Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Attempts-To-Define-Terrorism--Terrorist 👈

1. Naomi Weir - 2012
1
Is o e a s terrorist a other a s freedo fighter ? E aluate the success of attempts to define terrorism
Introduction
The popula ph ase o e a s te o ist is a othe a s f eedo fighte efle ts the a p o le s that the
attempt to define terrorism has faced. For around ea s the o d te o is has been in the public sphere, has
been used by political leaders, and has been used in academia – to the e te t that the e is o a hole te o is
i dust . The lack of clarity in the definition of terrorism can be seen clearly in a piece of research conducted by Alex
Schmid which cites over 250 definitions. This shows the lack of success in the search for a universal definition. It is
most certainly true that ost writers have no trouble compiling a list of legal or other definitions running into
doze s, a d the addi g thei o to it .1
This essay will evaluate the success of such attempts to define terrorism and will address several problems with this
process. These problems include, firstly, the fact that each definition of terrorism has a purpose given by the definer.
Secondly, there is the problem that the notion of terrorism is always changing a d the efo e defi itio s of te o is
cannot be taken out from their context; terrorism has roots in the description of state violence in the French
‘e olutio a d is o used to des i e a e te o is ased o eapo s of ass dest u tio a d eligious
beliefs. Finally, there is the problem of each individual s elatio ship to a a t of te o is and the role of their
differing values and beliefs in defining such actions. This essay will argue that: the lack of success in attempts to
define terrorism reflects the above problems ; the term terrorism cannot be objectively defined as it is inevitably
subjective; and that we must remain highly sensitive to the politics of labelling and continuously explore the
consequences of o je ti e definitions of terrorism.
The Politics of Labelling
This fi st se tio ill look at the politi s of la elli g . It ill add ess the otio that definitions of terrorism are
al a s politi al, that the al a s a a pu pose. Whethe i a ade ia o politi s it is t ue that defi itio s [of
1
Townshend, C., (2002) Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press: Oxford) pg.3

2. Naomi Weir - 2012
2
terrorism] tend to refle t the i te ests of those ho do the defi i g .2
This subjectivity and hidden purpose has
resulted in clear difficulties with defining terrorism.
‘i ha d Ja kso e plai s the politi s of la elli g lea l i his Terrorism: A Critical Introduction. He e plai s that the
[definitions] we adopt are inherently political in at least two senses; first, they are political because their usage
prevents us from exploring alternative understandings of the thing being described .3
He uses 9/11 to explain that
the idesp ead ep ese tatio of [the atta ks] as a a t of te o is as ot a e essa o i e ita le p odu t a d
that this ep ese tatio has led to a e lusio of alte ati e i te p etatio s su h as i i al a ts , hi h he a gues
would be more desirable.4
Secondly, he argues that they are political because they have very real (and often
ha ful so ial a d hu a o se ue es . 5
Fo e a ple, the o te po a u de sta di gs of te o ists as
inherently evil... functions to legitimize particular forms of counter-terrorist response at the same time as it
delegiti izes othe s su h as the US use of ate -boarding to interrogate suspected terrorists. The notion of
la elli g reflects the fa t that te o is is a te that is given, labelled, to a group, individual, or action, and is not
voluntarily taken but is given often by governments.6
The use of the te te o is fo politi al ea s has esulted
in the lack of a singular objective definition of terrorism as its use is consistently subjective and political, in accord
with the meanings selected by those who use it; for example, governments often disagree with others in
la elli g /defining an act as terrorist.
This subjectivity is very clear in relation to government definitions, which are often vague and are regularly different
for different contexts. One example of such subjectivity is already mentioned above, the specific representation of
9/11 as an act of war by the US government. A second example of variable definitions within a single state is evident
in some research done by the Subcommittee on Terrorism of the United States House of Representatives Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. They found that nearly all agencies within the US government that addressed
2
Schmid, A., (2004) Te o is – The Defi itio al P o le , Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 36:375, pg.384
3
Jackson, R., et al., (eds) (2011) Terrorism: A Critical Introduction, (Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire) pg.114
4
Jackson, Critical, pg.113
5
Jackson, Critical, pg.114
6
Townshend, Introduction, pg.3

