Defining Terrorism

Brenna Kueter

Professor Shirk

POL 357: Global Politics of Terrorism

February 5, 2018

Defining Terrorism

  Terrorism is a constant reality that has permeated politics since the rise of organized states in the 1500s.  However, because of the continuous nature of terror, it is much too complicated to contain in a single scientific definition.  The best working definition of the term is provided by United States Department of State, which concludes that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (United States Department of State).  However, this definition fails to realize that ultimately terrorism is defined by the people experiencing it at any given point; it is socially constructed.  Each generation faces a new and different threat to their established order and ways of life, thus requiring a reevaluation of how terrorism will be perceived, defined, and counteracted.   So while this objective term is a useful starting point for studying current forms of terrorism, it is incomplete and does not accurately describe terrorism over time.

  The State Department’s definition includes the following core aspects: political motivations, violent actions, non-combatant targets, and subnational or clandestine perpetrators.  However, there is extensive controversy surrounding these aspects of the definition, so there must be modifications if it is to accurately describe terrorism as a whole.  Political motivations are defended by Charles Tilly, who writes that “the strategy of terror appears across a wide variety of political circumstances, in the company of very different sorts of political struggle” (Tilly 10).  Philip Bobbitt, on the other hand, maintains that “terrorism derives its ideology in reaction to the raison d’être of the dominant constitutional order” (Bobbitt 26).  Therefore, political reasoning cannot be a required aspect of a terrorist event, as incidents with different motivations are also labeled under the umbrella of terrorism.  The condition that civilians are the sole targeted group of terrorist activities is another controversial component of the definition of terrorism.  David Rapoport explains that "Fourth wave groups, much more than their counterparts in the third wave, have made massive attacks against military and government installations” (Rapoport 9).  These attacks theoretically fit within the other elements of the definition, so the idea that terrorist attacks are carried out exclusively on noncombatants is not accurate.  Subnational actors are also a disputed element of the definition: Tilly states that “weak, beleaguered governments often adopt the strategy” while Bobbitt maintains “Market state terrorist operations are often outsourced to local groups, which are paid for their work and provided with infrastructure and some planning” (Tilly 10, Bobbitt 50).  Both non-state and official actors can initiate terrorist attacks, so this too cannot be a required element.  The one aspect of the State Department’s definition that is indisputable is the fact that terrorism involves a violent course of action.  Charles Tilly writes that terror includes an “asymmetrical deployment of threats and violence against enemies” and often “a recurrent strategy of intimidation occurs” (Tilly 5, 9).  Rappoport agrees, stating, “Terror was extra-normal violence or violence beyond the moral conventions of regulating violence (Rapoport 4).  If violence is the only nom-refuted component of the State Department’s definition, clearly this term is misrepresenting what terrorism truly is.
     The State Department’s definition of terrorism is not a complete explanation because it is attempting to contain a tactic and methodology into a single rational definition as if it were an analytical incident.  While theorists such as Rapoport and Bobbitt employ this technique of analyzing terrorist activity, Tilly rightly concludes that terrorism is a strategy that can be used to achieve the goal of the terrorist, or person using this tactic.  The analytical approach fails to address the fact that terrorism has substantially changed over time, meaning that many actions deemed terrorism at the time of the act are not included in these authors’ examinations.  Evaluating historical instances of terror while using a modern definition of term adds useless complications and prevents a comprehensive study of the term.  However, working from the premise that terrorism is a tactic defined explicitly by the society of the era allows for all cases of terrorism to be included in studies.  Many terrorists, or those who adopt the mechanism of terrorism, do not meet the criteria the State Department puts forth, yet they are included within the realm of terrorism by society.  There is obviously a disconnect between defining terrorism in academia and examining real-world situations, and it is clear that the general public sees terrorism as a violent tactic employed to instill fear rather than a list of specific criteria that must be met.
     Philip Bobbitt and David Rapoport specifically mention “waves” of terror, each covering a time period where distinct actions and goals were articulated by terrorist groups (Bobbit 27, Rapoport 1).  Some waves had extreme terror campaigns that would not be considered a radical act by today’s standards, but at the time it was an eye-opening and fear-instilling response.  These instances do not all fit within the benchmarks of the State Department definition of terrorism, however, at the time of each attack the event was a clear act of terror.  For example, the Anarchist Wave of the 1880s utilized assassinations and bombings of leaders, a recognizable politically motivated violent event, but it is arguable whether leaders are civilians or combatants in this situation.  The subsequent Anti-Colonial Wave of the 1920s through the 1960s saw a rise in guerrilla warfare, again a violent action taken by a non-state actor, but they primarily targeted military and combatant targets.  The New Left Wave of the late 1960s through 1990s combined radical and nationalistic feelings with violent attacks stemming from political strife, but the targets were generally not ordinary civilians.  Lastly, the Religious Wave beginning in 1979 has shown a rise in suicide bombs, a violent action by subnational groups with the intent to create a new world order, but these attacks have most often been against combatant targets (Rapoport 2-10).

  The analytical definition the State Department provides is clearly not broad enough to cover all of these terrorist instances, but every violent case has the same tactic of terrorism behind it.  Each of these incidents would be discredited in some way when using the analytical definition, but by studying terrorism as a methodology these events can be considered terrorism at the time of attack, even if the current era’s approach and definition of terror differ.  While a hard definition of the term would be socially constructed by those experiencing the terror of the era, treating terrorism as a tactic can remove the biases of those experiencing violence and fearing a particular group.  An analytical definition of terrorism thus can never be created as terror is not rational or scientific, but rather an illogical phenomena occurring over centuries of history. 

  Overall it is clear that while the definition of terrorism released by the United States Department of State is a useful starting point to study modern terrorist events, it does not accurately reflect terrorism over time.  In order to examine these instances terrorism must be acknowledged as a tactic employed over multiple generations, not a specific list of criteria that fit only the modern forms terrorism takes on.  If this list of modern benchmarks continues to be used in studying terrorism over time, all studies will be skewed and tainted by this narrow and incorrect mindset.

Works Cited

Bobbitt, Philip. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. Alfred A. Knopf, 2008.

Rapoport, David C. The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11. Anthropoetics: the Journal of Generative Anthropology, 2002.

Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists.” Sociological Theory, vol. 22, no. 1, Mar. 2004.

United States Department of State. “Legislative Requirements and Key Terms.” https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65464.pdf.