The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Security

Dialogue, Vol 40/Issue 1, pp.5-27, February 2009 by SAGE Publications

Ltd, All rights reserved. © 2009 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo

(PRIO).

URL: http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/40/1.toc

The Spaces and Faces of Critical Terrorism Studies

LEE JARVIS

Department of Politics and International Relations, Swansea University, UK

Lee Jarvis is a Lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Swansea University, UK; email: l.jarvis@swansea.ac.uk. He would like to thank Richard Jackson, Magnus Ryner, Laura J. Shepherd, Jill Steans, Paul D. Williams, the editor of Security Dialogue and four anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

The Spaces and Faces of Critical Terrorism Studies

LEE JARVIS

Department of Politics and International Relations, Swansea University, UK

This article explores the burgeoning academic interest in establishing a critical terrorism studies research programme. It begins by reviewing the debates over definition, causation and response that still dominate mainstream discussions on terrorism. The analytical and normative limitations of these debates, it argues, open considerable space for the emergence of a critically oriented body of literature. The second section of the article then explores two distinct attempts at overcoming these limitations: the broadening and interpretivist faces of critical terrorism studies. The broadening face refers to attempts to expand our conception of terrorism beyond non-state violence, while the interpretivist face comprises critical explorations of terror in image and narrative. Although each of these approaches offers the scholar of terrorism a more engaged role than the problem-solving orientation of the mainstream debates, the article argues that the interpretivist face is alone capable of addressing their analytical limitations. The article concludes by calling for further attention to the notion of critique within the relevant literature.

Key words: Critical Terrorism Studies; Terrorism; Counter-terrorism; Terrorism Studies; Critical Theory

Introduction

The recent surge of interest in terrorism and counter-terrorism has been well documented

(Pedhazur et al, 2002:141; Turk, 2004: 271; Gunning, 2007:363). From the fields of

Security Studies, International Relations and beyond, many have now argued that

established theories and concepts require revisiting to incorporate transformations in the

character and agents of violence (Philpott, 2002; Agathangelou & Ling, 2004; Der

Derian, 2004; Smith, 2004). With a new set of research questions suddenly and audibly

thrust into view, enduring complaints over the neglect of these issues appear increasingly

anachronistic. If ‘terrorism studies’ was, indeed, once a minority pursuit (Gordon, 1999;

Richardson, 2006:1), it is increasingly difficult to argue this still.

This paper contributes to one of the more interesting developments within these

discussions: the demand for a critical terrorism studies programme (Gunning, 2007;

Jackson, 2007a: 172; Booth, 2008; Burke, 2008). Echoing earlier appeals for a Critical

Security Studies to counter the ‘iron cage of political realism’ (Booth, 2005:4, see also

Dalby, 1997; Smith, 2000), many are now seeking greater attention to the analytical and

normative commitments that characterize studies of terrorist violence. With this demand

to transcend the failings of ‘orthodox’ or ‘mainstream’ terrorism studies already

attracting critical discussion (see Jackson, 2007a; Horgan & Boyle, 2008), this article

reflects on the spaces available for such an engagement, and the faces such an

engagement may take. Such an exploration, I argue, raises difficult questions, not least

concerning the status of academic responsibility and critique.

Motivated thus, I begin my discussion by tracing the major issues and concerns of

terrorism studies as constituted at present. Although we need be wary of constructing a

monolithic straw man for critique (Horgan & Boyle, 2008:57-59), I argue that this body

of knowledge remains overwhelmingly oriented around three related, and enduring,

questions: those of denotation, causation and response. In this sense, I approach terrorism

studies as an exemplar of problem-solving theory in the Coxian sense (Cox, 1996:88, see

also Gunning, 2007): an exemplar characterized by considerable meta-theoretical and

normative limitations. Rendering these limitations visible and explicit, I suggest, sheds

light on the spaces available for more critically oriented discussions.

The second part of this article introduces the emergence of two broadly critical

frameworks that go some way towards addressing the limitations of the mainstream

debates. Although these frameworks by no means exhaust the relevant scholarship in this

area, their common engagement with the meaning of terrorism renders them central to

any rethinking of the politics of violence in this context. The first of the two, referred to

here as the broadening face of critical terrorism studies, relates to efforts at extending the

terrorism studies agenda beyond an unnecessarily limited, and perhaps arbitrary, concern

with unconventional violence. These discussions, I argue, offer a useful reminder that

terrorism need not be approached as the preserve of non-state actors alone: a reminder, if

not lost within mainstream discussions, then certainly marginalized (compare Horgan &

Boyle, 2008:56-57; Stohl, 2008:5-6). The second, interpretivist, face concerns the

altogether more radical attempts at rethinking the politics of terror away from any

residual essentialism. Focusing not on terrorism as practice or strategy, but rather on

‘terrorism’ as production or performance, these disparate literatures reflect on the

enabling and disciplinary functions performed by constructions of this behaviour,

identity and threat. I conclude my discussion by arguing that although each of these faces

offers a powerful normative response to orthodox terrorism studies, the interpretivist

approach is alone capable of addressing the discipline’s continuing analytical limitations.

Terrorism studies: A problem-solving pursuit

In order to better understand the need for any form of critical terrorism studies, the

following section traces the core questions and concerns motivating more orthodox

works in this area. As outlined below, these literatures remain overwhelmingly

dominated by efforts to capture their object of knowledge – the problem of definition; to

explain that object’s conditions of existence – the problem of causation; and to offer

possible pathways for preventing or combating terrorism – the problem of response.

Although a comprehensive review of the perspectives brought to these discussions is

pragmatically impossible, I argue that the continued centrality of these debates sheds

considerable light on this discipline’s self-image as a problem-solving enterprise.

The problem of definition

Where the history of terrorism as a behaviour or strategy has spawned considerable

debate, the birth of this concept is typically traced more specifically to the French

Revolution (Halliday, 2002:72; Booth & Dunne, 2002:8). At least since the League of

Nations’ 1937 attempt at definition (Laqueur, 2003:233), however, the problem of

accurately, consensually or even objectively denoting this term has generated

considerable academic and political interest (Badey, 1998:90; Kennedy, 1999:15-18;

Laqueur, 2003:232-238). Although the relevant terrorism studies literature appears no

closer than ever to resolving this problem, recent events have been interpreted as adding

impetus to the need to revisit this question. Following 11 September 2001 in particular, at

least two related justifications have been posited here.

First, the need for a coherent and consensual definition of terrorism has been identified

by a number of authors as an essential foundation for better understanding, and perhaps

condemning, attacks such as those of 9/11 (Coady, 2004:3). Denoting our concepts

clearly and accurately, in this broad sensibility, remains an absolute pre-requisite for

patient and considered academic reflection. As Meisels suggests in a recent contribution

to these discussions (2006:465-466):

Resorting to analytical tools is perhaps no more than a philosopher’s means of despair, yet it is vital to understanding current events and appropriately influencing future ones. ...A canonical and consistent definition of “terrorism” can and should be pursued by theorists, and particularly by philosophers. Such definitions and their corresponding normative codes, which are desirable for legal systems and the states they represent, are absolutely essential for moral philosophers if they are to contribute anything at all to modern affairs. If lawyers require definitions, moral and legal philosophers cannot do without them.

Although this postulated union of definition and understanding is neither unique to the

post-9/11 political climate (Merari, 1993:214; Richardson, 1999:209), nor, of course, to

the issue of terrorism, the significance of recent events here offers further grounds for re-

engaging with this long-standing question of denotation.

A second, related, argument for revisiting this problem relates more explicitly to the

formulation of security policy. In this line of thought, the absence of any coherent or

shared conception of terrorism renders cooperation on tackling this behaviour far more

problematic than necessary. With definitional contestability presented as an obstacle not

only to understanding but also to praxis, resolving this issue of definition becomes here

urgent on analytical and political grounds. In Ganor’s (2005:2) formulation:

As long as there is no agreement as to “what is terrorism?” it is impossible to assign responsibility to nations that support terrorism, to formulate steps to cope on an international level with terrorism, and to fight effectively the terrorists, terror organizations and their allies.

If this transaction between discursive and political mastery also has its precursors within

earlier literatures (Malik, 2000: 57-59), impetus is added to this discussion by linking the

problem of definition to posited transformations in terrorist conduct (on this, see Jenkins,

2001:5; Stohl, 2005:146). Against this new climate of uncertainty and change, then

eschewing this question of definition emerges as an abdication of intellectual, moral, and

political responsibility.

These calls for revisiting this problem of definition already speak powerfully to the self-

image of contemporary terrorism studies. Even if an objective formulation of this

concept remains as illusory as ever, the simple demand for further engagement with this

question demonstrates an unambiguous desire for ontological certainty and policy

relevance. However frequently the well-known obstacles of embedded political interests

(see Held, 2004:66; Mustafa, 2005:78-79) or etymological change (see Halliday,

2002:72-73; Mathiesen, 2002:86), are raised in these discussions, terrorism studies

remains largely committed to removing terrorism from the realm of subjectivity and

coherently, consensually, even objectively, defining this behaviour (Halliday, 2002:47;

Wilkinson, 2001:1).

The problem of causation

If events such as 9/11 sparked a renewed determination to address the long-standing

problem of definition, they also reinvigorated a similarly enduring search for the causes

of terrorism. Although contributors to this discussion typically caution against the

existence of any single explanatory schema (Laqueur, 1987:183; Pedhazur, 2004:842-

843), reflecting on the individual and structural dynamics beneath political violence

remains a central concern within the relevant literature. For the purposes of this paper,

the following section offers a brief typology of the perspectives brought to bear on this

debate: a typology focusing not on the arguments of specific authors or schools, but

rather the diversity of positions available to scholars of terrorism. The continuing

prominence accorded this second debate, I argue, again speaks loudly on the present state

of terrorism studies.

An intuitively appealing location from which to commence the search for the causes of

terrorism is by reference to the individual agent turning to violence. Such explanations

typically begin with the premise that relatively few actors engage in terrorism despite the

pervasiveness of socio-economic inequalities, religious beliefs, political grievances or

other potentially relevant structural dynamics (Crenshaw, 1981:380). In Laqueur’s

(2003:22-23) typically forthright formulation: “...if terrorists are, indeed, as some claim,

“people like you and me” – there would be billions of terrorists, but there are only

relatively few”. With this apparent disjuncture in mind, one response has been to search

for psychological similarities within the personality profiles of terrorist actors, albeit with

a frequent scepticism towards any universal model of ‘the terrorist mind’ (Post, 2002:47-

49; Kruglanski & Fishman, 2006; Richardson, 2006:61). Although popular images of

terrorists as deviant, pathological, or irrational fanatics are frequently rejected (Braungart

& Braungart, 2002:96; Ruby, 2002; Whittaker, 2002:82), personality traits such as a

desire for certainty or fixity of identity, or paranoia fuelled by perceptions of loss or

injustice, have been discussed here as potentially relevant factors (Post, 2002:48; Scruton,

2002:109; Zuk & Zuk, 2002:70-76; Durodié, 2007:429).

These explanations of terrorism by reference to psychological characteristics are

relatively rare in contemporary debate. For many, much of this research remains

methodologically suspect, at the same time as it neglects the significance of broader

socio-political factors (Arena & Arigo, 2005:486-487; Kruglanski & Fishman, 2006). As

such, a more popular individual-level explanation approaches terrorism as a rational

tactic or utility-oriented strategy aimed at achieving specific (political) ends. Whether

intended to stimulate an over-reaction from particular targets (Rogers, 2004:156-158); to

coerce those targets into policy change (Pape, 2003:344); or to mobilize popular support

within potentially sympathetic populations (Jenkins, 2001:13), terrorism remains

explicable for many as an instrumentalist calculation undertaken by an individual or

group (Kruglanski & Fishman, 2006; Freedman, 2007). Crenshaw’s (1981:380) earlier

definition of terrorism as “…a form of political behaviour resulting from the deliberate

choice of a basically rational actor” summarizes this sensibility succinctly.

Conceptualized thus, there is nothing qualitatively distinct about the decision to engage

in terrorism vis-à-vis other forms of action: terrorism, quite simply, offers “... a choice

among alternatives” (McCormick, 2003:474).

Alongside the more explicitly agential explanations, a number of structural accounts have

also emerged to explain the continuing presence of unconventional violence. In the first

instance, we encounter discussions tying terrorism to the experience of absolute or

relative poverty: explanations with their precursors in earlier theories of relative

deprivation and social injustice (De la Hodde, 1987; Goldman, 1987). Although

assertions of a direct causal linkage are relatively rare in contemporary debate (see

Krueger & Malekcova, 2003), several prominent authors remain keen to identify global

economic stratification as a significant systemic factor behind contemporary terrorism.

Habermas’ (2003:32) account of the division of world-society into winner, beneficiary

and loser countries, for example, here resonates with Benjamin Barber’s (2003:xxxi)

conception of 9/11 as a reactionary backlash against advanced capitalism:

Capitalism fails miserably at distribution and hence at safety and justice... Internationally, there is only a raging asymmetry that is the first and last cause of an anarchism in which terror flourishes and terrorists make their perverse arguments about death to young men and women who have lost hope in the possibilities of life.

Conceptualized thus, the feelings of discontent, hopelessness and frustration engendered

by a last instance of neoliberal globalization emerge as meaningful factors underpinning

engagements in political violence (see also Wolfensohn, 2002; Alam, 2003).

A second broadly structural account of terrorism focuses on the significance of religious

systems of belief. Explanations of this type have achieved a growing prominence in

recent years, with several authors seeking to subsume the ostensibly political demands of

contemporary actors beneath their theological claims. As Philpott (2002:92-93) suggests

in his discussion of ‘radical Islamic revivalism’:

…we must come to understand that these groups are defined, constituted, and motivated by religious beliefs, beliefs about the ultimate ground of existence. Out of these beliefs, they then construct a political theology as well as a social critique that measures the distance between that theology and contemporary social conditions and prescribes action accordingly.

Despite the critics’ repeated denial of any direct linkage between religion and terrorism

(Armstrong, 2001; Jackson, 2007b), many authors remain keen to approach Al-Qaeda

and their equivalents as deriving their inspiration from (radical) Islam. In this sense,

Islamic self-sacrificial ideals, extremist texts, and the continuing desire for a limited or

global caliphate emerge here as significant theological factors in their own right (Israeli,

2002; Scruton, 2002:126-128; Byman, 2003:152-153; Sedgwick, 2004; Zimmerman,

2004). This Huntington-inflected view of contemporary world politics has led certain

writers to locate a tradition of belligerent bellicosity throughout the Islamic world. Both

Berman and Laqueur, for example, posit this linkage in recent discussions on terrorism,

arguing respectively, “...in every place where Muslim populations border on non-Muslim

populations – some kind of war, large or small, had broken out in recent years, Muslims

against non-Muslims” (Berman, 2003:15). And:

A review of wars, civil wars, and other contemporary conflicts shows indeed a greater incidence of violence and aggression in Muslim societies than in most others. If we ignore tribal warfare in sub-Saharan Africa (notably in Nigeria and Somalia as well as the Sudan), the Islamic factor has

been prominently involved; almost 90 percent of these conflicts appear to affect Muslim countries and societies (Laqueur, 2003:19).

A final set of structural explanations focuses more explicitly on this behaviour’s

narrowly political determinants. Frequently counter-posed to the above religious

accounts, these approaches locate the actions of Al-Qaeda and similar groupings within

the context of either corrupt state regimes (Tan, 2003:134-135) or American global

hegemony and associated foreign policy (Green, 2002; Jackson, 2005:54-57). From such

a perspective, Cronin (2003:33), for example, argues that “...terrorism always has a

political nature. It involves the commission of outrageous acts designed to precipitate

political change.” In this sense, “...Anti-American terrorism is spurred in part by a desire

to change U.S. policy in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions as well as by growing

antipathy in the developing world vis-à-vis the forces of globalization” (Cronin, 2003:

52). In similar vein, Burke (2003:24) takes us beyond a restrictive focus on the

theological output of these organisations, arguing that Bin Laden’s “... agenda is a

basically political one, though it is couched, of course, in religious language and

imagery”. While for Bergen (cited in Byman, 2003:145), finally, it is crucial not to

reduce the political dimensions of Bin Laden’s world-view to a simplistic conception of

religious or cultural differences:

… [he] does not rail against the pernicious effects of Hollywood movies, or against Madonna’s midriff, or against the pornography protected by the U.S Constitution. Nor does he inveigh against the drug and alcohol culture of the West, or its tolerance for homosexuals. He leaves that kind of material to the American Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell.

As the above discussion suggests, reflection on the causes of terrorism remains a central

concern within contemporary terrorism studies. For the purposes of this article, my

interest in this debate relates far more to the questions asked than the answers forwarded

by particular contributors. Bluntly, it matters less that the student of terrorism is

encouraged to view this phenomenon as a product of agential or structural factors, or of

politics or religion, for example, than that the student is encouraged to enquire into its

causes at all. A shared attempt to reduce this behaviour to a number of identifiable, and

perhaps directly observable, points of origin clearly traverses contributions to this

literature despite the genuine diversity of perspectives on offer. As outlined below, this

attempt once more offers evidence of a remarkably coherent research agenda within

contemporary studies of terrorism.

The problem of response

The final question dominating contemporary debate builds directly on the two considered

above. For many, indeed, those questions of definition and causation appear preparatory

to the most urgent problem confronting us all: how to combat or respond to this threat

(Flint, 2003:166-167). As Turk (2004:280) suggests in a recent review of the sociological

literature on terrorism, “Efforts to understand terrorism have generally been incidental or

secondary to efforts to control it”. A theme developed by Jentleson (2002:181) from an

International Relations perspective:

It is both in the discipline's self-interest and part of its societal responsibility to link its scholarly mission more to the challenges that face the world. This was true before September 11; it is even truer since then. Policy relevance needs to be brought back in to international relations and to political science more generally.

Although it is rare for a single solution to be advocated by authors addressing this issue,

recommendations to-date may be broadly divided into militarising, criminalizing and

liberal approaches. For the purposes of this article again, however, this shared concern

for producing policy relevant research is of far greater interest than the specific solutions

on offer. As argued below, it is this concern that ensures terrorism studies remains

constituted around a restrictively narrow conception of academic responsibility: a

conception tied not to critical enquiry, but to problem-solving analysis.

Militarising approaches typically conceptualize terrorism as a category of warfare –

albeit an unconventional one. Presented in these terms, the most appropriate mechanisms

for confronting or preventing this behaviour are unsurprisingly located within the

purview of military measures. In recent times, this orientation has led several to discuss

the utility of preventative force as a strategy for confronting this particular threat (Litwak,

2002; Schultz & Vogt, 2003:25-26). In Steinberg’s (2005:70) account, for example:

The threat or use of preventive force is neither a magic bullet nor anathema; but the Bush administration is correct in asserting that some threats simply cannot be addressed by waiting until they become actual or ‘imminent’ as traditionally understood.

Other discussions locatable within this militarising rubric include debates over the

appropriateness of psychological warfare as a counter-terrorist instrument (Kimhi &

Even, 2004:833); calls for greater strategic clarity in military responses to terror (Omand,

2005:109-111); and demands for a reinforcement of homeland security (Pape, 2003:356-

357). In each of these accounts, terrorism as a form of unconventional warfare must be

confronted as such: traditional practices of bargaining and negotiation simply cannot

succeed in countering this threat (Chellaney, 2002:107-108).

A second approach to this problem of response treats terrorism not as a military issue, but

rather one of criminality (Katzenstein, 2002:53; Dhanapala, 2005:23). In its

internationalist guise, supporters of this perspective advocate international law to

prosecute those associated with ‘terrorist’ acts (Archibugi & Young, 2002; Drumbl,

2002:359-360; Parker, 2007), and to reduce future attacks through the development and

employment of international conventions (Wirtz, 2002; Raphaeli, 2003:80). More

domestically-oriented contributions include explorations into the appropriateness of

intelligence-gathering as a counter-terrorist mechanism (Gregory, 2003:141; Jordan &

Boix, 2004:12-14). The frequently impassioned debate over the balancing of liberty and

security in counter-terrorist policy may be approached as a discussion on the limits of

this criminalizing perspective (compare Waldron, 2004; Meisels, 2005), with questions

of ‘liberal democratic torture’ having received particular attention in contemporary

literatures (Bellamy, 2006; Foot, 2006; Lukes, 2006).

In the absence of a more appropriate signifier, the final set of approaches to this question

of response may be termed liberal. These approaches differ, importantly, from each of

the above in mobilising a potentially far deeper conception of causality. Rather than

understanding terrorism as a technical problem to be countered, eliminated or managed,

they typically view this behaviour as a symptom of underlying structural dynamics. In

this sense, recommendations include increasing attention to diplomatic efforts for

resolving local sources of conflict (Haleem, 2004; Stevenson, 2006) and demands for the

temporal and spatial extension of international democracy and human rights norms

(Cotton, 2003:167-168). Although not necessarily eschewing targeted military

intervention, or the seeking of better intelligence, these approaches offer a longer-term

approach to the resolution of terrorism. As Nossel (2004:131) suggests in a recent

contribution, “Unlike conservatives, who rely on military power as the main tool of

statecraft, liberal internationalists see trade, diplomacy, foreign aid, and the spread of

American values as equally important”.

Although these liberal approaches offer a coherent political alternative to the militarising

and criminalising perspectives, a shared concern with the efficacy of counter-terrorist

strategy clearly transcends their differences. Despite the differing models of causality

underpinning their contributions, then, a discernible ‘problem-solving’ orientation may

be identified across all of these literatures. As argued below, it is this common ambition

towards policy-relevant research that opens considerable space for the emergence of a

critical terrorism studies programme.

The spaces of critical terrorism studies

So diverse are the standpoints represented in the above debates that it would be a little

disingenuous to approach them as anything akin to a Kuhnian paradigm of normal

terrorism research (Kuhn, 1996, see also Wilkinson, 1987). One prominent figure in the

discipline, indeed, has long-lamented the failure of terrorism studies to progress to the

level of a mature and explanatory framework of knowledge (Silke, 2001; 2004:2). By

approaching those discussions collectively, however, it is possible to identify two

common points of reference within the field as presently constituted. The first relates to

the overwhelming preference for an essentialist conception of terrorism as a coherent and

bounded object of knowledge. The second, the related preference for producing policy-

relevant research. By exploring these commonalities, this section reflects on the

analytical and normative spaces available for a more explicitly critical framework of

analysis: however we are to interpret that label.

In social science more broadly, several authors have identified a growing hostility

towards essentialist thinking (Sayer, 1997:453-454; Edgley, 2005:134). Whatever the

accuracy of this observation, the above discussion suggests that this development is yet

to reach the domain of terrorism studies. With the relevant literature still overwhelmingly

dominated by those quests for definition, causation and effective response, terrorism is

very rarely approached as anything other than a fully formed, and extra-discursive, object

of knowledge. Attributed an existence entirely independent of the viewing subject’s

perceptions or values, terrorism is presumed to exist not as social construction,

performance or representation, but, rather, as an objective entity that is given, not made.

