1. Week 10: Critical Terrorism Studies
James Fitzgerald
School of Law and Government
Dublin City University
Ireland

2. What is Critical Terrorism Studies?
“A new critical approach to the study of terrorism which seeks to unearth power relations present within the prevailing discourses on terrorism; as most specifically found within the existing Terrorism Studies Literature”
My working definition

3. Definition of CTS: 3 Core Issues
1) What do we mean by Discourse?
2) What do we mean by the term ‘critical’?
3) What are we talking about when we talk of Terrorism Studies?

4. 1) Discourse
Can be loosely defined as a system of language which constructs or has constructed a certain view of reality
Encapsulates meaning
Exampes of discourses include medical discourse,legal discourse, security discourse, terrorism discourse
From a ‘critical’ perspective, discourse constructs reality rather than reflects it

5. 2) What is ‘Critical’? Criticism vs Critique
Critical approaches question the dominant structures and conceptions of reality that are present within a certain context or field.
In the case of Critical Terrorism Studies, the dominant structures refer to traditional Terrorism Studies; including its positivist epistemology

6. Positivism vs Post-Positivism
What is Positivism?
Position that the standards of science should be applied to social analysis; hence, social ‘science’, just as in the natural world
What is Post-Positivism
Refers to a general position that rejects the hegemony of positivism and argues that science cannot be applied to social analysis; hence social analysis/inquiry

7. Positivism vs. Post-positivism: Characteristics
Reality
Positivism: Reality is material, knowable and stable
Post-positivism: Reality in contingent, interpretive and unstable
Facts
Positivism: Facts are independent of theory
Post-Positivism: Facts are always interpretations
Science
Positivism: Science is the highest standard of inquiry and can be transferred to inquire the social world
Post-positivism: The natural and social worlds are inherently different. We cannot use science to adequately explain the social

8. ‘Critical Theory’ vs. ‘critical theory’
‘critical theory’ refers to general post-positivist position—there are degrees of being ‘critical’
E.g. feminism, constructivism, postmodernism and…Critical Theory
Critical Theory is a ‘critical theory’—but is a specific approach within this broad spectrum

9. What is Critical Theory?
Foundational basis in Frankfurt School in early 20th century
Certain core commitments:
An opposition to positivist approaches towards social analysis
Seeks to expose the power relationships and embedded structures which maintain these relationships
Works towards emancipation

10. What is Emancipation A fundamentally normative concept
Negative conception of freedom
“Critical theory is not concerned only with understanding and explaining the existing realities of world politics, it intends to criticize in order to transform them” (Devetak, 2002)

11. 3) What do we mean by Terrorism Studies?
CTS established primarily in 2007
Key figures include: Richard Jackson, Marie Breen-Smyth, Jeroen Gunning, Piers Robinson
Journal Critical Studies on Terrorism
CTS has a problem with what it views as ‘Traditional Terrorism Studies’

12. Traditional Terrorism Studies
Came to the fore as sub-discipline of Security Studies in early 1970s
Key early figures: Brian Jenkins, Walter Laqueur, Richard Clutterbuck, Paul Wilkinson
Key contemporary figures: Bruce Hoffman, Walter Laqueur, David Rapoport, Martha Crenshaw, Mia Bloom

13. CTS’ criticism of Traditional Terrorism Studies
Criticism 1: Poor Methods and Theories
Terrorism as a growth industry post 9/11
Distinct lack of primary research
Proliferation of one-time authors
Gatekeepers in the field prevent certain critical analyses coming to the fore

14. Poor Methods and Theories
Such analyses do not:
engage with the discursive construction of terrorism
challenge the inherently subjective nature of all research
apply broad and differing theoretical viewpoints to the study of terrorism

15. CTS’ criticism of Traditional Terrorism Studies
Criticism 2: Embedded Expertise
Fundamentally questions how policy implications and issues of funding shape analyses (and vice-versa)
Profound effect on state sponsored programmes for the study of and dissemination of work on terrorism
For example, the RAND-St. Andrews nexus and the New Terrorism Theory

16. Bringing the State back in
Criticism 3: The lack of debate on the concept of Western State Terrorism
There has been a neglect to call the actions of Western states ‘State Terrorism’ both directly and indirectly
CTS seeks to expose this

17. Bringing the State back in
Indirect State Terrorism:
US support for Nicaraguan contras in 1980s
Subversive support from the UK government to Loyalist groups in Northern Ireland
Direct State Terrorism:
Israel’s actions in 2006 Lebanese war; Operation cast led in 2008
NATO bombing water and electricity grids in 1999 Kosovo operations against the Serbs
Operations by the US in Iraq such those of the early shock and awe campaign

18. What is Emancipation for CTS Scholars?
It is to move away from the restrictive space of Terrorism Studies to one where more critical voices can be heard
Towards a new ‘better’ consensus on what terrorism is and can include:
A better, deeper definition
Including notions of Western state terrorism
Core characterisation of CTS:
A broad church; a home for critical approaches?
An inherently normative programme dictated by notions of emancipation?

19. Criticisms of CTS
1) Overstates novelty of its case: scholars within Terrorism Studies have long recognised deficiencies--eg. Definitional issue etc.
2) Overstates the problem-solving aspect of Terrorism Studies
3) Reinvents the wheel claiming to discover theoretical significance behind well-known observations

20. Criticisms of CTS
4) Develops a straw man of Terrorism Studies---breaking down nearly 40years research into a simple caricature
5) Shows bad faith by accusing people associated with state funding
6) Definitional issue---seeks to break down old power relationships, but seeks to create its own in terms of consensus
7) Emancipatory component limits the voices of more critical scholars such as postmodernists

21. Conclusions
CTS is a critical approach which fore mostly seeks to present alternative analyses in the study of terrorism
It seeks to question the dominant power structures which are prevalent within “Traditional” terrorism analyses
It seeks to work towards a deeper consensus in the future on what can be viewed as terrorism (including Western state actions); ultimately towards a loose conception of emancipation