Skip to main content

Power and Knowledge

  • Chapter
  • 231 Accesses

Part of the Central and Eastern European Perspectives on International Relations Series book series (CEEPIR)

Abstract

This chapter explores the constitutive linkages between the states’ discourse of terrorism and specific (external) discursive formations of terrorism knowledge that can be seen as inducing effects of power while being subjected to this power’s effects at the same time. At the most general level, there seems to be little doubt that the basic discourses in which the terrorist has been ‘othered’ as the perpetrator of illegitimate violence, and in particular the basic discourses of order/chaos and civilization/barbarism, have been conditioned on the modern constitution of sovereign reason, which recognizes itself by excluding madness and chaos from the realm of civilization – incidentally, the central topic of Foucault’s Folie et Déraison (Foucault 1961). In international relations, as Ashley (1984) notes, the sovereignty of the reasoning man has served as a universal regulative ideal that enables a global domestication of men into particular territorial sovereignties and normalizes a certain historically contingent economy of power. The terrorist is located outside the pale of this ordered and civilized world.1 At the same time, he or she is neither confined nor exiled, but thanks to his or her mobility and elusiveness he or she challenges the very paradigm on which global political normality is based.

Keywords

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. ‘Terrorism,’ Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. XIV, ed. Edwin Seligman (New York: Macmillan, 1934).

    Google Scholar 

  2. William Henry Chamberlin, ‘The Evolution of Soviet Terrorism,’ International Affairs, vol. 13, no. 1 (1934): 113–121.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. O. Herzler, ‘The Typical Life Cycle of Dictatorships,’ Social Forces, vol. 17, no. 3 (1939): 303–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cf. Carl Schmitt, Political Theology (Chicago, Chicago University Press, 2005 [1922]);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1996 [1927]). Shortly before Marseilles, Morgenthau wrote that the reality of a legal norm was founded in the sanction, which depended on the actual constellation of power. The very existence of international law, he added a year later, was conditioned on this balance.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hans Morgenthau, La réalité de norms, en particulier des norms du droit international (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1934);

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hans Morgenthau, ‘Théorie des sanctions internationales,’ Révue de droit international et de législation compareé, vol. 36, no. 4 (1935): 809–836.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Koskenniemi (2004b) points to the genealogical relationship between liberal theory and the concept of non-intervention, suggesting that the founding of the dichotomy ‘inside/outside’, which is crucial for the dominant understanding of sovereignty, was established as a reflection of a liberal dichotomy of private/public.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Some concepts from the Convention on Counterfeiting Currency (1929), which in the period’s academic literature would be described as an ‘international crime of virulent and insidious character’ that injured public order and monetary sovereignty and harmed all states because of existing economic interdependence (Ernestine Fitz-Maurice, ‘Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency,’ The American Journal of International Law, vol. 26, no. 3 [1932] 533), would find their way into the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism. The most notable borrowings were the collocation ‘prevention and punishment’ (art. 1) and the wording of the constraint on extradition (art. 8).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. In contrast, it did not seem to relate in any way to the discourse of ‘systematic terrorism’ developed in the law of war, which referred more particularly to the occupation. See H. de Watteville, ‘The Military Administration of Occupied Territory in Time of War,’ Transactions of the Grotius Society, no. 7 (1921): 133–152;

    Google Scholar 

  12. Edward William Hall, A Treatise on International Law, Eighth Edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924);

    Google Scholar 

  13. or George Whitecross Paton, A Textbook of Jurisprudence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946).

    Google Scholar 

  14. International Conference on the Unification of Criminal Law, Madrid (1933), Actes de la conference (Paris: A. Pedone, 1935) 335.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Thomas Givanovitch, Terrorisme: Rapport (Copenhague: Conférence internationale pour l’unification du droit penal, 1935). Givanovich also presented a similar report to the Committee of Experts, where it was registered as Doc. C.R.T.9 (1935).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Albert Camus, The Rebel (London: Penguin, 2000);

