Search

The aims of this paper are to introduce and explain the core commitments and dimensions of the critical terrorism studies (CTS) approach, to defend the retention of the term 'terrorism', and to briefly outline a future research agenda. To this end, the paper is divided into three sections. In the first section, I contextualise the rise of CTS and outline its central ontological, epistemological, methodological, and praxiological commitments, arguing that it is more than simply a call for better research on terrorism; rather, CTS offers a new way of understanding and researching terrorism. The second section focuses on the particular problem posed by the term 'terrorism' and argues that there are reasons for, and ways of, retaining the term without compromising the broader intellectual and/or emancipatory project. In addition, it explores some of the common misperceptions about the definition of terrorism and proposes a solution to these issues. In the final section, I outline some of the key challenges and dangers facing CTS. I suggest some key ways of avoiding these dangers and briefly outline a future research agenda. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a context in which academics and policy-makers argue that the notion of 'state terrorism' is unnecessary and unhelpful, the aim of this paper is to provide a defence of the concept and an argument for widening and deepening its study. There are five main arguments typically employed against the concept of state terrorism: (1) states have a legitimate right to use violence; (2) state repression differs from terrorism because the victims are not chosen randomly; (3) state violence is not publicity-seeking; (4) what is described as state 'terrorism' is already adequately described and proscribed as 'repression', 'human rights abuses', 'war crimes', etc: and (5) even if states do engage in acts of 'terrorism', it has different aims, methods and outcomes to non-state terrorism. In the paper, I demonstrate in a step-by-step process how each of these arguments are flawed and based on a misreading of the nature of terrorist violence. I conclude that for both analytical and normative reasons, 'state terrorism' is a useful and important concept. The final section of the paper makes the case for widening and deepening the study of state terrorism and outlines a preliminary future research based on the current state of knowledge. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Employing a discourse analytic approach, this paper examines the silence on state terrorism within the mainstream terrorism studies literature. An analysis of more than a hundred academic texts on terrorism, many by established 'terrorism experts', reveals that state terrorism is noticeable mainly for its absence. In some cases, state terrorism is simply defined out of the analysis by the employment of an actor-based definition: terrorism, it is argued, is a kind of violence performed solely by non-state actors. In other cases, the possibility of state terrorism is acknowledged but is then given a cursory treatment or simply ignored as a serious subject of research. Following this textual analysis, the main finding - the silence on state terrorism within terrorism studies - is subjected to both a first and second order critique. A first order or immanent critique uses a discourse's internal contradictions, mistakes and misconceptions to criticise it on its own terms and expose the events and perspectives that the discourse fails to acknowledge or address. In this case, the absence of state terrorism is criticized for its illogical actor-based definition of terrorism, its politically biased research focus and its failure to acknowledge the empirical evidence of the extent and nature of state terrorism, particularly that practiced by Western liberal states and their allies. A second order critique entails reflecting on the broader political and ethical consequences - the ideological effects - of the representations enabled by the discourse, and the ways in which the discourse functions as a political technology. It is argued that the absence of state terrorism from academic discourse functions to promote particular kinds of state hegemonic projects, construct a legitimizing public discourse for foreign and domestic policy, and deflect attention from the terroristic practices by Western states and their allies. Importantly, the exposure and destabilisation of this dominant terrorism knowledge opens up critical space for the articulation of alternative and potentially emancipatory forms of knowledge and practice. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 9/11, terrorism studies has undergone a rapid transformation from minor sub-field of security studies to a significant stand-alone field of teaching and research, with terrorism studies degree programmes, an ever-increasing cohort of dedicated PhD students, major research projects, the establishment of academic posts and specialised research institutions, and new scholarly journals. However, past and recent review exercises have generated a number of serious epistemological, methodological, and political-normative criticisms of the field as it currently stands. At this time of tremendous growth and expansion, this paper makes the argument that it is time for an explicitly 'critical' terrorism studies to overcome many of the identified weaknesses of orthodox terrorism studies. To this end, the paper explores some of the central weaknesses of contemporary terrorism studies, examines what a critical turn would involve, and reflects on the potential pitfalls of a critical terrorism studies, including how to manage the critical turn without discarding the best of orthodox terrorism studies. The paper concludes by outlining a research agenda which would interrogate more effectively some of the key assumptions in both mainstream and critical fields about the political use of terror. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to examine the ways in which the political language of senior public officials regarding the terrorist threat facing America is implicated in the formulation of the torture policy, and the actual torture and abuse of prisoners. The central argument is that the discourse of the war on terrorism set the logic and possibilities of policy formulation in the first instance, and helped to create the wider legitimacy and social consensus that is required to enact policy. There is a growing consensus that the current discourse and practice of torture and abuse by American service personnel is proving damaging to the wider international human rights framework and to human rights standards in other countries. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An analysis of the terrorism studies field reveals a number of methodological, theoretical and ethical-normative problems. One of its more serious problems is its tendency to uncritically reproduce a number of highly questionable narratives and assumptions about terrorism as a phenomenon and counterterrorism as state response. For example, a great deal of past and recently published terrorism research unreflectively assumes that: non-state terrorism poses an existential threat to modern societies; there is a 'new terrorism' that is religiously motivated, willing to employ weapons of mass destruction, and aimed primarily at causing mass casualties; the roots of terrorism lie in individual psychological abnormality and religious extremism; and coercive-based counterterrorism is an effective response to non-state terrorism. This paper argues that these misconceptions are not simply errors based on poor research. Rather, these broadly accepted understandings - this terrorism 'knowledge' - also work politically to reify and reproduce state power. In particular, this 'scientifically' generated terrorism 'knowledge' frequently functions to, among others: de-legitimise resistance by non-state actors; justify domestic political projects unconnected to terrorism, such as social surveillance; bolster the power and priorities of the agencies of state security; benefit powerful economic actors linked to the security sector, such as private security firms, defence industries, and pharmaceutical companies; control wider social and political dissent and set the parameters for acceptable political debate; and provide intellectual justification for foreign imperial projects. However, academic research is never without political and normative consequence; knowledge is always for somebody and for something. This paper argues that given the current situation in the field, there is an urgent need for an explicitly 'critical' terrorism studies. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]