1. DR. LEE JARVIS SCHOOL OF POLITICS, PHILOSOPHY, LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA L.JARVIS@UEA.AC.UK Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS)

2. Overview A quick detour The study of terrorism and emergence of CTS The case for critical terrorism studies Terrorism studies and problem-solving theory What is Critical Terrorism Studies? Strand 1: State Terrorism Strand 2: Terrorism Discourse Criticisms of CTS Concluding remarks

3. A quick detour Security Studies - Statist - Military force - ‘Problem-solving’ critical security studies - Pluralist - Non-realist - Ethics and politics of security Critical Security Studies - ‘a theoretical commitment and a political orientation’ (Booth 2005) - Emancipatory politics

4. Emergence of CTS Post-2006: ‘critical turn’ in the field of terrorism studies:  New journal: ‘Critical Studies on Terrorism’  New professional association: BISA Critical Studies on Terrorism Working Group  Explicit reference to CTS in academic scholarship  Textbooks, university modules, and so on. Precursors:  Cold War political economy, e.g.:  Chomsky on ‘state terrorism’  Herman and O’Sullivan on ‘the terrorism industry’  Anthropological and sociological studies  E.g. interpretive studies of ‘terrorist groups’ Yet:  Little engagement with terrorism studies  No shared research programme

5. The Study of Terrorism Early 1970s: Emergence of Terrorism Studies as an academic pursuit:  Terrorism experts; research centres; scholarly journals, etc.  (Term ‘terrorism’ not widely used before 1960s). Three core questions have, arguably, dominated the field (Jarvis 2009):  The question of definition: What is terrorism?  The question of causation: What causes terrorism?  The question of response: How can/ how should we prevent terrorism?

6. Methodological criticisms of terrorism studies Preference for ‘applied’ rather than conceptual research  Lack of theoretical rigour in terrorism research Lack of primary research  Taboo of speaking to ‘terrorists’  Dangers of fieldwork Recycling of assumptions, data and conclusions  Perhaps linked to the propensity of one-time ‘visitors’ to the field  Absence of ‘dissenting voices’: an epistemic community? Implicit preference for positivist research  And, a disproportionate influence on policymakers

7. Conceptual criticisms of terrorism studies Emphasis on current concerns  IRA pre-9/11;  al-Qaeda and suicide terrorism post-9/11 Lack of historical understanding  E.g. ‘New Terrorism’ debates Conception of terrorism  Narrow: non-state violences against civilians  Essentialist: a ‘thing’ rather than a political label Acceptance of state discourses and interests  ‘…counterinsurgency masquerading as political science’ (Schmid and Jongman 1988: 182). Problem-solving emphasis…

8. Terrorism Studies and Problem-Solving Theory (PST) Robert W. Cox (1981):  “problem-solving theory…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.” Strengths of PST:  Fixes limits to a problem area.  Reduces problems to a limited number of variables Limitations of PST:  All scholarship– including on terrorism – is embedded in contexts, interests and paradigms  Failure to question the purposes of research  Limited conception of academic responsibility

9. What is Critical Terrorism Studies? A very ‘broad church’  Marxists, Feminists, Constructivists, Post- structuralists, etc.  Richard Jackson, however, identifies several ‘core commitments’ Ontological commitments  Terrorism as a social, rather than a brute, fact.  Violences are interpreted as ‘terrorism’; groups as ‘terrorist’.  Implications of this:  Caution toward the language of terrorism;  Rejection of generalisations: ‘terrorisms’ rather than ‘terrorism’;  Refusal to treat terrorism as exceptional;  An acute awareness of the politics of labelling

10. For example: Video Games and the War on Terror “Rainbow operatives take on the chaotic streets of Las Vegas as an escalating terrorist siege in Sin City threatens to take world terrorism to new, uncontrollable heights”. Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Vegas. “Assume the role of Solid Snake, a one-man army determined to stop a deadly high-tech weapon from falling into the hands of the wrong people. Snake must utilize his skills in stealth, weaponry and counter-terrorism to fight off the competing powers and destroy the gigantic killing machine Metal Gear Ray.” Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. “…take on the role of the flamboyant Rico Rodriguez – an undercover CIA operative specialising in regime change – as he tries to overthrow the corrupt government of San Esperito. This rogue South American island is suspected of stockpiling WMDs and it’s your job to negate the threat to world peace.” Just Cause

11. What is Critical Terrorism Studies II? Epistemological scepticism:  How is knowledge of terrorism produced?  By whom? In what contexts? To what Purposes? Who benefits?  Scepticism toward efforts to ‘speak the truth’ about terrorism.  Emphasis on power/knowledge relations Normative commitments (less consensus):  Prioritisation of human rather than national security  E.g. impact of counter-terrorism powers on individuals and communities rather than national security  For some, emphasis on emancipation  For others, deconstruction of dominant discourses  To help us to ‘think otherwise’ about terrorism.