    Google Scholar 

  18. Albert Camus, Réflexions sur le terrorisme (Paris: Nicolas Philippe, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Albert Camus, ‘The Just Assassins,’ in Caligula and Three other Plays (New York: Vintage, 1962). For a commentary on Camus’ justification of such violence in the play see Evangelista (2008: 40).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jean-Paul Sartre, Colonialism and Neocolonialism (New York: Routledge, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jean-Paul Sartre, ‘Preface,’ in Franz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove Press, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  22. For Lenin’s most notorious analysis of imperialism see ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism,’ in Essential Works of Lenin (New York: Bantam Books, 1966). The rhetoric was even more salient in statements by the revolutionary movements, which rendered the liberation struggle in terms of class struggle (whereas the conventional war, with its limits, was a bourgeois war), or characterized themselves as the vanguard of the mass movement that would follow its lead. Cf. Manifesto of the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine, in Voices of Terror, ed. Walter Laqueur (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, 2004) 149–152; and for a more general survey see Harkabi (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  23. It should be noted that Freud himself, in his analysis of the psy-ché, employed geographical metaphors, rendering Ich, Es and Überich as Reichte, Gebiete, and Provinzen in a multiethnic state (such as the Habsbourg Empire). There is also a distinct power aspect to his theory that lends itself easily to the analysis of the colonial situation, as Überich (posing as a great power) allies with Es (the middle tier) and together they represent the archic and the stable, and mediate external reality to the dependent and repressed Ich, standing for the anarchic and unstable, whose repressed impulses are from time to time expressed, but within the boundaries of what Freud called ‘internal foreign territory’. Sigmund Freud, Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis (London: Penguin, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Fort Washington, PA: Harvest Books, 1951);

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (New York: Viking Press, 1963);

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hannah Arendt, On Violence (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1970);

    Google Scholar 

  27. Carl Joachim Friedrich, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (New York: Praeger, 1965), written in collaboration with a young Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Google Scholar 

  28. E. Victor Walter, Terror and Resistance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Walter Laqueur, A History of Terrorism (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001 [1977]) 146.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Michael Stohl, ed., The Politics of Terrorism. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1979. For Stohl’s recent use of the same approach see ‘Old Myths, New Fantasies and the Enduring Realities of Terrorism,’ Critical Studies on Terrorism, vol. 1, no. 1 (2008): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cf. Richard Shultz, ‘Conceptualizing Political Terrorism: A Typology,’ Journal of International Affairs, vol. 32, no. 1 (1978): 7–16; Jenkins (1974: 3);

    Google Scholar 

  32. Brian Jenkins, Will Terrorists Go Nuclear? (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1975a);

    Google Scholar 

  33. Martha Crenshaw, ‘The Causes of Terrorism,’ Comparative Politics, vol. 13, no. 4 (1981): 377–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cf. Gerald McKnight, The Terrorist Mind (Indianapolis: Bobbs and Merrill Co., 1974);

    Google Scholar 

  35. Charles Russell and Bowman Miller, ‘Profile of a Terrorist,’ Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 1, no. 1 (1977): 17–34;

    Google Scholar 

  36. Irving Louis Horowitz, ‘Political Terrorism and State Power,’ Journal of Political and Military Sociology, vol. 1, no. 1 (1973): 147–157;

    Google Scholar 

  37. Albert Parry, Terrorism: From Robespierre to Arafat (New York: The Vanguard Press, 1976); Laqueur (2001 [1977]);

    Google Scholar 

  38. Frederick J. Hacker, Crusaders, Criminals, Crazies: Terror and Terrorism in Our Time (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gurr’s relative deprivation model of explaining violence was based on an influential refinement by Berkowitz of Dollard’s frustration-aggression thesis, which itself was heavily indebted to Freudian psychoanalysis. Berkowitz expanded the model to account for a variety of responses to frustration, which may be seen as resonating in the FWD replies to the TWD’s discourse of underlying causes. Ted Robert Gurr, Why Men Rebel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970);

    Google Scholar 

  40. Leonard Berkowitz, Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962);

    Google Scholar 

  41. John Dollard et al., Frustration and Aggression (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Eugene Meehan, The Theory and Method of Political Analysis (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Chalmers Johnson, ‘Perspectives on Terrorism,’ in ed. Walter Laqueur, The Terrorism Reader (New York: New American Library, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Paul Wilkinson, Political Terrorism (London: Macmillan, 1974). In Terrorism and the Liberal State Wilkinson would add ‘epiphenomenal terrorism’

