Can We Define Terrorism?

David Solomon

Can We Define Terrorism?

Lisa Stampnitzky believes terrorism was created for political reasons and to help political experts study whatever they put under its designation. Charles Tilly and David Rappoport see terrorism as a tactic or strategy and believe its usage is not limited to any particular group, state, or entity. Lastly, Philip Bobbitt believes terrorism is the natural progression of opposition throughout time against the “constitutional order” of any particular period. These are only a few of the various different perspectives political scientists have garnered over the years about terrorism. As we can see, the ambiguity surrounding the term even has experts in the field of politics not seeing eye to eye on the term’s meaning. This disagreement derives from the main drawback seen within the social sciences, which is individuals in these fields tend to “particularize for general purposes” (Gaddis 62). In other words, terrorism means whatever it is you want it to mean. Usually based off of background, beliefs, and convictions, everyone’s interpretation of what we label as terrorism can vary greatly from person to person. Nevertheless, the point of this paper is to do exactly the opposite: prove to you why my interpretation of terrorism is correct and how/why I support it. Before going ahead I would like to clarify that I see my interpretation more as a theory than a definition. This is because theories are more flexible for criticism and amending, which are pivotal in the neverending evolution of this term’s true meaning, which will most likely never be found.  Taking into consideration a combination of both Tilly and Bobbitt's perspectives, terrorism is the natural progression throughout time of non-state groups using terror as a tactic against states in an attempt to achieve own agenda.  

One glaring weakness someone may see with my definition would be designating terrorism as a tactic only used by non-state groups. Many would argue, such as Tilly, Rappaport, and Stampnitzky to an extent, that terrorism can be used and is used by anyone. I do not disagree with this argument entirely since I believe leaders such as Stalin, Mao, or Kim Jong-un all committed/commit acts of terror against their own people. The same can be said about the various authoritarian leaders of Middle Eastern countries, who have violated basic human rights through the use of terror to uphold their regime’s power. However, I do not see this as terrorism since these leaders were acting as the heads of legitimate states. Although other states may not have condoned the actions of these leaders, they did recognize that the leaders of these countries were acting under their laws, albeit by means of violating human rights.

This is why states cannot commit terrorism per se, but rather can employ acts of terror. North Korea may commit acts of terror through imprisonment, starvation, and coercion, but the leaders are not terrorists and are not committing terrorism. Instead, they are committing human rights violations as legitimate leaders of a country. If a group separate from any sovereignty, such as Al Qaeda, were to commit similar acts they should be deemed terrorists since they are not recognized by the world as a legitimate state. Although Al Qaeda’s agenda is to establish the caliphate on a global scale and many of its members view themselves as part of a state, they do not have global recognition of such. In short, a state needs to be recognized by a majority of legitimate sovereignties in order to be considered legitimate themselves or else they are open for interpretation.

Another point of attack many critics may go to criticize is how I state terrorism is a natural progression throughout time, similar to that of Bobbitt’s argument. What I mean by this is that terrorism is the culmination of conflicting perspectives between the “constitutional order” in power and the people who live under its authority. These people who become terrorists separate themselves from the state’s authority. They become detached from its sovereignty and commit acts of terror in opposition to a state’s existence. This is outlined perfectly by Bobbitt who incorporates a historical perspective into his interpretation. This detachment from state authority is most clearly shown with his examples of terrorism spanning from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, when states would hire mercenaries. After the state who had hired them no longer required their assistance, these mercenary groups would then commit terrorism against the state.  

I also incorporate Tilly’s argument about terrorism being used as a tactic which differentes my theory from that of Bobbitt’s. In the case of piracy during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the difference in our viewpoints does not lie in whether or not the pirates are terrorists but rather why they are. Bobbitt would argue that it is was due to privateering being outlawed as a result of the natural progression of development within the kingly states of the European countries. He explains as these states started to become more self-sufficient due to the increase of trade during this time, they did not need these privateers anymore. The sovereignties saw them more as a hindrance since they would disrupt trade which would subsequently disrupt relations between states sparking wars (i.e. War of Spanish Succession). Thus the dramatic change in the use of privateering from legal to illegal would ultimately result in them becoming terrorists committing acts of terrorism against these states.

