Social meanings of terrorism: Reification, violence, and social control

Conclusion

Terrorism as a force in social and international relations appears to some as a relapse into barbarism, a peculiar and dismal aberration of civilized life, and a step backward in the conduct of war. Whether terrorism as a way of settling disputes is better or worse than what preceded it is a value question that cannot be adequately addressed here. Most changes or innovations in war tactics have been regarded as “unfair,” “sneaky,” or “unsporting” upon their introduction, but circumstances usually force their acceptance and the sophistication of violence escalates. When set against the tapestry of a thousand years of military history, terrorism can be seen as a tactic frequently employed by both governments and individuals. It is modern industrial society's increased vulnerability to this form of violence which makes it appear so horrendous, and subjects it to moral indignation [27].

In a behavioral sense, official and individual terrorism achieve similar results, although governments usually have greater resources on hand. It is above all a reified conception of governments, nation-states, and the legitimacy of official terrorism that permits the social meaning process to function as it does, i.e. individual terrorism is condemned as morally repugnant, while official terror is accepted as severe but necessary. With this bifurcation in mind, the sociologist has a choice — banish the term,terrorism altogether since it amounts to little more than moralized name-calling, or save the concept since it does in fact make an important distinction between types of violence, and apply the term even-handedly to both governments and individuals.