12. Strand 1: State Terrorism Research A ‘broadening’ of terrorism studies:  Expand the study of terrorist violence beyond non-state groups. Why?  Empirical realities  Analytical consistency  “To suggest that when agents representing a state engage in the very same actions as non-state actors, such as when they blow up civilian airliners (the Lockerbie bombing) or a protest ship (the Rainbow Warrior bombing) or plant a series of bombs in public places (the Lavon affair), it automatically ceases to be terrorism is illogical and biased.” (Jackson 2009). Thus, for Chomsky (1991: 12), for example:  “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”.

13. State Terrorism Research Research programmes:  Typologies of state terrorism  E.g. Michael Stohl: Overt/covert/surrogate  Blakeley: Limited/ Wholesale  Functions of state terrorism  Economic; Strategic; Political Contributions of state terrorism research?  Rethink dominant understandings of terrorism  And, the significance of non-state terrorism  Revisit broader assumptions within IR  State violence (sometimes) ‘good’; Non-state violence (usually) ‘bad’.  Identification of ‘hidden’ contexts or trends  Parallel with discussions of ‘American empire’

14. Strand 2: Terrorism Discourse Criticism as disturbance:  Aims to disrupt rather than replace conventional understandings of terrorism.  Highlight assumptions and silences within dominant discourses on terrorism. Representations of ‘terrorist attacks’:  Language and its implications – e.g. 7/7 and the Blitz.  Media frames: use of headlines, common narratives, recycling of footage Representations of ‘terrorist’ identities:  Orientalist constructions: savages, barbarians, evildoers and monsters.  Gendered constructions: e.g. images of men in uniform responding to violences; War on Terror as “women’s liberation”. Popular culture and intertextuality  Terrorism in movies, plays and literature.  Overlaps between these and ‘factual’ representations.

15. E.g. Constructions of terrorism post-9/11 Vagueness:  “… ‘terrorism’ has been used in a calculatedly undefined and indefinite, rather than specific, way. It names not a specific external enemy, a specific Other, but a general and omnipresent threat” (Makdisi 2002). Evil:  “It seems to have become axiomatic in recent years that American wars never involve only enemies or adversaries – they are always struggles against evil and inhumanity” (Edwards 2004).  “…claims about “evil” shut down deliberation” (Eberly 2003). Monstrosity:  “Osama bin Laden, according to Fox News Channel anchors, analysts and correspondents, is ‘‘a dirtbag’’, ‘‘a monster’’ overseeing a ‘‘web of hate’’. His followers in Al Qaeda are ‘terror goons’. Taliban fighters are ‘diabolical’ and ‘henchmen’” (Rai 2004).

16. Criticisms of CTS ‘Straw person’ argument:  ‘Orthodox’ terrorism studies is diverse, and generalisations unfair:  “Among terrorism scholars, there are wide disagreements about, among other things, the definition of terrorism, the causes of terrorism, the role and value of the concept of ‘radicalization’ and ‘extremism’, the role of state terror, the role that foreign policy plays in motivating or facilitating terrorism, the ethics of terrorism, and the proper way to conduct ‘counter-terrorism’” (Horgan and Boyle 2008).  CTS as ‘point-scoring’? Novelty of CTS is exaggerated Policy relevance vis-à-vis ‘orthodox terrorism studies’  And, what’s wrong with problem-solving research?

17. Criticisms of CTS Is CTS an approach or an orientation?  “the greatest possible pluralism and engagement consistent with the critical enterprise should be encouraged” (Burke 2008)  Tensions between work on state terrorism and that on terrorism discourse Discursive reductionism?  “…wars launched in the name of counter-terrorism are not purely driven by certain hegemonic discourses, but are also part of the West’s economic interests in oil, strategic interests in military bases in the Middle East, and the desire to maintain American hegemony into the twenty-first century by controlling one of the crucial resource-rich regions for global capitalism” (Stokes 2009)

18. Concluding Remarks A growing research programme  Itself also subject to critique Questions for discussion:  Accuracy of CTS critiques of mainstream terrorism research?  Value of research done within Critical Terrorism Studies?  How needed is Critical Terrorism Studies?

19. Thanks for listening!