3. Naomi Weir - 2012
3
counterterrorism had a different definition of terrorism.7
Another example is highlighted by John Collins when he
states that the e otio of te o is eeded to e uestio ed... e ause of the a it as ei g used i the
1980s by policy makers in the United States, Is ael, a d else he e as a la el fo thei politi al e e ies :8
As these
enemies change, the definition of terrorism changes. It is true that the definition of terrorism is often only accepted
as iole e di e ted agai st pa ti ula ki ds of states, namely, Western or pro-Western states such as the United
States and their allies.9
Politi al iole e a ied out o ith the suppo t of the U ited States a d its allies, i
contrast, [is] known by a host of less pejorative terms: counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, low-intensity conflict,
self-defe e, a d a .10
This leads to questions of state-terrorism.
The fact that te o is is a label given by the powerful leads to a distinct bias against Western state actions being
defined as terrorism. Actions taken by the US and their allies, for e a ple du i g the Cold War, US foreign policy
st ateg as do i ated the use of ep essio ,11
are a el , if e e , a epted as te o is . Su h a tio s e e also
evident in the colonial period with the oppression of the South; however, the idea of such Western state terrorism
has not been accepted. This is because Western countries exclude their actions from definitions of terrorism as they
take a p opaga disti approach that focuses solely on actors seen as antithetical to US [an ally] i te ests .12
This
clear bias leads to a distinct difficulty in defining terrorism. This is because arguments, as suggested by academics
such as William McGurn, 13
that definitions of terrorism should be based on the specific actions involved, fail to
accept that states often engage in similar actions. Therefore, if the definition of terrorism was to be based on specific
actions, the la el of te o ist ould ha e to e gi e to states su h as the US a d the UK. This would undermine
these states poli ies, so e eig t , a d a tio s, and therefore would not be accepted by such states, providing
another difficulty in defining terrorism.
7
Schmid, Problem, p.377
8
Collins, J., et al., (eds) (2002) Collateral La guage: A User’s Guide to A erica’s New War (New York University Press: New York),
p.156
9
Collins, Collateral, p.162
10
Collins, Collateral, p.163
11
Blakele , ‘., B i gi g the State Ba k i to Te o is Studies , European Political Science, 6, p.232
12
Blakely, State, p.230
13
McGurn, W., (1987) Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? The Cost of Confusion, (London: Alliance Publishers Ltd., for the Institute for
European Defence and Strategic Studies), pg.13

4. Naomi Weir - 2012
4
The politi al atu e of the te te o is is lea i a uote M Gu hi h states: As the te is used today,
unfortunately... whether or not we choose to label someone a terrorist has come to depend on whether or not we
favour the idea of a united Ireland, an independent Afghanistan, and so on. In other words, whether someone is a
liberator or a murderer depends today, by and large, on the political and ideological allegiances of the killer, rather
tha o the i u sta es of the killi g. 14
This reflects the great difficulty in defining terrorism, and helps to explain
the lack of a consistent definitio . It is lea the efo e, that i politi s, te s [su h as te o is ] a e ofte ot
neutral but value-lade . 15
Historical Context a d the Ne Terroris
This second section will argue that the notion of terrorism is not stable; it is constantly changing depending on the
political requests of the West. The te te o is as fi st see i the 18th
and 19th
century16
with the French
revolution. It came to refer to the eig of te o hi h aimed to eliminate political enemies and secure state
power.17
Over time, we have seen the definitions of terrorism change with new political enemies of the West. The
ost e e t ha ge is i the a gu e t of a e te o is , different to that seen during Cold War or used by groups
such as the Irish Republican Army. This argument suggests a terrorism based on religious fundamentalism, lack of
rationality, and the ability (and will) to use weapons of mass destruction. This argument suppo ts the West s a o
te o hi h is fo ussed agai st Musli extremists. The argument that groups such as Al Qaeda have weapons of
mass destruction, and that they are willing to use them for an irrational, religious, fundamentalist Jihad, allow
Western governments to act in whatever way they wish with the support of their peoples. Western governments
need public backing if they are to win a war, or fight certain groups.18
The use of the te te o is the efo e
allows governments to take further action whilst holding civilian support. This therefore creates a difficulty in
defining terrorism as any definition will change with any new te o ist .
14
McGurn, Confusion, p.12
15
Schmid, Definitional, p.385
16
Oli e io, A., The State of I justi e: The Politi s of Te o is a d the P odu tio of O de , International Journal of
Comparative Sociology, Vol 38, pg.49
17
Collins, Collateral, pg.158
18
McGurn, Confusion, pg.10