Although the difficulties of achieving a single definition or explanatory schema are often

noted, the reasons for this are frequently presumed contingent (relating to political

exigencies and so forth) rather than inherent to the tasks themselves. For the majority of

those working in this field, then, there is little reason to suspect terrorism in principle

incapable of capture by our linguistic (and subsequently legislative) frameworks. As such,

the problem of defining and explaining this bringer of violence remains as urgent and

valid as ever.

Although it may be possible to identify strategic, even normative, grounds for

conceptualising terrorism as a coherent object of knowledge, this essentialist orthodoxy

is unfortunate for two reasons. First, by attributing terrorism an objective existence,

mainstream terrorism studies offers very limited space for reflecting on the historical and

social processes through which this identity, behaviour or threat has itself been

constituted. With the interpretive, symbolic and discursive contexts of its creation – to

say nothing of the relations of power traversing these contexts – here presumed irrelevant

for understanding this phenomenon, terrorism remains consistently and artificially

detached from the processes of its construction. In this sense, we could do far worse here

than remember Foucault’s (1981:67) famous cautionary note when encountering claims

to speak the truth about terrorism: “We must not imagine that the world turns towards us

a legible face which we would have only to decipher”.

Foucault’s meta-theoretical caution will not, of course, convince everyone of the need for

further critical reflection in this field. By turning to the very specific, and narrow, essence

attributed to terrorism within the mainstream debates, however, it may be possible to

garner further support for such a research programme. As the above discussion suggests,

existing studies remain overwhelmingly structured by a conception of their object as an

unconventional form of illegitimate violence. With relatively few exceptions, the

majority of scholars working here are content to tie their understanding of this violence

both to the activities of particular non-state actors, and to the targeting of particular

victims: non-combatants or (more emotively) ‘innocent civilians’. With reflections on the

nature and causes of terrorism already framed around this double condemnation, then,

discussions relating to the legitimacy of terrorism, or, indeed, the possibility of state

terrorism, become systematically excluded from this field of enquiry before they emerge.

As outlined below, it is an attempt to contest these exclusionary practices that largely

motivates the first, broadening, face of critical terrorism studies.

Given the above preference for a specific and narrow essentialist framework, it is perhaps

unsurprising that terrorism studies has tended towards producing policy-relevant research.

In seeking not only to define and explain, but also to prevent or resolve their object of

knowledge, this structuring of the discipline necessarily mobilizes a very limited

conception of academic responsibility. In Robert Cox’s famous terminology, as noted by

Gunning (2007), terrorism studies has overwhelmingly functioned as a problem-solving

pursuit that:

… takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and power relationships and the institutions into which they are organized, as the given framework for action. The general aim of problem solving is to make these relationships and institutions work smoothly by dealing

effectively with particular sources of trouble. (1996:88).

As Cox’s remarks suggest, the problem-solving approach to the study of terrorism is

normatively problematic in its reducing academic responsibility to a technical exercise of

risk governance or management. At best, such a reduction militates against any notion of

critical enquiry aimed at contesting or destabilizing the status-quo: of ‘saying the

unsayable’ in Booth’s (2008:68) terminology. At worst, it simply reifies a tired and

unstable inside/outside dichotomy that functions to legitimize the state’s continued

monopoly on violence. In this sense, then, the continued structuring of the mainstream

literature around the above three debates fails to offer any meaningful participatory role

for active or engaged scholarship.

In sum, although characterized by considerable diversity, the terrorism studies literature

suffers from key analytical and normative limitations. Analytically, the preference for a

narrowly essentialist framework not only neglects the processes of terrorism’s

construction, it also reduces the space available for discussing the (il)legitimacy of

particular violences. Normatively, the preference for producing policy-relevant and

problem-solving research works to detach academic responsibility from any notion of

critical enquiry. These limitations, I argue, open considerable space for the emergence of

a critical terrorism studies framework.

The faces of critical terrorism studies

The remainder of this article explores the implications of two rather different styles of

critical response to the above limitations. Although much of the literature drawn on

below avoids explicitly locating itself under a critical terrorism studies heading, a shared

attempt to radically rethink the politics of terror renders a collective exploration of these

accounts useful. This is not, of course, to negate or diminish the important differences in

normative and analytical stance separating these works. Rather, to identify critical points

of entry into an otherwise relatively bounded field of enquiry. As outlined above, the two

responses are referred to as the broadening and interpretivist faces of critical terrorism

studies.

The first face of critical terrorism studies: broadening our understanding of terror

The most high profile approach to rethinking the study of terrorism takes its cue from the

earliest achievements of the Critical Security Studies literature. For scholars associated

with the Copenhagen and Welsh schools alike, a key strategy for resisting the orthodoxy

of political realism was to be found in extending the concept of security beyond its

restrictively militaristic connotations (Smith, 2005). By demonstrating the capacity of

ecological, societal and economic structures to function as pervasive challenges to the

survival of individuals and communities, these discussions were remarkably successful in

broadening the discursive and political parameters of a previously narrow sub-field. That

we are no longer surprised to encounter the framing of HIV/AIDS, climate change or

poverty within the lexicon of security studies should offer us a powerful reminder of

those scholars’ attainments.

For some time now, a similar project has been gaining momentum within the literature

on terrorism and unconventional violence. Most strongly associated with the writings of

Noam Chomsky (1991; 2001:89-91; 2002a:7; 2002b:71), these works encourage us to

rethink the unnecessarily restrictive yet pervasive conception of terrorism employed in

the mainstream debates. By extending our understanding of this term beyond its narrow

attachment to non-state violence on civilians, this work has been key in drawing our

attention to the possibility that states also engage in behaviour we may meaningfully

term terrorist. As Halliday (2002:72) suggests, “…it is important in any evaluation of the

use of violence in politics, and in adjudication of crimes against humanity committed in

the contemporary world, not to lose sight of what one can term ‘terrorism from above’.”

Such an understanding is crucial, according to Wilkinson, for “Historically, states have

conducted terror on a far more massive and lethal scale than groups” (2001:19).

Although predicated on an analytical challenge to the mainstream discussions, the appeal

of this first face of critical terrorism studies is clearly normative. By effectively offering a

more consistent or honest understanding of terrorism, advocates of this approach offer a

means of contesting the selective (mis)application of this signifier for reasons of mere

political expedience (on this, see George, 1991:77; Held, 2004:66). In this sense, adding

breadth to the language of terrorism is depicted as an important critical moment in the

(increasingly urgent) effort to “…wrest control of the terminology of terrorism away

from the politic-military elites of the world, to keep them from using it to flog their real

or imagined enemies” (Mustafa, 2005:76). For, as Sorel (2003:370) suggests:

…if one keeps searching for acts of terrorism without defining terrorism itself, then its denunciation is encouraged more than its understanding by confusing the reasons for an action with its explanation, definition and support. In place of proper definitions we have to cope with descriptions of terrorist behaviour, which is more a social judgement than the comprehension of a global phenomenon.

These demands that researchers participate in the broadening of terrorism studies

function as a powerful call for critical distance in scholarship. By drawing our attention

to the possible intrusion of political and institutional contexts into academic inquiry, they

remind us that analytical frameworks and constructs are themselves embedded in

historical, discursive and ultimately social problematics. With this in mind, we do need to

be wary here of constructing a dubious ethical binary between the noble academic and

the murky world of raison d’etat. We also need to be aware that conceptual overlaps or

programmes of funding linking scholars and policy-makers do not necessarily indicate

cooption (compare Herman & O’Sullivan, 1991; Burnett & Whyte, 2005; Horgan &

Boyle, 2008:59-60). That said, it is, of course, desirable that academia resists the

temptation of becoming an ideological state apparatus passively internalising the threats

occupying political elites. In this sense, this first face offers an attractive and doubly

emancipatory promise: a promise to free not only scholars from outdated concepts, but

also to free the direct or indirect victims of violence from nefarious political

manoeuvrings. If at times implicit, this offer of an engaged and active political

scholarship renders the broadening moment an appealing normative alternative to the

mainstream debates.

