Redefining Terrorism

Redefining Terrorism

     In my original post on defining terrorism, I argued that instead of containing the term into a single scientific definition, we should recognize that terrorism is instead socially constructed by the generation experiencing the current threat.  The continuous nature of terrorism means that it can and should be reevaluated and thus redefined as the tactics behind the term evolve.  I agree with Philip Bobbit and David Rapoport's reference to "waves of terrorism", as each author points out that terrorism has changed as humanity has developed and advanced (Bobbit 27 2008, Rapoport 1 2002).  I additionally argued that the State Department put forth the best objective definition for terror threats in our current generation, but it should only be taken as a working example due to its inaccuracy and incomplete description of terror over an extended amount of time. 

      After completing this course, I continue to agree with my initial definition.  I still feel that terrorism is largely socially constructed and that there is no way to condense the term into a single scientific explanation.  I have also come to see terrorism as a means, or tactic, that arises in order to achieve an end goal rather than the main priority of a terrorist organization, which is something that Charles Tilly argues.  After examining each of the case studies included in our class, I feel that I can articulate these points of view better as I can draw upon concrete examples such as pirates during the Golden Age of Piracy and the Kurdish fighters against ISIS today.

      Pirates during the Golden Age of Piracy clearly show how terrorism is constructed by the majority of the population living during the given time period.  To the majority of Europe, pirates were seen as a threat to the established way of life in the Atlantic; they strived to upend current order by instituting policies of equality on their ships and disrupting the natural flow of goods and services across the ocean.  Actions such as ransacking ships or diverting resources can be viewed as nothing more than organized crime, but because these tactics were employed by the poor, formerly enslaved, or opposite gender they were seen as dangerous to the order and stability of European and Atlantic society.  Specifically, at the time the British were striving to create “an ideal type of empire”, and pirates posed a direct threat to this desired structure because of their uncontrolled nature and difficulty to capture and punish these actors once legal infractions occurred (Shirk 2016).  The same felonies were being carried out on land across the globe, yet the individuals at sea were rapidly gaining influence and success, more so than any criminal organization on land.  Therefore, this group of maritime outcasts were labeled as terrorists by the society they were aiming to uproot because of their presence and growing success towards their end goal.  The end goal of the pirates was what specifically instilled fear in the majority of land-dwelling Europeans, not the methodology or tactics employed to reach this objective.

       Kurdish fighters against ISIS are another example that clearly shows why terrorism is socially constructed. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is a militant Kurdish nationalist organization that ultimately aims to create a sovereign state for the Kurdish people which are currently scattered among many Middle Eastern states.  Turkey houses a minority population of these people and therefore is opposed to Kurdish autonomy that would take land and sectors population away from the Turkish state, therefore seeing these forces as a terrorist organization.  The United States, in an effort to preserve the Turkish alliance, has taken similar measures and placed the PKK on their organized terror lists.  However, the PKK has simultaneously received recognition for their fruitful and effective fight against ISIS from multiple countries including the United States, and thus have received $22 million in aid for their success (McLeary 2017).  The paradox can be summed up in one simple sentence published by the New York Times: “The Kurdish fighters who are battling the Islamic State jihadists in Syria are regarded by the United States as its most reliable partners there. But to Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, these Kurds are terrorists” (Barnard and Hubbard, 2018).  The United States has placed the PKK on their established list of terrorist organizations because their ally feels they are a separatist, non-state threat, but they are also one of the most reliable allies in one of, if not the most demanding fight in which the United States is currently involved.  Clearly, the list of terror organizations put forth by the United States is constructed to suit the interests of the country and its allies, as the government currently funds one ‘terror organization’ with the intention to defeat another.

      Though my definition of terrorism has not dramatically changed throughout the course of this semester, I have been influenced by the definitions and case studies we have examined.  I am now able to back my original definition with facts and specific cases, which overall has strengthened my argument and reaffirmed my initial opinions.  Prior to this class, I had never thought that I could play a role in defining terrorism, but I have come to learn that anyone who uses this term in our society plays a role in its development and progression.  It has become clear to me that a list of characteristics or motivations does not constitute a definition, especially for something as serious as terrorism, and this is something that is not and likely will not be discussed in news media today.  Therefore, I feel that I am accurate in my assessment that terrorism is a social construct that will continue to evolve and change as our society progresses.

Works Cited

Barnard, Anne, and Ben Hubbard. “Allies or Terrorists: Who Are the Kurdish Fighters in Syria?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/middleeast/turkey-kurds-syria.html.

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

McLeary, Paul. “With Referendum Approaching, Kurds Wait for More U.S. Military Aid.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 28 Aug. 2017, foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/28/with-referendum-approaching-kurds-wait-for-more-u-s-military-aid/.

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

Shirk Mark. “Bringing the State Back In” to the Empire Turn: Piracy and the Layered Sovereignty of the Eighteenth Century Atlantic. International Studies Review. August 21, 2016. 1–23.