Advertisement

Maintaining the Political Frontier

  • David Moss

Abstract

Compared with the factory, the political domain offered a vastly more complex and visible arena for violence and response. Unlike trade unions and employers, the role of the political élites as guarantors of public order gave them no opportunity to externalise the problem of ‘terrorism’. Without the possibility of escape from the communicative field created by acts of ‘armed propaganda’ and diffuse violence, their actions and inactions served to indicate their perception of the seriousness of the attacks as well as to put in place legal and administrative measures to contain and eliminate them. Not all responses were public, of course: the use of infiltrators into the armed groups, techniques of police investigation and informal political pressure on the media, for example, depended on their invisibility for success. But, in the development of ideologically-based violence in search of unified meanings for armed struggle, the symbolic dimension of public responses carried a special importance.

Keywords

Political Community Political Elite Political Violence Armed Group Major Party 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 2.
    P. Bourdieu, Essay on the Theory of Practice ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977 ), pp. 12–14.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    P. Wilkinson, Terrorism and the Liberal State ( London: Macmillan, 1977 );Google Scholar
  3. G. Wardlaw, Political Terrorism ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  4. 10.
    G. Guidorossi, Gli italiani e la politica (Milan: F. Angeli, 1984) pp. 110–11, Table 3. 3.Google Scholar
  5. G. Fabris, Il comportamento politico degli italiani ( Milan: F. Angeli, 1977 ) p. 91.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    C. Stajano, L’Italia nichilista(Milan: A. Mondadori, 1982 ) pp. 195–263.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    R. Collin, The De Lorenzo Gambit: The Italian Coup Manqué of 1964 ( London: Sage, 1976 ).Google Scholar
  8. 32.
    P. Corbetta and A. Parisi, ‘Perche più indulgenza verso i terroristi?’, Cattaneo, vol. iii (1983) no. 2, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar
  9. 34.
    F. Di Giulio and E. Rocco: Un ministro-ombra si confessa ( Milan: Rizzoli, 1979 ) pp. 70–1;Google Scholar
  10. P. Fassino in G. Pansa, Stork italiane di violenze e terrorismo ( Bari: Laterza, 1980 ) p. 156.Google Scholar
  11. 49.
    David Moss, ‘The Kidnapping and Murder of Aldo Moro’, Archives européennes de sociologie vol. xxii (1981) no. 2, pp. 265–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. L. Jannuzzi, E. Capecelatro, F. Rocella, V. Vecellio, La pelle del D’Urso (Rome: Radio Radicale, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  13. 51.
    A. Baldissera, ‘Le immagini del terrorismo tra gli operai della Fiat’, Political ed Economia, vol. 9 (1981) pp. 33–4.Google Scholar
  14. 52.
    R. E. Wagner-Pacifici, The Moro Morality Play: terrorism as social drama ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David Moss 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Moss
    • 1
  1. 1.Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations