Terrorism Studies and the Politics of State Power

Abstract

An analysis of the terrorism studies field reveals a number of methodological, theoretical and ethical-normative problems. One of its more serious problems is its tendency to uncritically reproduce a number of highly questionable narratives and assumptions about terrorism as a phenomenon and counterterrorism as state response. For example, a great deal of past and recently published terrorism research unreflectively assumes that: non-state terrorism poses an existential threat to modern societies; there is a 'new terrorism' that is religiously motivated, willing to employ weapons of mass destruction, and aimed primarily at causing mass casualties; the roots of terrorism lie in individual psychological abnormality and religious extremism; and coercive-based counterterrorism is an effective response to non-state terrorism. This paper argues that these misconceptions are not simply errors based on poor research. Rather, these broadly accepted understandings – this terrorism 'knowledge' – also work politically to reify and reproduce state power. In particular, this 'scientifically' generated terrorism 'knowledge' frequently functions to, among others: de-legitimise resistance by non-state actors; justify domestic political projects unconnected to terrorism, such as social surveillance; bolster the power and priorities of the agencies of state security; benefit powerful economic actors linked to the security sector, such as private security firms, defence industries, and pharmaceutical companies; control wider social and political dissent and set the parameters for acceptable political debate; and provide intellectual justification for foreign imperial projects. However, academic research is never without political and normative consequence; knowledge is always for somebody and for something. This paper argues that given the current situation in the field, there is an urgent need for an explicitly 'critical' terrorism studies.