5. Naomi Weir - 2012
5
Richard Jackson has stated that a epted u de sta di g of te o is should e thought of as pa ti ula k o ledge
claims or the social products of specific political contexts, power st uggles a d o peti g i te ests ,19
rather than
objective definitions that can be used outside of a specific context. The idea that a value-free definition of terrorism
can be found is flawed as it p esu es that [te o is is] stable and unchanging over time... this is empirically
du ious i the o te t of politi al iole e which is a constantly changing variable.20
The assumption that there can
be an objective definition of terrorism is flawed as it p esu es the la els e use a e deta hed f o their
histo i al o ultu al o te ts .21
This therefore has proved a clear problem for those aiming to produce an objective
definition of terrorism.
Participants in a terrorist environment
This final section is going to add ess Gus Ma ti s outli e of parti ipa ts i a te o ist e i o e t . It ill argue that
difficulties in defining terrorism reflect the notion that the location of an individual relative to a te o ist o iole t
event directly affects their definition of that event, therefore suggesting that a i di idual s defi itio of terrorism
depends on their proximity and relationship to the event. Gus Ma ti outli es fou pe spe ti es o te o is ; he
argues that a definition of terrorism will depend on your relation to each perspective.22
These are; participants in a
terrorist environment – the different interpretations of the same event by people who participate in, or are affected
by the event; terrorism or freedom fighting – the ideological perspective of an individual; extremism or
ai st ea i g – the relation of behaviour to the natio /pe so s ai st ea ; a d ideologies a d ideals – the
justification of an event as the ideology promises a better future.23
In this section we will focus specifically on the
first perspective.
19
Jackson, Critical, p.107
20
Jackson, Critical, p.109
21
Jackson, Critical, p.109
22
Ma ti , G., The Natu e of the Beast: Defi i g Te o is , i Ma ti , G., Understanding Terrorism: Challenges,
Perspectives, and Issues, 2
nd
ed. (Sage Publications: California), p.50
23
Martin, Beast, p.51

6. Naomi Weir - 2012
6
There are si pa ti ipa ts i a terrorist environment and Martin argues that each participant will interpret oti es,
ethods, a d ta gets of iole t e t e ists diffe e tl .24
These six participants are: the terrorist; the supporter; the
victim; the target; the onlooker; and the analyst.25
Ja kso s state e t - the ea i g of te o is is su je t to the
historical and political trends on the one hand, and the perceptions, beliefs and values of the person defining it on
the othe 26
– suppo ts Ma ti s lai s.
Martin first looks at the perspective of the terrorist. He a gues that the te o ist ill see the a t of iole e as a
justifia le a t of a . This efle ts the state e t that o e a s te o ist is a othe a s f eedo fighte . The
te o ist s defi ition of the event, therefore, reflects his ideological beliefs. This definition of the event reflects the
views of the supporter. They will also argue that the terrorist participants are freedom fighters. It is important to
note, that whilst they may not agree ith the iole t a tio take , the ill still defi e it as the u fo tu ate
o se ue es of a just a .27
These defi itio s of the te o ist iole e contrast with the definitions given by the
victim. The victim ill a el s pathise ith the pe pet ato s of [the] iole e a d ill define the perpetrators as
terrorist.28
Their definition of terrorism, therefore, is specifically related to the fact that they were victims in the
event. This view is often reflected in the perspective of the target. The Target is usually symbolic representatives of
so e featu e of the e e .29
This difference from the perspectives of the terrorist and the supporter makes the
proximity to the events and the ideological beliefs of the perpetrator vital in the definition of an event as terrorism,
thus exposing the problem of achieving a common definition of terrorism for all participants.
The onlooker is the category that most people fit i to. The a e the oad audie e to the te o ist i ide t .30
The
onlooker s defi itio of terrorism is often based on their direct experience of the attack, or more often the indirect
effect of the media. Ma ti a gues that depe di g o the o ld ie of the o looke , he o she ight a tuall
24
Martin, Beast, p.51
25
Martin, Beast, p.51-52
26
Jackson, Critical, p.103-104
27
Martin, Beast, p.51
28
Martin, Beast, p.51
29
Martin, Beast, p.51
30
Martin, Beast, p.51

