentally as a strategy or tactic of political to win the Nobel Peace Prize: Menachim
violence that can be, and frequently is, Begin, Sean McBride, Nelson Mandela and
employed by both state and non-state Yassir Arafat (Zulaika and Douglass,
actors and during times of war and peace. 1996: x). In other words, ‘Once a terror-
As Charles Tilly puts it, ‘Properly under- ist, is not always a terrorist’ (Schmid,
stood, terror is a strategy, not a creed. 2004: 205). Similarly, the inability of the
Terrorists range across a wide spectrum UK and US governments to agree on a
of organizations, circumstances and be- common list of proscribed terrorist
liefs. Terrorism is not a single causally organisations, despite holding very
coherent phenomenon. No social scientist similar definitions of terrorism, speaks to
can speak responsibly as though it the inherent subjectivity of applying
were’ (Tilly, 2004: 5). Moreover, as a this label in the real world (see Silke,
F
strategy, terrorism involves the deliber- 2004a: 5–6).
O
ate targeting of civilians in order to There are a number of direct conse-
intimidate or terrorise for distinctly quences of adopting this particular onto-
O
political purposes. Alex Schmid explains logical stance. For example, there is a
that like war, terrorism is also a continua- determination by CTS scholars to redress
PR
tion of politics by other means (Schmid, the current imbalance within traditional
2004: 202). terrorism studies and ‘bring the state
The important point is that terrorism is back in’ to terrorism research, exploring
not an ideology or form of politics in itself; the logic and circumstances in which
D
specific actors and for specific political political purposes. CTS is also interested
goals. Groups specialising solely in terror in uncovering the political and strategic
do sometimes form, but they are extre- ‘causes’ or reasons why actors choose to
EC
mely rare and, typically, they remain employ terrorist tactics, and the pro-
highly unstable and ephemeral. In reality, cesses by which they abandon the use of
most terrorism occurs in the context of terrorism as a political strategy in parti-
R
wider political struggles in which the use cular historical and political contexts. In
of terror is one strategy among other this sense, CTS is determined to avoid
R
more routine forms of contentious action universalising practices that are in fact
O
(Tilly, 2004: 6; Schmid, 2004: 199). In very specific and naturalising what is
this sense, terrorism is not a freestanding actually highly contingent (Campbell,
C
by actors. This has important implications ical, political and cultural context in un-
for notions of identity, and subsequently derstanding the use of terrorism as a
U
for the strategies and ethics of counter- strategy. In addition, given the central
terrorism, not least because it implies role that labelling plays within the terror-
that the ‘terrorist’ label is never a fixed or ism studies field, CTS is committed to
essential identity and that ‘terrorists’ may questioning the nature and politics of
choose to abandon its use as a tactic for representation – why, when, how and for
achieving political aims. A pertinent illus- what purpose do groups and individuals
tration of the ontological instability of the come to be named as ‘terrorist’ and what
terrorist label and the potentialities for consequences does this have?
richard jackson european political science: 00 2007 5
ETHICAL–NORMATIVE ‘yterrorism studies
COMMITMENTS
actually provides an
In addition to reasons alluded to earlier, authoritative judgement
CTS is openly normative in orientation for about who may
the simple reason that through the iden-
tification of who the ‘terrorist other’
legitimately be killed,
actually is – deciding and affirming which tortured, rendered or
individuals and groups may be rightly incarcerated by the
called ‘terrorists’ is a routine practice in
the field – terrorism studies actually
state in the name of
provides an authoritative judgement counter-terrorism’.
about who may legitimately be killed,
tortured, rendered or incarcerated by the
state in the name of counter-terrorism. creative balance between avoiding com-
F
In this sense, there is no escaping the plicity in oppressive state practices
O
ethico-political content of the subject. through a continual process of critique,
Rather than projecting or attempting to while simultaneously maintaining access
O
maintain a false neutrality or objectivity, to power in order to affect change. From
CTS openly adheres to the values and this perspective, CTS is determined to go
PR
priorities of universal human and societal beyond critique and deconstruction and
security, rather than traditional, narrowly actively work to bring about positive
defined conceptions of national security in social change – in part through an active
which the state takes precedence over engagement with the political process
D
any other actor. Moreover, in the tradition and the power holders in society.