Turning to the analytical limitations of the mainstream literature on terrorism, this first

face of critical terrorism studies becomes unfortunately less productive. Although a

willingness to contest this field’s central concepts potentially facilitates our escaping the

narrow essence frequently attributed to terrorism, we are ultimately left with the same

problem-solving quest for denotation, causation and response. Terrorism, in these

approaches, remains in place as an extra-discursive object of knowledge and a problem to

be resolved: albeit a problem that extends beyond its commonly denoted parameters.

Chomsky’s (1991:12) distinction between the propagandistic and literal approaches to

the study of terrorism demonstrates this similarity nicely:

Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon – concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious – and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as “terrorist” just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed “retaliation” or “self-defense”.

As Chomsky’s discussion suggests, attempts to broaden our understanding of terrorism

ultimately reinstate the same ontological and epistemological certainties encountered in

the orthodox discussions. Once again, terrorism is approached here as an objective reality

external to the student of terrorism. Once again, scholars are deemed able to access this

reality. In this sense, this approach takes us no further towards exploring the important

historical, social, political and discursive conditions by which terrorism emerges as an

identity, problem or threat for policy-making, academic and popular audiences. As

outlined below, we need to turn to an alternative body of critical literature to address

these concerns.

In sum, this first face of critical terrorism studies takes not only its cue, but also its

strengths and weaknesses from key contributions to the earlier Critical Security Studies

project. Where useful in contesting moments of inconsistency in uses of this signifier,

this broadening approach clearly facilitates a more engaged role for the student of

political violence. By ultimately condemning itself to the same analytical project as the

mainstream discussions, however, this approach is far less valuable as a corrective to

their meta-theoretical limitations.

The second face of critical terrorism studies: contesting constructions of terror

An alternative critical route into the politics of terror derives its inspiration from a

considerable and broad body of post-positivist literature (see, for example, Doty, 1993;

Campbell 1998a, 1998b; Neumann, 1999). Although again not always explicit in

adopting the critical terrorism studies label, this work offers another important departure

from the mainstream debates. In contrast to the first face, these literatures function as a

collective attempt to disturb rather than replace conventional understandings of

terrorism: an attempt to substitute the search for a more accurate language of terror with

an exploration of terror’s constructions, representations and performances. This focus, I

argue, renders this work capable of addressing the normative and analytical limitations of

the mainstream literatures in a way that the first face was unable to do.1

One of the more interesting dimensions of this second critical face concerns discussions

of the ways in which specific events are constructed as acts of terrorism. Reflections on

the sustained recycling of the 9/11 footage, for example, have been very productive in

illustrating the importance of these practices for inscribing significance and

incomprehensibility into those events (Robinson, 2003; Feldman, 2005: 213; Tracy,

2005). In Morris’s (2004:405) excellent summary:

When the second plane hit the World Trade Center in New York, it not only proved that this was not an accident but an intentionally produced event, it inaugurated a period of constant imagistic repetition, the function of which was not to explain the event but to declaim it as having occurred and, thus, to produce a reality effect. While the images threatened to introduce a question about the verity of ‘real-time’ coverage by extending the duration of the event almost indefinitely, their repetitious broadcasting also made them resistant to analysis. Saturating every television screen, they seemed to testify only to the incomprehensibility of the event/image.

Investigations into framings of those attacks from a range of discursive sites have been

similarly productive in unpacking the assumptions and implications of specific narratives

of terror (see Edkins, 2002; Silberstein, 2002:1-17; Zelizer, 2002; Kennedy, 2003;

1 Although the focus here is on contemporary literatures, earlier works of relevance to this second face include Feldman (1991) and Zulaika & Douglass (1996).

Jackson, 2005:29-38; Lewis, 2005:94-129; Vågnes, 2005; Croft, 2006:37-83; Jarvis,

2008; Weber, 2008).

Approached collectively, these critical readings are important firstly in their

demonstrating that the writing of any event as terrorist is inherently contingent, and

emphatically not necessary. They are important, secondly, in demonstrating that any and

all writings of terrorism function to exclude alternative, equally possible, understandings

of events (Jackson, 2005:18-19; Jarvis, 2008). And, finally, by destabilising the apparent

congruity between formulations of problems and solutions, these accounts are also

significant in demonstrating the ways in which specific writings render certain counter-

terrorist policies possible or desirable while militating against others. Seen through this

lens, we are able not only to contest the persistent production of events such as 9/11 as

moments of tragedy, evil, and exceptional suffering. We are also able to challenge the

legitimising functions of those constructions for the uncompromising and militaristic

responses that so frequently follow designations of terrorism (Leudar et al, 2004:248-

249; Jackson, 2005:181-185). As is clear, a very different approach to critical scholarship

is on offer here to the first face considered above.

Beyond contesting specific constructions of terrorist attacks, contributions to this second

face have also been useful in exploring representations of terrorist identities. In the first

instance, recent literature on the ongoing War on Terror has perceptively drawn attention

to the productivity of ill-defined and ambiguous categories of otherness and threat. By

exposing the political flexibility that accompanies the waging of war not on delineated

enemies but rather on abstract, vague and indeterminate signifiers (Collins, 2002:155;

Das, 2002:108; Glover, 2002; Howard, 2006: 9), these discussions increase our

understanding of extensions of this particular conflict beyond its initial targets in

Afghanistan. They also, importantly, enable our exploring the impact that a pervasive

discourse of fear and uncertainty has on delegitimising domestic dissent and resistance

(Jackson, 2005: 85-88).

Second, this literature has also drawn attention to the problematic language of evil and

monstrosity that persistently accompanies constructions of otherness in discourses of

terror (Puar & Rai, 2002; Edwards, 2004:164; Rai, 2004; Devetak, 2005; Jackson,

2005:70; Tracy, 2005). Reflecting on the dehumanising and depoliticising impact of this

language, these analyses improve our understanding of its centrality in further

legitimising aggressive counter-terrorist strategies. By also reflecting, finally, on the

return to Orientalist discourse in recent productions of terrorism, this literature further

sheds light on the differential implications of counter-terrorist practices for specific

individuals, communities and states (Lazar & Lazar, 2004: 234-236). As Salter

(2002:163) provocatively summarizes:

In rhetorically distancing these terrorists as ‘barbarians’, the administration hopes that all manner of extra-legal international violence will be tolerated by the society of nations and that other Muslim countries may be appeased and co-opted to the American alliance.

The above discussion demonstrates the considerable departure made by this second face

of critical terrorism studies. Where the first face offered a rigorous normative challenge

to the orthodox debates, this body of work addresses their analytical and normative

limitations. In the first instance, by resisting the appeal of a more accurate lexicon of

terrorism, these accounts offer us far more than the promise of substituting one set of

definitions or explanatory typologies for another. By reversing the gaze to explore not

terrorism per se, but, rather, representations of terrorism, they pose considerable potential

for removing us from an irresolvable and ultimately foundation-less empiricist game: an

empiricist game constructed around the trading of truths about terrorism. Approached in

this way, this work holds significant potential for scholars seeking to resist the

essentialism characterising each of the above bodies of literature.

Although less immediately obvious than the first face above, this second broad critical

approach also mobilizes a far more engaged normative project than the mainstream

debates. By highlighting the contingent structuration, exclusionary construction, and

politico-strategic functions of narratives, images and discourses of terror, this face opens

considerable space for a ‘counter-memorializing’ (Ashley & Walker, 1990:385)

alternative to the militaristic framings that continue to dominate discussions of terrorism.