7. Naomi Weir - 2012
7
applaud a spe ifi i ide t .31
This idea is supported by the statement of J. Bowyer Bell: the e o d [ te o is ]
becomes a litmus test for dearly held beliefs, so that a brief conversation on terrorist matter with almost anyone
reveals a special world ie , a i te p etatio of the atu e of a , a d a gli pse i to a desi ed futu e .32
This
clearly shows the subjective nature of any definition of terrorism and the difficulty there is in attempting to find an
objective definition. It is clear, therefore, that assumptions that an objective definition of terrorism a e fou d is
fla ed [as] it fails to a ou t fo the ie i g su je t s alues, pe eptio s a d eliefs a out the o ld – all of which
o t i ute fu da e tall to the a the o ld s shape o appea a e is e pe ie ed. 33
The final perspective outlined by Martin is that of the analyst. The eate pe spe ti es, i te p et i ide ts, a d
la el the othe pa ti ipa ts .34
These participants can be drawn from politicians, media, and academics. Martin
a gues that e ofte , the a al st ill si pl defi e fo the othe pa ti ipa ts ho is –or is not – a te o ist .35
This
defi itio , ho e e , is ot o je ti e. The fa t that these pa ti ipa ts a e see as sepa ate f o the e e t does ot
result in an objective definition. They are likely to also fit into the category of victim, target, supporter, or, even,
terrorist. For example, the representation of 9/11 by the US government, in the role of analyst, as a terrorist attack
cannot be removed from their role as target or victim in the event. Thus, the definition given to te o is is always
subjective. It is lea that te o is is a so ial o st u tio : it is i possi le to sepa ate the te f o the o ditio s
in which it is used and context in which it is u de stood .36
Alternative definitions of terrorism, particularly in the
o te t of / , fa e the p o le that he so iet feels u de th eat, atte pts at atio al a al sis a e ofte
openly resisted as giving aid and comfort to, or even s pathisi g ith, the e e . 37
These different perspectives therefore provide evidence of a need for caution in moving from particular examples to
ge e al o u i e sal asse tio s .38
We ust e autious to take a efle ti e app oa h to the o se atio s e make
31
Martin, Beast, p.52
32
Schmid, Definitional, p.396 quoting J.Bowyer Bell of M.I.T Cambridge
33
Jackson, Critical, p.109
34
Martin, Beast, p.52
35
Martin, Beast, p.52
36
Jackson, Critical, p.105
37
Townshend, Introduction, pg.2
38
Jackson, Critical, p.109

