A further point to consider is the purposefulness of terrorism as a style of violence. We note that terrorism is intended to affect the attitudes of popular audiences by altering their dispositions toward the government and its challengers.
It is also calculated to affect the government's decision making. Furthermore, the audiences for terrorism are multiple. They include sympathizers, in which case terrorism is meant to elicit excitement or enthusiasm, strengthen solidarity, or redeem the past; antagonists, whom terrorism is intended to shock, intimidate, or coerce, and "neutrals," especially foreign publics whose attention and interest are sought. Terrorism is thus generated in anticipation of a public reaction and becomes part of an interactive process.
Audiences react to two aspects of the issue: the case brought to their attention by terrorism and the particular method of terrorism, that is, the style of violence. Not everyone who supports a cause will approve of any method of achieving it, but sympathy for ideological objectives will make approval of the method more likely.
However, people who disapprove of the cause will almost certainly reject the method. Audiences are more likely to approve discriminate tactics than indiscriminate tactics, but only if the victim can be blamed. Moral judgments about the responsibility for conditions and the appropriateness of violent responses influence popular reactions. Democracies usually combine repression and reform, depending on the nature of the threat. For example, Western European democracies confronting terrorism saw a growth in power of state security institutions.
West German and Italian governments also upgraded intelligence-gathering and surveillance functions, bringing the government into a more intrusive role vis-a-vis society. Democracies struggle with terrorism from the Left and from the Right, as well as from nationalist or separatist interests. They must balance a perceived need to control the direct consequences of terrorism, by maintaining order and security, with the realization that any coercive response to terrorism reduces democractic freedoms.
Ending terrorism may require a change in the motivations of the individuals involved. How do conditions change so as to decrease incentives for terrorism?
What might cause individuals to abandon the initial commitment that bound them to a terrorist role? When do people who use terrorism cease to believe in their own justifications? Under what circumstances can the individuals who have participated in terrorism be reintegrated into society? The causes and effects of terrorism are comprehensive only in terms of political conflicts in specific historical time periods.
There are commonalities among instances of terrorism, but each case is unique. Terrorism remains unpredictable in part because its multiple contexts are dynamic. Governments and challengers respond differently to similar circumstances. Original conditions change as a result of terrorism. Even the meaning of the term changes as politics and society change.
Comparative Politics. Subscribe to our mailing list and be notified about new titles, journals and catalogs. Terrorism in Context Edited by Martha Crenshaw. Sahadevan, International Studies Description Reviews Bio Table of Contents Sample Chapters Subjects An interdisciplinary investigation of the phenomenon of terrorism in its political, social, and economic context as it has occurred throughout the world from the nineteenth century to the present.
Sahadevan, International Studies. Contents 1. Miller 3. Russian Revolutionary Terrorism Philip Pomper 4. Merkl 6. Lustick Terrorism and Politics in Iran Jerrold D. Green In general, who engages in terrorism? Why do people or groups engage in terrorism? What are the consequences of terrorism? How does the media effect our view of terrorism? Publications In the News. Publication Type Most Recent. Journal Articles. Policy Briefs. March Author s. Martha Crenshaw. Constructing the Field of Terrorism.
December Jihadist Terrorist Plots in the United States. For all its benefits, the prejudice-reduction framework is also not without its drawbacks.
Specifically, the positive-contact notion highlights the benefits of mere human interaction; it disregards differences in ideological beliefs between the interacting parties, thereby neglecting an element that appears essential to producing their estrangement and reciprocal animosity. Too, like the epidemiological metaphor, the prejudice-reduction framing takes the long view, thereby neglecting the "here and now" of terrorism and the need to counter specific terrorist threats.
Thus, each of the foregoing frameworks captures some aspects of counterterrorism's effects while neglecting others. Accordingly, an integrated approach to counterterrorism is called for, one that exploits the insights of each metaphor and avoids its pitfalls.
Such an approach would maximize the likelihood of enlightened decision making concerning contemplated counterterrorist moves given the complex tradeoffs that each such move typically entails. View details for PubMedID Tab Menu. Fellowship declined , American Council of Learned Societies Professional Education Ph.
Contact Academic crenshaw stanford. Additional Info Mail Code: Abstract This monograph examines from a psychological perspective the use of metaphors in framing counterterrorism.
0コメント