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. to this grid. Paul Wilkinson, Terrorism and the Liberal State (London: Macmillan, 1977).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Cf. also Thomas Thornton, ‘Terror as a Weapon of Political Agitation,’ in Internal War: Problems and Approaches, ed. Harry Eckstein (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Brian Crozier, A Theory of Conflict (New York: Scribner, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  48. For a period survey of contending claims about terrorism, including, for example, claims about its effectiveness, cf. Bowyer Bell, A Time of Terror (New York: Basic Books, 1978); see also the review in Jenkins (1978), op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cf. Thornton, op. cit.; Jenkins (1974; 1975a); Brian Jenkins, International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict. Research Paper no. 48, California Seminar on Arms Control and Foreign Policy (Los Angeles: Crescent Publications, 1975b); Horowitz, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cf. Walter Laqueur, ‘The Futility of Terrorism,’ Harper’s Magazine (March 1976); Laqueur (2001 [1977]); Rapoport (1977);

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yonah Alexander, ‘Terrorism, the Media and the Police,’ Journal of International Affairs, vol. 32, no.1 (1978);

    Google Scholar 

  52. Yonah Alexander and S.M. Finger, ‘Terrorism and the Media,’ Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 2, no. 1–2 (1979);

    Google Scholar 

  53. Richard Clutterbuck, ‘Terrorism is Likely to Increase,’ Times of London (Apr. 10, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Cf. Jenkins, (1974; 1975b), op. cit.; Stephen Sloan, ‘International Terrorism: Academic Quest, Operational Art and Policy Implications,’ Journal of International Affairs, vol. 32, no. 1 (1978): 1–5; Jenkins (1980: 2); Shultz, op. cit., 8; Wilkinson (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Cf. Mason Willrich and Theodore Taylor, Nuclear Theft: Risks and Safeguards (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1974);

    Google Scholar 

  56. Augustus Norton and Michael Greenberg, Studies in Nuclear Terrorism (Boston: G.K. Hall, 1979);

    Google Scholar 

  57. Thomas Schelling, ‘Thinking about Nuclear Terrorism,’ International Security, vol. 6, no. 4 (1982): 61–77; Laqueur, (2001 [1977]), 226–234. For a more comprehensive review see Cameron (2004). On the other hand, based on the subjectification of the terrorist as an instrumentally rational person minimizing costs and maximizing outcomes and the metaphor of terrorism as theater, Jenkins would be sceptical about the prospect of nuclear terrorism: ‘Terrorists wanted a lot of people watching, not dead.’ Jenkins, 1975a;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. cf. also Brian Jenkins, The Potential for Nuclear Terrorism (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cf. Jenkins (1974); Brian Jenkins, ‘International Terrorism: Trends and Potentialities,’ Journal of International Affairs, vol. 32, no. 1 (1978): 115–123.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Cf. Claire Sterling, Terror Network: The Secret War of International Terrorism (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980);

    Google Scholar 

  61. Samuel T. Francis, The Soviet Strategy of Terror (Washington: The Heritage Foundation, 1981);

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ray S. Cline and Yonah Alexander, Terrorism: The Soviet Connection (New York: Crane Russak, 1984);

    Google Scholar 

  63. or Benjamin Netanyahu et al., Terrorism: How the West Can Win (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  64. For an early criticism of the international terror network paradigm cf. Edward Herman, The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda (Boston: South End Press, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Cf. most notably Paul Wilkinson, Terrorism versus Liberal Democracy: The Problems of Response (London: Institute for the Study of Conflict, 1976); Wilkinson 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cf. John Yoo, ‘International Law and the War in Iraq,’ American Journal of International Law, vol. 97, no. 3 (2003): 563–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Antonio Cassese, ‘Terrorism is also Disrupting some Crucial Legal Categories of International Law,’ European Journal of International Law, vol. 12, no. 5 (2001): 993–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Cf. Ian Ward, Law, Text, Terror (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  69. Marja Lehto, ‘Terrorism in International Law: An Empty Box or Pandora’s Box?’ in Jarna Petman and Jan Klabbers, eds, Nordic Cosmopolitanism: Essays in International Law for Martti Koskenniemi (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003);