of Critical Theory, the core commitment of In short, based on an acceptance of a
TE
human potential and improvements in terror by any and all actors and in
individual and social actualisation and promoting the exploration of non-violent
well-being. forms of conflict transformation. Specifi-
R
one’s political–normative stance and va- sets, world views and subjectivities of
O
terrorism research, particularly as it in- tions and values (Barkawi, 2004). CTS
tersects with state counter-terrorism, and scholars recognise that in relation to the
N
implications for research funding, knowl- is a taboo that has been institutionalised
edge production and the ethics of re- in a legal framework in which withholding
search in ‘suspect communities’. It also information from the authorities is a
entails an enduringly critical stance to- crime, in which academics are being
wards projects of state counter-terrorism, asked to report on their students and
particularly as they affect human and in which attempting to understand the
societal security. CTS recognises that subjectivities of ‘terrorist’ suspects
such a stance involves a delicate and could be interpreted as ‘glorification of
6 european political science: 00 2007 the core commitments of critical terrorism studies
terrorism’ – a crime under UK law. None- and counter-terrorism practice, and
theless, CTS scholars view it as both seeks ultimately to introduce alternative
analytically and ethically responsible and interpretations and understandings into
remain committed to defending the in- an established field of discourse. Politi-
tellectual and ethical integrity of such cally, it is committed to an ethical reflex-
work. ivity in relation to its own knowledge
In this sense, CTS imbues many of the practices, an ‘ethos of political criticism’
values, concerns and orientations of (Campbell, 2005: 133) in relation to the
peace research, conflict resolution and broader field and an emancipatory politics
CCS. Contrary to the views of some in regards to praxeological questions
critics, CTS is not an anti-state or anti- raised by counter-terrorism policy.
Western project, a discourse of compla-
cency or an appeasement of tyranny.
Rather, it is a vigorous anti-terror project CONCLUSION
based on fundamental human rights and
F
values, and a concern for social justice, In this article, I have attempted briefly to
O
equality and an end to structural and sketch out the basis for an explicitly
physical violence and discrimination. It ‘critical’ terrorism studies in first, a mul-
O
views civilian-directed forms of violence ti-level critique of the field; and second,
as inherently illegitimate, regardless of the articulation of a minimal set of shared
PR
what type of actor commits them, in what epistemological, ontological and ethical–
context or to what purpose. It also pre- normative commitments. Clearly, this is
supposes that human agency and human only the starting point in a long and
ingenuity are potentially unlimited, parti- potentially fraught intellectual struggle
D
cularly in the pursuit of non-violent solu- and there are many dangers along the
tions to injustice and violence, and that way, not least that CTS will fail to engage
TE
there are more humane and effective with orthodox terrorism studies scholars
ways of responding to terrorism than and security officials and instead evolve
reflexively engaging in retaliatory and into an exclusionary and marginalised,
EC
Theoretically, it engages in permanent not occur, but that through rigorous and
critical exploration of the ontology, epis- respectful dialogue the broader field is
R
References
Barkawi, T. (2004) ‘On the pedagogy of ‘‘Small Wars’’’, International Affairs 80(1): 19–38.
N
Burnett, J. and Whyte, D. (2005) ‘Embedded expertise and the new terrorism’, Journal for Crime, Conflict
and the Media 1(4): 1–18.
U
Campbell, D. (2005) ‘Beyond choice: the onto-politics of critique’, International Relations 19(1):
127–134.
Cox, R. (1981) ‘Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory’, Millennium:
Journal of International Studies 10(2): 126–155.
George, A. (ed.) (1991) Western State Terrorism, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Q2 Gunning, J. (forthcoming) ‘The case for a critical terrorism studies?’ Government & Opposition.
Herman, E. and O’Sullivan, G. (1989) The ‘Terrorism’ Industry: The Experts and Institutions that Shape
Our View of Terror, New York: Pantheon Books.
Ilardi, G. (2004) ‘Redefining the Issues: The Future of Terrorism Research and the Search for Empathy’, in
A. Silke (ed.) Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures, London: Frank Cass.
F
Smith, S. (2004) ‘Singing our world into existence: international relations theory and September 11’,
International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 499–515.
O
Stone, D. (1996) Capturing the Political Imagination: Think Tanks and the Policy Process, London: Frank
Cass.
O
Tilly, C. (2004) ‘Terror, terrorism, terrorists’, Sociological Theory 22(1): 5–13.
Williams, M. and Krause, K. (1997) ‘Preface: Toward Critical Security Studies’, in M. Williams and
PR
K. Krause (eds.) Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, pp. vii–xxi.
Zulaika, J. and Douglass, W. (1996) Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables, and Faces of Terrorism,
London: Routledge.
D
TE
founding editor of the journal Critical Studies on Terrorism, and the convenor of the British
International Studies Association (BISA) Critical Studies on Terrorism Working Group
(CSTWG). His most recent book is Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and
Counterterrorism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005). His current research
interests include: the discourses of terrorism; the social construction of political violence and
R
8 european political science: 00 2007 the core commitments of critical terrorism studies