In so doing, this work holds significant opportunity for an engaged and critical

scholarship seeking to contest, destabilize and intervene in the politics of terror. This

ethical commitment to otherness – other readings of terror, other responses to terror, and,

ultimately, other ways of life – I argue, offers the scholar of terrorism a genuine

alternative to the ameliorative, problem-solving role of the above mainstream and first

face discussions (on this, see, for example, Campbell, 1998a: 4-5; Roffe, 2004:44). As

such, if the critical terrorism studies programme is to succeed in radically reframing

discussions of political violence, it will ultimately only do so from further attention to

this interpretivist sensibility.

Conclusion

If the critical terrorism studies programme is to replicate the achievements of the Critical

Security Studies project(s), further reflection on the notion of critique employed by its

advocates is likely to be crucial. As we have seen, the differences between the two faces

explored in this article largely follow their distinct approaches to critical enquiry. At the

risk of homogenising several considerable bodies of literature, those working within the

first, broadening, face offer a form of juxtapositional critique in substituting one

conception of terrorism for an alternative – more accurate – account. Although an

appealing normative call to detachment and distance in scholarship, this approach

ultimately functioned to reinforce the questions and paradigms structuring the

mainstream debates. In this sense, it was unable to escape their significant analytical

limitations. Trading truths about terrorism, I argued, is critical only up to a point.

The second face of critical terrorism studies, by contrast, offers an alternative approach to

critique as a practice of destabilisation or discursive intervention (on this, see Campbell,

1998a: 4-8). Although this style of enquiry has its parallels in practices of immanent

critique and deconstruction (see, for example, Roffe, 2004:44; Wyn Jones, 2005:228),

Foucault’s (1988:154-155) famous synopsis still remains useful:

A critique is not a matter of saying that things are not right as they are. It is a matter of pointing out on what kinds of assumptions, what kinds of familiar, unchallenged, unconsidered modes of thought the practices that we accept rest. ...Criticism is a matter of flushing out that thought and trying to change it: to show that things are not as self-evident as one believed, to see that what is accepted as self-evident will no longer be accepted as such. Practicing criticism is a matter of making facile gestures difficult.

As argued above, by encouraging us to contest specific constructions of

(counter)terrorism alongside their political functions and implications, this second face

offers the responsible scholar of terror a far more active and analytically sound strategy

for practising criticism than either of its alternatives.

References

Agathangelou, Anna & L.H.M. Ling, 2004. ‘Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11’, International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 517-538. Alam, Anwar, 2003. ‘The Sociology and Political Economy of “Islamic Terrorism” In Egypt’, Terrorism and Political Violence 15(4): 114-142. Archibugi, Daniele & I.M. Young, 2002. ‘Toward a Global Rule of Law’, Dissent 49(2): 27-32. Arena, Michael & Bruce Arrigo, 2005. ‘Social Psychology, Terrorism and Identity: A Preliminary Re-examination of Theory, Culture, Self and Society’, Behavioural Sciences

and the Law 23(4): 485-506. Armstrong, Karen, 2001. ‘Was It Inevitable?: Islam Through History’, in James Hoge & Gideon Rose, eds., How Did This Happen?: Terrorism and the New War. New York: Public Affairs (53-70).

Ashley, Richard & Rob Walker, 1990. ‘Conclusion: Reading dissidence/writing the discipline: crisis and the question of sovereignty in international studies’, International

Studies Quarterly 34(3): 367-416. Badey, Thomas, 1998. ‘Defining International Terrorism: A Pragmatic Approach’, Terrorism and Political Violence 10(1): 90-107. Barber, Benjamin, R., 2003. Jihad Vs. McWorld: Terrorism’s Challenge to Democracy. London: Corgi. Bellamy, Alex, 2006. ‘No pain, no gain? Torture and ethics in the war on terror’, International Affairs 82(1): 121-148. Berman, Paul, 2003. Terror and Liberalism. London: W.W. Norton and Company. Booth, Ken & Tim Dunne, 2002. ‘Worlds in Collision’, in Ken Booth & Tim Dunne, eds., Worlds in Collision: Terrorism and the Future of Global Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave (1-23). Booth, Ken, 2005. ‘Critical Explorations’, in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies

and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner (1-18). Booth, Ken, 2008. ‘The human faces of terror: reflections in a cracked looking-glass’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(1): 65-79. Braungart, Richard & Margaret Braungart, 2002. ‘From Protest to Terrorism: The Case of SDS and The Weathermen’, in Harvey Kushner, ed., Essential Readings on Political

Terrorism: Analyses of Problems and Prospects for the 21st Century. Nebraska:

University of Nebraska Press (78-118). Burke, Anthony, 2008. ‘The end of terrorism studies’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(1): 37-49. Burke, Jason, 2003. Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror. London: I.B. Tauris Burnett, Jonny & Dave Whyte, 2005. ‘Embedded Expertise and the New Terrorism’, Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media 1(4): 1-18. Byman, Daniel, 2003. ‘Al Qaeda as an Adversary: Do We Understand Our Enemy?’, World Politics 56(1): 139-163. Campbell, David, 1998a. National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in

Bosnia. London: University of Minnesota Press. Campbell, David, 1998b. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics

of Identity (Revised Edition). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Chellaney, Brahma, 2002. ‘Fighting Terrorism in Southern Asia: The Lessons of History’, International Security 26(3): 94-116. Chomsky, Noam, 1991. ‘International Terrorism: Image and Reality’, in Alexander George, ed., Western State Terrorism. Cambridge: Polity (12-38). Chomsky, Noam, 2001. 9-11. New York: Seven Stories Press. Chomsky, Noam, 2002a. Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism

in the Real World (2nd Edition). London: Pluto.

Chomsky, Noam, 2002b. ‘September 11 Aftermath: Where is the World Heading?’, in Phil Scraton ed., Beyond September 11: An Anthology of Dissent. London: Pluto (66-71). Coady, C.A.J., 2004. ‘Defining Terrorism’, in Igor Primoratz, ed., Terrorism: The

Philosophical Issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave (3-14). Collins, John, 2005. ‘Terrorism’, in John Collins & Ross Glover, eds., Collateral

Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War. London: New York University Press (155-173). Cotton, James, 2003. ‘Southeast Asia after 11 September’, Terrorism and Political

Violence 15(1): 148-170. Cox, Robert, W., 1996. ‘Social forces, states, and world orders: beyond international relations theory (1981)’, in Robert W. Cox with Timothy J. Sinclair eds., Approaches to

World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (85-123).

Crenshaw, Martha, 1981. ‘The Causes of Terrorism’, Comparative Politics 13(4): 379-399. Croft, Stuart, 2006, Culture, Crisis and America’s War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cronin, Audrey, 2003. ‘Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism’, International Security 27(3): 30-58. Dalby, Simon, 1997. ‘Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas in Contemporary Security Discourse’, in Keith Krause & Michael Williams eds., Critical

Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. London: UCL Press (3-31). Das, Veena, 2002. ‘Violence and Translation’, Anthropological Quarterly 75(1): 105-112. De la Hodde, Lucien, 1987. ‘The Disaffected’, in Walter Laqueur, & Yonah Alexander, eds., The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology (2

nd Edition). New York: Meridian

(184-189). Der Derian, James, 2004. ‘9/11 and Its Consequences for the Discipline’, Zeitschrift fur

Internationale Beziehungen 11(1): 89-100. Devetak, Richard, 2005. ‘The Gothic scene of international relations: ghosts, monsters, terror and the sublime after September 11’, Review of International Studies 31(4): 621-643. Dhanapala, Jayantha, 2005. ‘The United Nations’ Response to 9/11’, Terrorism and