    Google Scholar 

  70. Dominic McGoldrick, From ‘9–11’ to the ‘Iraq War 2003’ (Oxford: Hart, 2003);

    Google Scholar 

  71. Theodor Menon, ‘Is International Law Moving towards Criminalization?’ European Journal of International Law, vol. 9, no. 1 (1998): 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Rosalyn Higgins, ‘The General International Law of Terrorism,’ in Rosalyn Higgins and Maurice Flory, eds., Terrorism and International Law (London: Routledge, 2003) 28.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Cf. Lee Jarvis, ‘The Spaces and Faces of Critical Terrorism Studies,’ Security Dialogue, vol. 40, no. 1 (2009): 5–27;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smyth and Jeroen Gunning, eds., Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda (London: Routledge, 2009);

    Google Scholar 

  75. Jeroen Gunning, ‘A Case for Critical Terrorism Studies?’ Government and Opposition, vol. 42, no. 3 (2007): 363–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Cf. Richard Jackson, ‘Genealogy, Ideology and Counter-Terrorism: Writing Wars on Terrorism from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush Jr.,’ Studies in Language and Capitalism, vol. 1, no. 1 (2006): 163–193;

    Google Scholar 

  77. Richard Jackson, Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-terrorism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005);

    Google Scholar 

  78. James Der Derian, ‘9/11 and Its Consequences for the Discipline,’ Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, vol. 11, no. 1 (2004): 89–100;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. James Der Derian, ‘Imaging Terror: Logos, Pathos and Ethos,’ Third World Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 1 (2005): 23–37;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Claudia Aradau and Rensvan Munster, ‘Insuring Terrorism, Assuring Subjects, Ensuring Normality: The Politics of Risk after 9/11,’ Alternatives, vol. 33, no. 2 (2008): 191–210;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Barry Hindess, ‘Terrortory,’ Alternatives, vol. 31, no. 3 (2006): 243–257;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Michael Stohl, ‘Old Myths, New Fantasies and the Enduring Realities of Terrorism,’ Critical Studies on Terrorism, vol. 1, no. 1 (2008): 5–16;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Anthony Burke, ‘The End of Terrorism Studies,’ Critical Studies on Terrorism, vol 1, no. 1 (2008): 37–49;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Cynthia Weber, ‘Popular Visual Language as Global Communication: The Remediation of United Airlines Flight 93,’ Review of International Studies, vol. 34, no. 1 (2008): 137–153;

    Google Scholar 

  85. Sandra Silberstein, War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11 (London: Routledge, 2002);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  86. John Collins and Ross Glover, eds., Collateral Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War (London: New York University Press, 2002);

    Google Scholar 

  87. Richard Devetak, ‘The Gothic Scene of International Relations: Ghosts, Monsters, Terror and the Sublime after September 11,’ Review of International Studies, vol. 31, no. 4 (2005): 621–643;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Robert Ivie, ‘Savagery in Democracy’s Empire,’ Third World Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 1 (2005): 55–65;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Michael Bhatia, ‘Fighting Words: Naming terrorists, Bandits, Rebels and other Violent Actors,’ Third World Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 1 (2005): 5–22;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Alexander Spencer, The Tabloid Terrorist: The Predicative Construction of New Terrorism in the Media (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  91. John Edwards, ‘After the Fall,’ Discourse and Society, vol. 15, no. 2 (2004): 155–184;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Rainer Hülsse and Alexander Spencer, ‘The Metaphor of Terror: Terrorism Studies and the Constructivist Turn,’ Security Dialogue, vol. 39, no. 6 (2004): 571–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Didier Bigo, ‘Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease,’ Alternatives, vol. 27, no. 1 (2002): 63–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Didier Bigo et al., Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes: The (In)Security Games (Paris: L’Harmattan, 2006);

