Social Dynamics of Terrorism

Abstract

Effective strategies for avoiding the projected “legitimation crisis” presuppose the clarification and resolution of issues regarding the definition, causation, and justification of political violence. It is proposed that terrorism be defined as an ideology or strategy justifying terror—defined as lethal or nonlethal violence intended to deter political opposition by maximizing fear, specifically by random targeting. On causation, it is argued that terrorism is to be explained as the product not of discrete causes but rather of systemic processes generated in functional and interactive relationships of inequality. Examples of relational dynamics encouraging groups to adopt terrorism are considered. Such dynamics encouraging groups to adopt terrorism are considered. Such dynamics are found to vary among as well as within authority structures. Terrorism is more likely to appear in totalitarian structures, but acts of terror are more frequent in democratic structures, which is largely attributable to the dissemination of terrorist ideologies, the displacement of political conflicts to freer settings, and the propensity of totalitarian governments to sponsor terror elsewhere. Terrorism and terror are associated with the breakdown of traditional authority structures and with efforts to create modern ones. Regarding issues of justification, it is concluded that terrorism and terror are unjustifiable on empirical grounds.

Terrorism and Corruption

“…(Schmid and Jongman 2008: 28, emphasis added) Perhaps the difficulty in defining terrorism is due to the fact that the term implies more than a simple act being conducted. Some researchers have expounded on this perspective, realizing that at the end of any effort, what is most commonly accepted is that terrorism is a pejorative term (Howard, Sawyer, and McCaffrey 2003;Turk 2004). In practice, actors perpetrating acts of terrorism rarely frame them as such.…”

“…as a response to feelings of indignity and frustration developed in repressive political environments" (Turk 2004: 274). In an earlier work, Turk (1982) demonstrates that "relational dynamics" within and between groups involved in political conflict affect the emergence of terrorism dependent upon the manner in which the issues are framed and terrorist actions are "encouraged." Pape (2003) observes that leaders of terrorist groups have linked the use of suicide bombing to success in achieving the groups' goals, framing the conflict in such a way as to convince actors of the usefulness of this specific subset of terrorism.…”

Veto players and terror

“…Although different mechanisms are offered for democracy's effect on the likelihood of experiencing terror (Ross, 1993), the preponderance of empirical evidence demonstrates that democracies encounter terrorism with more frequency than authoritarian regimes (Gurr, 1979;Turk, 1982;Chenoweth, 2010). Eubank & Weinberg (1994, using a variety of data and methods, consistently find that democracies experience more terror than their authoritarian counterparts.…”

A Theory of Categorical Terrorism

“…In much, if not most, popular discourse, as well as for many scholars )e.g., Turk 1982;Senechal de la Roche 1996;Black 2004), "terrorism" fundamentally is categorical terrorism in this sense. "Indiscriminate" violence is seen by many as an essential property of terrorism.…”