I would argue against this since it is too convenient of an explanation. I do acknowledge the so-called “state sponsored [terrorism]” (Bobbitt 30) had somewhat of an effect in causing these men to become terrorists, but we cannot disregard that they were acting on their own accord as well. When privateering was legal and the pirates would sail for the sovereignty of a particular state, as long as what they did was in the interest of the country who hired them the pirates were able to do what they wanted without any repercussions. Once privateering became illegal, the men who made a living off of it made the conscious decision to keep practicing it, completely aware of the ramifications. They continued to pillage, rape, and murder with the only difference being that they were not under any sort of protection. Originally, privateers used terrorism as a tactic to benefit a particular state with subsequent benefits for themselves. However, as the natural progression of history went on and the economic landscape changed, pirates were relegated to using terrorism as a tactic to benefit themselves at the expense of the European countries.

One last critique worth mentioning is how my theory seems to describe not only terrorist groups but freedom fighter groups as well. Freedom fighter groups are non-state entities, they emerge through the natural progression of history, and for lack of a better word they use “terrorism” as a tactic to achieve what they want. However, freedom fighter groups are not terrorists since they are usually fighting for a people being oppressed by a sovereignty. Although terrorist groups try to take on this persona, in reality they are trying to achieve their own self-interests while rarely if ever fighting for the people’s. This is perfectly seen with radical Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS who say they are fighting against the West and its oppression of Islam while at the sametime killing muslims and not really achieving anything they proclaimed. Groups such as the Taliban during the invasions of Afghanistan by the USSR and the United States and the Sons of Liberty in the Revolutionary War are not terrorists even though they committed acts of terror in a tactical or strategical way. They fought for the people of their respective countries and most importantly targeted the military personnel and the governmental officials of their enemies. This is critical in ultimately understanding the difference between the two groups. Although both groups may say they are fighting for the interests of the people, it is who they intentionally target to achieve their goals that determines what their true intentions are. John Davis a United States Marine trained in counter terrorism does a good job summarizing this point:

A terrorist is someone who uses fear to motivate civilians to act in a political manner on their behalf. A freedom fighter is someone who acts on the behalf of at least some civilian population in direct opposition to a military or government.

Continuing on this point he explains:

Where freedom fighters and terrorists differ is that a freedom fighter targets soldiers, bases, military assets and other agents of the government. Terrorists specifically and purposefully target civilian non-combatants and centers such as restaurants, stores, schools and hospitals.

In many respects Lisa Stampnitzky’s argument that we should ultimately do away with the term terrorism is a strong one. The ambiguous nature of the word has created a multitude of arguments that all point towards viable definitions. Although I believe there will never been a definitive definition that all people can agree upon, I do feel taking on multiple theories and incorporating them together such as my own, can yield a stronger understanding of what terrorism truly is. Unfortunately, this is most likely the closest we can ever get to garnering a true definition of the term. Perspectives will always yield different insights which is the reality of the complexity of human behavior.

Bibliography

Bobbitt, Philp. “Terror and Consent: The Wars For The Twenty-First Century.” Alfred A. Knoff, (2008): 26-63

Davis, John. "What's the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists?" Quora (web log), August 17, 2016. Accessed February 6, 2017. https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-freedom-fighters-and-terrorists.

Gaddis, John Lewis. The landscape of history: how historians map the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Stampnitzky, Lisa. “Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented Terrorism.” Cambridge University Press. 1-82

"The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11(1)." Rapoport - Four Waves of Terror. Summer 2002. Accessed February 06, 2017. http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0801/terror.htm.

Tilly, Charles. "Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists." Sociological Theory 22, no. 1 (2004): 5-13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3648955.