Political Violence 17(1/2): 17-23. Doty, Roxanne, 1993. ‘Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counter-Insurgency Policy in the Philippines’, International Studies Quarterly 37(3): 297-320. Drumbl, Mark, 2002. ‘Judging the September 11 Terrorist Attack’, Human Rights

Quarterly 24(2): 323-360. Durodié, Bill, 2007. ‘Fear and Terror in a Post-Political Age’, Government and

Opposition 42(3): 427-450. Edgley, Alison, 2005. ‘Chomsky’s Political Critique: Essentialism and Political Theory’, Contemporary Political Theory 4(1): 129-153. Edkins, Jenny, 2002. ‘Forget Trauma? Responses to September 11’, International

Relations 16(2): 243-256. Edwards, John, 2004. ‘After the Fall’, Discourse & Society 15(2-3): 155-184. Feldman, Allen, 1991. Formations of Violence: The Narrative of the Body and Political

Terror in Northern Ireland. London: The University of Chicago Press. Feldman, Allen, 2005. ‘On The Actuarial Gaze: From 9/11 to Abu Grahib’, Cultural

Studies 19(2): 203-226. Flint, Colin, 2003. ‘Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Geographic Research Questions and Agendas’, The Professional Geographer 55(2): 161-169. Foot, Rosemary, 2006. ‘Torture: The Struggle over a Peremptory Norm in a Counter-Terrorist era’, International Relations 20(2): 131-151. Foucault, Michel, 1981. ‘The order of discourse’, in Robert Young, ed., Untying the

Text: A Poststructuralist Reader. London: Routledge (48-77). Foucault, Michel, 1988. ‘Practicing Criticism’, in Lawrence Kritzman, ed., Michel

Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977-1984. London: Routledge (152-156). Freedman, Lawrence, 2007. ‘Terrorism as a Strategy’, Government and Opposition 42(3): 314-339. Ganor, Boaz, 2005. The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle: A Guide for Decision-Makers. New Jersey: Transaction.

George, Alexander, 1991. ‘The Discipline of Terrorology’, in Alexander George, ed., Western State Terrorism. Cambridge: Polity (76-101). Glover, Ross, 2002. ‘The War on ___’, in John Collins & Ross Glover, eds., Collateral

Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War. London: New York University Press (207-222). Goldman, Emma, 1987. ‘The Psychology of Political Violence’, in Walter Laqueur & Yonah Alexander, eds., The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology (2

nd Edition).

New York: Meridian (193-198). Gordon, Avishag, 1999. ‘Terrorism Dissertations and the Evolution of a Speciality: An Analysis of Meta-Information’, Terrorism and Political Violence 11(2): 141-150. Green, Penny, 2002. ‘A Question of State Crime?’, in Phil Scraton, ed., Beyond

September 11: An Anthology of Dissent. London: Pluto (71-77). Gregory, Shaun, 2003. ‘France and the War on Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political

Violence 15(1): 124-147. Gunning, Jeroen, 2007, ‘A case for Critical Terrorism Studies?’, Government and

Opposition 42(3): 363-393. Habermas, Jürgen, 2003. ‘Fundamentalism and Terror: A Dialogue with Jürgen Habermas’, in Giovanna Borradori, ed., Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with

Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. London: The University of Chicago Press (25-43). Haleem, Irm, 2004. ‘Micro Target, Macro Impact: The Resolution Of The Kashmir Conflict As A Key To Shrinking Al-Qaeda’s International Terrorist Network’, Terrorism

and Political Violence 16(1): 18-47. Halliday, Fred, 2002. Two Hours that Shook the World: September 11, 2001: Causes and

Consequences. London: Saqi Books. Held, Virginia, 2004. ‘Terrorism, Rights, and Political Goals’, in Igor Primoratz, ed., Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave (65-79). Herman, Edward & Gerry O’Sullivan, 1991. ‘“Terrorism” as Ideology and Cultural Industry”, in Alexander George, ed., Western State Terrorism. Cambridge: Polity (39-75). Horgan, John & Michael Boyle, 2008. ‘A case against ‘Critical Terrorism Studies’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(1): 51-64. Howard, Michael, 2006. ‘A Long War?’, Survival 48(4): 7-14. Israeli, Raphael, 2002. ‘A Manuel of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism’, Terrorism and

Political Violence 14(4): 23-40. Jackson, Richard, 2005. Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-

Terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Jackson, Richard, 2007a. ‘Responses’, International Affairs 83(1): 165-177. Jackson, Richard, 2007b. ‘Constructing Enemies’: Islamic Terrorism in Political and Academic Discourse’, Government and Opposition 42(3): 394-426. Jarvis, Lee, 2008. ‘Times of Terror: Writing Temporality into the War on Terror’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(2): 245-262. Jenkins, Brian, 2001. ‘The Organization Men: Anatomy of a Terrorist Attack’, in James Hoge & Gideon Rose, eds., How Did This Happen?: Terrorism and the New War. New York: Public Affairs (1-14). Jentleson, Bruce, 2002. ‘The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In’, International Security 26(4): 169-183. Jordan, Javier & Luisa Boix, 2004. ‘Al-Qaeda and Western Islam’, Terrorism and

Political Violence 16(1): 1-17. Katzenstein, Peter, 2002. ‘September 11th in Comparative Perspective: The Antiterrorism Campaigns of Germany and Japan’, Dialogue-IO 1(1): 45-56.

Kennedy, Liam, 2003. ‘Remembering September 11: photography as cultural diplomacy’, International Affairs 79(2): 315-326. Kennedy, Robert, 1999. ‘Is One Person’s Terrorist Another’s Freedom Fighter? Western and Islamic Approaches to ‘Just War’ Compared’, Terrorism and Political Violence 11(1): 1-21. Kimhi, Saul & Shemuel Even, 2004. ‘Who are the Palestinian Suicide Bombers?’, Terrorism and Political Violence 16(4): 815-840. Krueger, Alan & Jitka Malekcova, 2003. ‘Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is there a Causal Connection?’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(4): 119-144. Kruglanski, Arie & Shira Fishman, 2006. ‘Terrorism Between “Syndrome” and “Tool”’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(1): 45-48. Kuhn, Thomas, 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3

rd Edition). London:

University of Chicago Press. Laqueur, Walter, 1987. ‘Introductory Note’, in Walter Laqueur, & Yonah Alexander, eds., The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology (2

nd Edition). New York: Meridian

(183-184). Laqueur, Walter, 2003. No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. London: Continuum. Lazar, Annita & Michelle M. Lazar, 2004. ‘The Discourse of the New World Order: ‘out-casting’ the double face of threat’, Discourse & Society 15(2-3): 223-242. Leudar, Ivan, Victoria Marsland & Jiří Nekvapil, 2004. ‘On membership categorization: ‘us’, ‘them’ and ‘doing violence’ in political discourse’, Discourse & Society 15(2-3): 243-266. Lewis, Jeff, 2005. Language Wars: The Role of Media and Culture in Global Terror and

Political Violence. London: Pluto. Litwak, Robert, 2002. ‘The new calculus of pre-emption’, Survival 44(4): 53-80. Lukes, Stephen, 2006. ‘Liberal Democratic Torture’, British Journal of Political Science 36(1): 1-16. Malik, Omar, 2000. Enough of the Definition of Terrorism. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs. Mathiesen, Thomas. 2002. ‘Expanding the Concept of Terrorism?’, in Phil Scraton, ed., Beyond September 11: An Anthology of Dissent. London: Pluto (84-93). McCormick, Gordon, 2003. ‘Terrorist Decision Making’, Annual Review of Political

Science 6(1): 473-507. Meisels, Tamar, 2005. ‘How Terrorism Upsets Liberty’, Political Studies 53(1): 162-181. Meisels, Tamar, 2006. ‘The Trouble with Terror: The Apologetics of Terrorism - a Refutation’, Terrorism and Political Violence 18(3): 465-483. Merari, Ariel, 1993. ‘Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency’, Terrorism and Political

Violence 5(4): 213-251. Morris, R. (2004) ‘Images of Untranslatibility in the US War on Terror’, Interventions 6(3): 401-423. Mustafa, Daanish. 2005. ‘The Terrible Geographicalness of Terrorism: Reflections of a Hazards Geographer’, Antipode 37(1): 72-92. Neumann, Ivan, 1999. Uses of the Other: “The East” in European Identity Formation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Nossel, Suzanne, 2004. ‘Smart Power’, Foreign Affairs 83(2): 131-142. Omand, David, 2005. ‘Countering International Terrorism: The Use of Strategy’, Survival 47(4): 107-116. Pape, Robert, 2003. ‘The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism’, American Political

Science Review 97(33): 343-361.