    Google Scholar 

  95. Didier Bigo, Sergio Carrera and Elspeth Guild, The Challenge Project: Final Policy Recommendations (Brussels: CEPS, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Leonard Weinberg, Ami Pedahzur and Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler, ‘The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism,’ Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 16, no. 4 (2004): 777–794;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman, Political Terrorism (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Cf. Jessica Stern, The Ultimate Terrorists (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001). There are indeed other reasons cited for the need of a definition, including improvement of the practice of counter-terrorism, eliminating abuse of the term, and simply achieving a better understanding of the current events. For a review of these positions cf. Schmid (2004), and for the last position see, for example,

    Google Scholar 

  99. C.A.J. Coady, ‘Defining Terrorism,’ in Igor Primoratz, ed., Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004);

    Google Scholar 

  100. Gerhard Hafner, ‘The Definition of the Crime of Terrorism,’ in Giuseppe Nesi, ed., International Cooperation in Counter-Terrorism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006);

    Google Scholar 

  101. Ariel Merari, ‘Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency,’ Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 5, no. 4 (1993): 213–251;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Louise Richardson, ‘Terrorists as Transnational Actors,’ Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 11. no. 1 (1999): 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Cf. Schmid and Jongman (2006); Brian Jenkins, The New Age of Terrorism (Santa Monica: RAND, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Cf. the synthetic definitions of Weinberg, Pedahzur and Hirsch-Hoeffler (op. cit.) and of Schmid and Jongman (op.cit.); see also Martha Crenshaw, ‘Psychology of Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century,’ Political Psychology, vol. 21, no. 2 (2000) 406; or Stern (2001: 11).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Cf. Igor Primoratz, ‘What is Terrorism?’ Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 7, no. 2 (1990) 131; Stern (2001);

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006); Ronald Crelinsten, quoted in Schmid and Jongman (2006: 23).

    Google Scholar 

  107. Some authors would engage in the profiling practice ostentatiously only to show the ‘futility’ of such an enterprise, that is, to show that there are no shared characteristics that could constitute a general terrorist profile. Cf. Marc Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  108. Ehud Sprinzak, ‘Rational Fanatics,’ Foreign Policy, no. 120 (2000): 66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Robert Pape, ‘The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,’ American Political Science Review, vol. 97, no. 3 (2003): 343–361. Pape conceives of terrorism as a strategy, an extreme case of Schelling’s rationality of irrationality concept.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Cf. Thomas Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  111. For some other contemporary examples of rationalist views on terrorism see Lawrence Freedman, ‘Terrorism as a Strategy,’ Government and Opposition, vol. 42, no. 3 (2007): 314–339;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Brian Jenkins, ‘The Organization Men: Anatomy of a Terrorist Attack,’ in James Hoge and Gideon Rose, eds., How Did This Happen? Terrorism and the New War (New York: Public Affairs, 2001);

    Google Scholar 

  113. Martha Crenshaw, ‘The Logic of Terrorism: Terrorist Behavior as a Product of Choice,’ Terrorism and Counter Terrorism, vol. 2, no. 1 (1998): 54–64.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Cf. John Horgan, Psychology of Terrorism (London: Routledge, 2005);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  115. Max Taylor and John Horgan, ‘The Psychological and Behavioural Bases of Islamic Fundamentalism,’ Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 13, no. 4 (2001): 37–71;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Max Taylor and John Horgan, ‘A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Psychological Process in the Development of the Terrorist,’ Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 18, no. 1 (2006): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. M.J. Post, ‘The Mind of the Terrorist: Individual and Group Psychology of Terrorist Behavior,’ a testimony for the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Senate Armed Services Committee (November 2001);

    Google Scholar 

  118. cf. also Richard Pearlstein, The Mind of the Political Terrorist (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Cf. Donatella della Porta, Social Movements, Political Violence, and the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  120. Jeffrey Ian Ross, ‘The Psychological Causes of Oppositional Political Terrorism: Toward an Integration of Findings,’ International Journal of Group Tensions, vol. 24, no. 2 (1994): 157–185;

