Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS) has become an increasingly important and important element in the contemporary debate on political violence. His contributions – in my opinion – have been significant, particularly in encouraging us to think more carefully about the nature of terrorism and the goals of terrorism research. CTS’s achievements include (among many others) documentation how “terrorism” is constructed on different sites official And ‘every day’ speech; trace the genealogies of contemporary understandings of terrorism; draw attention to traditionally neglected forms of terrorist violence (usually state-led); demonstrating the extent to which dominant conceptions of terrorism are intrinsically political, particularly because of their gender And racialized construction; encourage more careful analysis of threat posed by non-state terrorism which is typically presented to audiences via exceptionalist language; and, by submitting a wide range of anti-terrorist practices and violence subject to sustained criticism. Furthermore, while much of the early work in this area relied on discursive techniques to analyze discourse on terrorism from privileged actorsCTS analyzes to focus And methodological toolbox have both experienced spectacular expansion over the past twenty years, as demonstrated by significant recent collections.
In a New article published in the journal Critical Studies on Terrorism – I’m trying to take stock of some of the key ways that CTS has evolved over the last twenty years. My reasons for this were twofold. First of all, I wanted to highlight the pluralism that exists in this area and demonstrate, or perhaps argue, that the CTS is a much broader entity than is sometimes thought. Although the contributors to this volume all share an interest in a critical approach to (counter-)terrorism, they do not (necessarily) share an understanding of terrorism itself or, indeed, of what it means to be critical! CTS – I think – is home to a diverse and growing range of policy commitments, conceptual frameworks, methodological tools, etc. And, although pluralism has its drawbacks, this heterogeneity is one of the reasons why CTS has continued to maintain its relevance in the face of friendly (and sometimes much less than friendly!) critical.
My second big motivation was to connect the pluralism of CTS to important broader contexts within academia and the “real world” of global politics, and to think about what is at stake in CTS’s different visions of the future. What is particularly important here is the emergence of a broadly sympathetic body of work that is drawing real attention to CTS’s own biases, omissions and exclusions, often in relation to issues of race and colonialism. Such work raises profound questions about the future viability of CTS – with some authors even going so far as to argue for abolition of the broader field of terrorism research.
My own argument, in a nutshell, is that critical terrorism studies has evolved around three identifiable stages or “waves.” Each of these waves has its own ambitions, goals, and contexts, and each has also tended to draw on different theoretical and normative inspirations. The first wave of CTS – emerging in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks – focused its efforts on establishing the foundations of a new and openly critical approach to terrorism research. As a result, this – calendar setting – the work focused on tasks such as the criticism of so-called “traditional” studies on terrorism, the definition of fundamental conceptual commitments of the CTSand articulating his normative vision. Despite some internal disagreements, notably over the meaning of the term “critical”, the first wave of CTS, in hindsight, proved relatively coherent and significantly set the stage for subsequent studies in this area.
The second wave of critical studies of terrorism built on earlier work carried out within the framework of the elaboration of what CTS could mean and could do. With the entrenchment of the global war on terror and the emergence of new forms of (counter-)terrorism, this wave has mobilized expansive energy, taking CTS in new empirical, theoretical, and methodological directions. Part of this involved concerted efforts to introduce CTS to new students and scholars through manuals, edited collections and special issues. It also incorporated a new analysis of hitherto neglected contexts and examples, as well as the construction of new interdisciplinary connections with other disciplines or academic projects. The important debates of this wave took place around the usefulness of the term “state terrorism”and to what extent the CTS should seek to be relevant to politics. The result of this work – collectively – was a truly dynamic, plural and ambitious work, with real attention paid to its nuances.
The third wave of critical terrorism studies includes more recent studies that are broadly supportive of the ambitions of previous waves, but keen to unveil the results of CTS. limitations and silences. Underpinning much of this work – with his efforts to problematization – is an argument according to which CTS is still grappling with its own racialized, sexist and other roots and legacies.. As a result, there are real risks that CTS will reproduce the different forms of violence that previous waves sought to apprehend. The issues here are therefore deeply political – and perhaps existential – for CTS, with third wave work bringing us, interestingly, back to the politics of criticism which was so important to the work of the first wave of CTS.
My understanding of CTS as evolving through these waves – agenda setting, elaboration, problematization – is, of course, slightly artificial in the sense that it (by necessity) omits important work in this area, and because it imposes consistency on various authors and researchers at the global level. each of these three moments. It does, however, help us to cope with the different approaches and ambitions to critical terrorism research and the emergence of these at particular historical moments. It is therefore likely that events within and beyond academia over the next twenty years will be crucial to the future of CTS. Will third wave work render CTS useless or too politically compromised for future relevance? Will broader academic developments introduce new techniques, tools, or theories that migrate to critical terrorism research? Will “terrorism” increase or decrease its global political importance, with implications for its status within academia? Will we see a fourth wave of CTS emerge and, if so, what might that wave look like? Of course, at this point we can only answer these questions through speculation. My own hope, however, is that CTS’s past evolution, through the embrace of pluralism and internal disagreement, has equipped it with both the tools and the appetite to remain resilient and relevant for some time. time again.
This article is inspired by Lee Jarvis’ new article, “Three waves of critical studies on terrorism: agenda setting, elaboration, problematization”first publication Critical Studies on Terrorism on May 23, 2024.
Further reading on international electronic relations
