Lecture 5 - Critical Terrorism Studies Flashcards
Explain the short Development of terrorism terminology since 9/11
- 2001: A new language and policy to develop – a Counterterror industry
- 2005: Development of paradigm of Radicalisation
- 2010: Development of paradigm of Extremism Globalisation of counter-terror and counter-extremism industry.
- Predicated on some questionable claims (Extremism Risk Guidance 22+ still at heart of Channel Vulnerability Assessment Framework in UK and EU countries).
- Within this context that Terrorism Studies and Critical Terrorism Studies arose.
What is Radicalization?
- Radicalisation is a vague and contested term that is used in different ways and contexts
- It refers to the process of joining extremist groups, but there is no agreement on how this process works or who is involved
- Deradicalisation is also a poorly defined term that means different things to different people
- Radicalisation and deradicalisation are influenced by the logic of the war on terror, which focuses on Muslim communities and values, and how to protect ourselves from attacks and reverse radicalisation
What are the CTS accusations by jackson?
Four problems identified by Jackson (2007):
1. poor research
2. state-centric
3. state-implicit
4. problem-solving
- The field of terrorism studies has experienced a massive increase in publications since the 9/11 attacks, but the quality and rigor of these studies have been questioned by many scholars. Some of the criticisms include the lack of empirical evidence, theoretical frameworks, and methodological standards, as well as the prevalence of biases, assumptions, and agendas in the research.
- Critical theorists challenge the dominant narratives and discourses on terrorism, and expose how the concept of terrorism is constructed and used as a political tool by powerful actors. They argue that the label of terrorism can provide a rationale for a range of actions, such as war, intervention, and repression, that have negative consequences for human rights, democracy, and peace. They also point out how the focus on terrorism can divert attention away from more entrenched, long-term political problems, such as poverty, inequality, and oppression.
What are the problems with terrorism research?
- Terrorism studies are plagued by many research problems
o Bad research methods: using wrong or not enough information
o No lear definition of terrorism
o Only describing and judging terrorism, not explaining
o Only using one way of thinking, not using different ideas or methods from other subjects
o Thinking terrorism is new, disregarding history
o Focusing on few topics, do not cover many types and causes of terrorism
o Ignoring state terrorism
o Trying to solve terrorism - Terrorism studies are state centric
o Terrorism studies are dominated by state-centric theories
o The field reproduces a limited set of assumptions and narratives about the nature, cause and response to terrorism
o Theories of radicalization are an example of such assumptions
o Much of the accepted knowledge is not supported by empirical research
o The field is dominated by myths and half truths - Implicit research
o There is a link between terrorism scholars and state institutions and sources of power.
o Much research is carried out by researchers funded by, answerable to, or directly part of governmental structures.
o The scholars support the state project (and its inequalities) by reproducing a limited set of assumptions and narratives about the nature, causes, and responses to terrorism that are state-centric - Problem solving
o The field of terrorism studies is often viewed as a problem-solving theory.
o It works to make these relationships and institutions work smoothly by dealing effectively with particular sources of trouble.
o It does not question the extent to which the status quo is implicated in the ‘problem’ of terrorism.
What are the commitments of CTS?
- Epistemological
a. Orthodox research is highly gendered and Eurocentric
b. Theory is always for someone and some purpose
c. CTS questions who terrorism knowledge isfor and whata function it serves in supporting their interests
d. Terrorism knowledge can not be neutral or objective. It can be used for political purposes and has built-in biases and assumptions
e. CTS does not privilege materialist, rationalist, and positivist approaches to social science over interpretive and refletivists approaches - Ontological
a. The term “terrorism” has always been derogatory rather than analytical.
b. CTS does not legitimize or delegitimize violence. Terrorism is a powerful form of labeling that implies a political judgment about legitimacy.
c. Terrorism is fundamentally a social fact rather than a brute fact. Just as “races” do not exist but classifications of humankind do, so too “terrorism” does not exist but classifications of different forms of political violence do.
d. Terrorism is fundamentally a social fact rather than a brute fact. Just as “races” do not exist but classifications of humankind do, so too “terrorism” does not exist but classifications of different forms of political violence do.
e. Properly understood, terrorism is a strategy, not a creed. Terrorism is not a freestanding phenomenon: there is no terrorism, just the instrumental use of terror by actors.
f. The state should be brought back into terrorism research as a radicalizer, for instance. - Ethical-Normative
a. Terrorism studies is a normative and political field that affects state actions and policies on counter-terrorism
b. Terrorism studies has ethical and social implications for researchers and communities involved or affected by terrorism
c. Terrorism studies should aim for a critical praxis that seeks to end terror and promote non-violence
d. Terrorism studies should try to understand and empathize with the perspectives and experiences of the ‘terrorist other’
e. Terrorism studies should try to understand and empathize with the perspectives and experiences of the ‘terrorist other’
What is the HORGAN & BOYLE’s view on CTS?
- Terrorism scholars acknowledge the limitations of current research and seek to overcome them.
- Terrorism studies is not solely engaged in problem-solving and rational inquiry.
- Some new or innovative lines of inquiry already exist in whole or in part.
- The ‘straw man’ of ‘Orthodox Terrorism Studies’ unfairly portrays almost 40 years of multi- and interdisciplinary research.
- There is a suspicion of academics engaged in policy-relevant research, implying bad faith among those who engage in that kind of work.
- The same moral concerns under-lying CTS are often at the heart of traditional terrorism studies.
How do Horgan & Boyle lay out the emancipation and government funding arguments of CTS?
Emancipation
Serious and reflective scholars of terrorism also do not deny the observation that theory is often for some one, and for some purpose. What they do not share is the explicit normative and ideological commitment to “emancipation”, however defined.’ The lack of a definition of terrorism is not a bad thing, but evidence of good discussion in Terrorism Studies
Government funding
Government funding: : (1) accepting government funding or information does not necessarily obviate one’s independent scholarly judgment in a particular project; and (2) having policy relevance is not always a sin
What is Social Movement Theory?
“Social movements are a distinct social process, consisting of the mechanisms through which actors engaged in collective action:
1. Are involved in conflictual relations with clearly identified opponents;
2. Are linked by dense informal networks
3. Share a distinct collective identity”
What issues do Horgan & Boyle identify in CTS?
- Overstatement of its novelty
- Overstatement of TTS’ problem-solving focus
- Pretends to invent things that already exist
- False portrayal of a long radition of interdisciplinary studies
- Assume academics are colluded with government
- Ethical concerns are same as TTS
- TTS scholars are perfectly aware of the bias and the issues of TTS and have criticised them accordingly.
- Not all TTS scholars avoid challenging the status quo or the state’s position and TTS is not unidisciplinary.
- CTS claims to position itself against ‘orthodox terrorism studies’, which are only a straw man created to the purpose of positioning CTS in the discourse
What is CTS’s biggest critique?
The call for an explicitly CTS carries with it the assumption that is represents a departure from what can only be assumed to be uncritical terrorism studies. However, what CTS has produced so far is not always grounded in a fairminded appraisal of a complex, multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary – though often flawed
Jackson and other CTS advocates are correct; any ‘orthodoxy’ should be challenged. But as we have attempted to demonstrate in the preceding discussion, throughout the history of research on terrorism over the past forty years, there really is no ‘orthodoxy’ worthy of the name to be found
What are the differences between Empirical and Critical Terrorism Studies?