    Google Scholar 

  121. Jeffrey Ian Ross, ‘A Model of the Psychological Causes of Oppositional Political Terrorism,’ Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, vol. 2, no. 2 (1996): 129–141; cf. also Reich, op. cit.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Cf. Bruce Hoffman, ‘The Contrasting Ethical Foundations of Terrorism in the 1980s,’ Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 1, no. 3 (1989): 361–377;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Bruce Hoffman, Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Analysis of Trends and Motivations (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1999);

    Google Scholar 

  124. Charles Kegley, ed., The New Global Terrorism: Characteristics, Causes, Controls (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003);

    Google Scholar 

  125. Hoffman (2006), op. cit.; Walter Laqueur, ‘Postmodern Terrorism,’ Foreign Affairs, vol. 75, no. 5 (1996): 24–37;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Walter Laqueur, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998);

    Google Scholar 

  127. Ashton Carter, John Deutsch and Philip Zelikow, ‘Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger,’ Foreign Affairs, vol. 77, no. 6 (1998): 80–94;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Xavier Raufer, ‘New World Disorder, New Terrorism: New Threats for Europe and the Western World,’ Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 11, no. 4 (1999): 30–51;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. David Rapoport, ‘Terrorism and Weapons of the Apocalypse,’ National Security Studies Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 3 (1999): 49–67;

    Google Scholar 

  130. Steven Simon and Daniel Benjamin, ‘America and the New Terrorism,’ Survival, 42, no. 1 (2000): 59–75;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. David Tucker, ‘What’s New about the New Terrorism and How Dangerous is It?’ Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 13, no. 1 (2001): 1–14; Sageman, op. cit.; Stern, 2001;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Paul Beuman, Ter ror and Liberalism (New York: W.W. Norton, 2003);

    Google Scholar 

  133. Ulrich Beck, ‘The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited,’ Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 19, no. 4 (2002): 39–55;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Brian Jenkins, The New Age of Terrorism (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  135. See above, and also, for example, Robert Litwak, ‘The New Calculus of Pre-Emption,’ Survival, vol. 44, no. 4 (2002): 53–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. The concept of new terrorism has been subjected also to criticism in the field. Cf. Isabelle Duyvesteyn, ‘How New Is the New Terrorism,’ Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 27, no. 5 (2004): 439–454;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Alexander Spencer, ‘Questioning the Concept of “New Terrorism”,’ Peace, Conflict and Development, vol. 8, no. 8 (2006): 1–33;

    Google Scholar 

  138. Albert Bergsen and Omar Lizardo, ‘International Terrorism and the World System,’ Sociological Theory, vol. 22, no. 1 (2004): 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Walter Laqueur, ‘The Terrorism to Come,’ Policy Review 126 (2004) 59–60. For the concept of new terrorism as a total war see also Hoffman (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  140. The dehumanization of the terrorist, including also the metaphor of terrorism as a cancer, has some precedents from the 1980s, for example, those in the following notorious edited volume: Benjamin Netanyahu, ed., Terrorism: How the West Can Win (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  141. Gray, op. cit.; Stanley Hoffman, ‘Clash of Globalizations,’ Foreign Affairs, vol. 81, no. 4 (2002): 104–115;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Daniel Byman, ‘Al-Qaeda as an Adversary: Do We Understand our Enemy?’ World Politics, vol. 56, no. 1 (2003): 139–163;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Audrey Cronin, ‘Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism,’ International Security, vol. 27, no. 3 (2002): 30–58. For a critical review of those narratives cf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. James Gelvin, ‘Al-Qaeda and Anarchism: A Historian’s Reply to Terrorology,’ Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 20, no. 4 (2008): 563–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. For the understanding of globalization as engendering a need for expressive violence by the powerless in the face of the normalization of the world order, cf. Christopher Coker, Globalization and Insecurity in the 21st Century: NATO and the Management of Risk, Adelphi Paper no. 345 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  146. Cf. Sageman, op. cit.; John Arguilla and David Ronfeldt, eds., In Athena’s Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age (Santa Monica: RAND, 1997);

    Google Scholar 

  147. or the notorious book by Rohan Gunaratna, Inside Al-Qaeda: Global Network of Terror (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002). For criticism of the use of the network concept by governments,