8. Naomi Weir - 2012
8
a d [ ot p esu e] that di e t e pe ie e e uates to a u ate k o ledge .39
The existence of different values leading
to different definitions of terrorism helps to explain the difficulties in finding a single definition for terrorism.
Conclusion
The notio of o e a s te o ist is a othe a s f eedo fighte efle ts the diffi ulties fou d i defi i g
terrorism. It reflects the facts that definitions of terrorism will always be based on the politics, policies and enemies
of the state, in a given context, that are based on individual and group values and beliefs. This has been shown in
detail throughout this essay. Any definition of terrorism is always subjective: McGurn illustrates this by sa i g that i
short, defining terrorism has e o e a uestio of hose o is ei g go ed . 40
This subjectivity has resulted in the
lack of a universal definition of terrorism and means that when looking at current definitions e eed to e ai
highly sensitive to the politics of labelling and continuously explore the silences and consequences that follow
dis ussio s a d desig atio s of te o is . 41
Witbeck observantly suggests that, in light of all the difficulties in
defining terrorism, perhaps the only honest and globally workable definition of terrorism is an explicitly subjective
one – iole e I do t suppo t .42
This essay has argued that the lack of success in attempts to define terrorism reflects the problems that: definitions
of terrorism always carry a purpose, often given by political leaders; definitions of terrorism always come from a
specific historical and political context; and that definitions of terrorism are subjective with respect to the values and
beliefs of individuals or groups and their perspectives concerning the event. It has also been argued that terrorism
cannot be objectively defined as it is such a subjective issue and that this subjectivity requires that we remain highly
sensitive to any attempts as objective definitions and that we address the politics and explore the consequences of
such attempts.
Word Count – 2,739
39
Jackson, Critical, p.108-109
40
McGurn, Confusion, pg.7
41
Jackson, Critical, pgs.114
42
Schmid, Definitional, p.397 quoting Witbeck, J., Te o is : The Wo ld Itself Is Da ge ous , International Herald Tribune,
(2004)

9. Naomi Weir - 2012
9
Bibliography
Blakele , ‘., B i gi g the State Ba k i to Te o is Studies , European Political Science, 6, pgs.228-35
Bhatia, M., Fighti g Wo ds: Na i g Te o ists, Ba dits, ‘e els a d othe Viole t A to s , Third World
Quarterly, 26:2, pgs.5-22
Collins, J., et al., (eds) (2002) Collateral La guage: A User’s Guide to A erica’s New War (New York University Press:
New York)
Gi s, J., Co eptualizatio of te o is , i Ho ga , J., et al., (eds) (2012) Terrorism Studies: A Reader
(Routledge: Oxon)
Jackson, R., (2005) Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-Terrorism, (Manchester University
Press: Manchester)
Jackson, R., et al., (2011) Terrorism: A Critical Introduction (Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire)
Jenkins, B., (1980) The Study of Terrorism: Definitional Problems, (The RAND Corporation: Santa Monica)
Joh so , P., The Ca e of Te o is , i Neta ahu, B., Terrorism: How the West Can Win (Avon
Books: New York)
Ma ti , G., The Natu e of the Beast: Defi i g Te o is , i Ma ti , G., Understanding Terrorism: Challenges,
Perspectives, and Issues, 2nd
ed. (Sage Publications: California)
McGurn, W., (1987) Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? The Cost of Confusion, (London: Alliance Publishers Ltd., for the
Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies)
Oli e io, A., The State of I justi e: The Politi s of Te o is a d the P odu tio of O de , International
Journal of Comparative Sociology, 38:1-2
‘u , C., The Defi itio of Te o is , Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, pgs.9-14

10. Naomi Weir - 2012
10
S h id, A., Te o is – The Defi itio al P o le , Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law,
36:375, pgs. 375-419
Schmid, A., The Defi itio of Te o is , i S h id, A., eds The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research,
(Routledge: Oxon)
S h id, A., The espo se p o le as a defi itio al p o le , i Ho ga , J., et al., eds Terrorism
Studies: A Reader (Routledge: Oxon)
Si o , S., et al., A e i a a d the Ne Te o is , Survival, 42:1, pgs.59-75
Townshend, C., (2002) Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press: Oxford)
Wei e g, L., et al., The halle ges of o eptualizi g te o is , i Ho ga , J., et al., eds Terrorism
Studies: A Reader (Routledge: Oxon)
Zulaika, J., et al., (1996) Terror and Taboo: The Follies, Fables, and Faces of Terrorism (Routledge: London)