Parker, Tom, 2007. ‘Fighting an Antaean Enemy: How Democratic States Unintentionally Sustain the Terrorist Movements They Oppose’, Terrorism and Political

Violence 19(2): 155-179. Pedahzur, Ami, 2004. ‘Toward an Analytical Model of Suicide Terrorism – A Comment’, Terrorism and Political Violence 16(4): 841-844. Pedhazur, Ami, William Eubank & Leonard Weinberg, 2002. ‘The War on Terrorism and the Decline of Terrorist Group Formation: A Research Note’, Terrorism and

Political Violence 14(3): 141-147. Philpott, 2002. ‘The Challenge of September 11 to Secularism in International Relations’, World Politics 55(1): 66-95. Post, Jerrold, 2002. ‘Terrorist on Trial: The Context of Political Crime’, in Harvey Kushner, ed., Essential Readings on Political Terrorism: Analyses of Problems and

Prospects for the 21st Century. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press (46-61).

Puar, Jasbir, K. & Amit S. Rai, 2002. ‘Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War on Terrorism and the Production of Docile Patriots’, Social Text 72 20(3): 117-148. Rai, Amit, S., 2004. ‘Of monsters: Biopower, terrorism and excess in genealogies of monstrosity’, Cultural Studies 18(4): 538-570. Raphaeli, Nimrod, 2003. ‘Financing of Terrorism: Sources, Methods, and Channels’, Terrorism and Political Violence 15(4): 59-82. Richardson, Louise, 1999. ‘Terrorists as Transnational Actors’, Terrorism and Political

Violence 11(1): 209-219. Richardson, Louise, 2006. What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Terrorist Threat. London: John Murray. Robinson, Cedric, J., 2003. ‘The Comedy of Terror’, Radical History Review 85(1): 164-170. Roffe, Jonathan, 2004. ‘Ethics’, in Jack Reynolds & Jonathan Roffe, eds., Understanding

Derrida. London: Continuum (37-45). Rogers, Paul, 2004. A War on Terror: Afghanistan and After. London: Pluto. Ruby, Charles, 2002. ‘Are Terrorists Mentally Deranged?’, Analyses of Social Issues and

Public Policy 2(1): 15-26. Salter, Mark 2002. Barbarians and Civilization in International Relations. London: Pluto Sayer, Andrew, 1997. ‘Essentialism, social constructionism, and beyond’, The

Sociological Review 45(3): 453-487. Schultz, Richard & Andreas Vogt, 2003. ‘It’s War! Fighting Post-11 September Global Terrorism Through a Doctrine of Pre-Emption’, Terrorism and Political Violence 15(1): 1-30. Scruton, Roger, 2002. The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat. London: Continuum. Sedgwick, Mark, 2004. ‘Al-Qaeda and the nature of Religious Terrorism’, Terrorism and

Political Violence 16(4): 795-814. Silberstein, Sandra, 2002. War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11. London: Routledge. Silke, Andrew, 2001. ‘The Devil You Know: Continuing Problems with Research on Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence 13(4): 1-14. Silke, Andrew, 2004. ‘An Introduction to Terrorism Research’, in Andrew Silke, ed., Research into Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. London: Routledge (1-29). Smith, Steve, 2000. ‘The Increasing Insecurity of Security Studies: Conceptualizing Security in the Last Twenty Years’, in Stuart Croft & Terry Terriff, eds., Critical

Reflections on Security and Change. London: Frank Cass (72-101).

Smith, Steve, 2004. ‘Singing our world into existence: International Relations Theory and September 11: Presidential Address to the International Studies Association, February 27, 2003, Portland, OR’, International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 499-515. Smith, Steve 2005. ‘The Contested Concept of Security’, in Ken Booth, ed., Critical

Security Studies and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner (27-62). Sorel, Jean-Marc, 2003. ‘Some Questions About the Definition of Terrorism and the Fight Against Its Financing’, European Journal of International Law 14(2): 365-378. Steinberg, James, 2005. ‘Preventive Force in US National Security Strategy’, Survival 47(4): 55-72. Stevenson, Jonathan, 2006. ‘Demilitarising the “War on Terror”’, Survival 48(2): 37-54. Stohl, Michael, 2005. ‘Is the Past Prologue?: Terrorists and WMD’, International Studies

Review 7(1): 146-148. Stohl, Michael, 2008. ‘Old myths, new fantasies and the enduring realities of terrorism’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1(1): 5-16. Tan, Andrew, 2003. ‘Southeast Asia as the ‘Second Front’ in the War Against Terrorism: Evaluating the Threat and Responses’, Terrorism and Political Violence 15(2): 112-138. Tracy, James, F., 2005. ‘Bearing Witness to the Unspeakable: 9/11 and America’s New Global Imperialism’, The Journal of American Culture 28(1): 85-99. Turk, Austin, 2004. ‘Sociology of Terrorism’, Annual Review of Sociology 30(1): 271-286. Vågnes, Øyvind, 2005. ‘“Chosen to be Witness”: The Exceptionalism of 9/11’”, in Dana Heller, ed., The Selling of 9/11: How a National Tragedy Became a Commodity. Basingstoke: Palgrave (54-74). Waldron, Jeremy, 2004. ‘Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance’, Journal of

Political Philosophy 11(2): 191-210. Weber, Cynthia, 2008. ‘Popular visual language as global communication: the remediation of United Airlines Flight 93’, Review of International Studies 34(SI): 137-153. Whittaker, David, 2002. Terrorism: Understanding the Global Threat. London: Longman. Wilkinson, Paul, 1987. ‘Pathology and Theory’, in Walter Laqueur & Yonah Alexander, eds., The Terrorism Reader: A Historical Anthology (2

nd Edition). New York: Meridian

(236-245). Wilkinson, Paul, 2001. Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. London: Frank Cass. Wirtz, James, 2002. ‘Counter-terrorism via Counter-Proliferation’, Terrorism and

Political Violence 14(3): 129-140. Wolfensohn, James, 2002. ‘Making the World a Better and Safer Place: The Time for Action is Now’, Politics 22(2): 118-123. Wyn Jones, Richard, 2005. ‘On Emancipation: Necessity, Capacity and Concrete Utopias’, in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner (215-235). Zelizer, Barbie, 2002. ‘Photography, Journalism and Trauma’, in Barbie Zelizer & Stuart Allan, ed’s., Journalism After September 11. London: Routledge (48-68). Zimmerman John, 2004. ‘Sayyid Qutb’s Influence on the 11 September Attacks’, Terrorism and Political Violence 16(2): 222-252. Zuk, Gerald & Carmen Zuk, 2002. ‘Negation Theory as a Cause of Delusion: The Case of The Unabomber’, in Harvey Kushner, ed., Essential Readings on Political Terrorism:

Analyses of Problems and Prospects for the 21st Century: Nebraska: University of

Nebraska Press (70-77).

Zulaika, Joseba & William Douglass, 1996. Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables, and

Faces of Terrorism. London: Routledge.