    Google Scholar 

  148. see Cynthia Stohl and Michael Stohl, ‘Networks of Terror: Theoretical Assumptions and Pragmatic Consequences,’ Communication Theory, vol. 17, no. 2 (2007): 93–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Louise I. Shelley and John T. Picarelli, ‘Methods not Motives: Implications of the Convergence of International Organized Crime and Terrorism,’ Police Practice and Research, vol. 3, no. 4 (2002) 306;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. cf. also Tamara Makarenko, ‘The Crime-Terror Continuum: Tracing the Interplay between Transnational Organised Crime and Terrorism,’ Global Crime, vol. 6, no. 1 (2004): 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Cf. Bruce Hoffman, ‘Holy Terror’: The Implications of Terrorism Motivated by a Religious Imperative (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1993);

    Google Scholar 

  152. Mark Jurgensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Berkeley: Berkeley University Press, 2000);

    Google Scholar 

  153. Mark Jurgensmeyer, Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State (Berkeley: Berkeley University Press, 2008);

    Google Scholar 

  154. Jessica Stern, Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill (New York: HarperCollins, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  155. Cf. Bernard Lewis, The Assassins (New York: Basic Books, 1968);

    Google Scholar 

  156. Walter Laqueur, A History of Terrorism (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001 [1977]);

    Google Scholar 

  157. David Rapoport, ‘The Politics of Atrocity,’ in Yonah Alexander and S.M. Finger, eds., Terrorism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (New York: John Jay, 1977);

    Google Scholar 

  158. David Rapoport, ‘Introduction: Religious Terror,’ in David Rapoport and Yonah Alexander, eds., The Morality of Terrorism: Religious and Secular Justifications (New York: Pergamon, 1982);

    Google Scholar 

  159. David Rapoport, ‘Fear and Trembling: Terrorism in Three Religious Traditions,’ American Political Science Review, vol. 78, no. 3 (1984): 658–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. The causal relationship between religious fanaticism and suicide bombings has been criticized, for example, by Robert Pape, who has argued that in the majority of cases suicide campaigns have been intended to compel a (democratic) government to withdraw from a disputed territory. Pape, 2003; cf. Robert Pape, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (New York: Random House, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  161. The secular orientation of the groups practicing terrorism in the Middle East was also pointed to, for example, in Ariel Merari, ‘The Readiness to Kill and Die: Suicidal Terrorism in the Middle East,’ in Walter Reich, ed., Origins of Terrorism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  162. Samuel Huntington, ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3 (1993) 22;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. cf. Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (London: Simon and Schuster, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  164. Cf. Laqueur, 2003; Gilles Kepel, The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2004);

    Google Scholar 

  165. Quintan Wiktorowitz, Islamic Activism: A Social Movement Approach (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004);

    Google Scholar 

  166. Quintan Wiktorowitz, ‘A Genealogy of Radical Islam,’ Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 28, no. 2 (2005): 75–97;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. John Esposito, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). The last book would be complained about by Sudan during a session of the Sixth Committee; see Doc. A/C.6/48/SR.12 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  168. Because of its implicit Orientalism Huntington’s clash of civilizations would soon become a subject of criticism by Edward Said himself; cf. his ‘The Clash of Ignorance,’ The Nation, Oct. 22, 2001; and, for a more general view, Edward Said, Orientalism (London: Penguin, 2003 [1978]);

    Google Scholar 

  169. and Edward Said, Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World (New York: Vintage, 1997) 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Bernard Lewis, ‘Islamic Terrorism,’ in Benjamin Netanyahu, ed., Terrorism: How the West Can Win (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1986);

    Google Scholar 

  171. see also Bernard Lewis, ‘The Roots of Muslim Rage,’ The Atlantic (September 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  172. For a later explicit formulation of the concern about the rise of the Hobbesian anarchy associated with a resurgence of religion in international politics, cf. John Gray, Al-Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern (New York: Faber and Faber, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2014 Ondrej Ditrych

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ditrych, O. (2014). Power and Knowledge. In: Tracing the Discourses of Terrorism. Central and Eastern European Perspectives on International Relations Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137394965_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics