You are here

Home

Radicalism vs Superficialism: definitional game-playing


Coming Out as a Radical -- or Coming In? (Part #8)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Consensual definition of terrorism? Clearly, with regard to the nature of radicalism and terrorism, there is no lack of assertions and assumptions -- framing research and policies. Whether these constitute a coherent framework is itself a matter of opinion, irrespective of whether they are claimed to sustain "mainstream" strategies from a normal perspective.

There is seemingly no attempt at a comprehensive mapping of such insights -- analogous to that created for the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US of the counterinsurgency (COIN) initiative in Afghanistan as developed by the PA Consulting Group. This documented the pattern of relationships in Afghanistan between tribal leaders, soldiers, aid workers, drug dealers, militants, ethnic groups, government leaders, etc. -- so complex that it was caricatured as The Great Afghan Spaghetti Monster (Checkpoint Kabul, 20 December 2009; Graphic Shows Complexity of US Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, The Huffington Post, 22 December 2009; see image). It is appropriate to ask whether those preoccupied with understanding of terrorism in general have endeavoured to create an equivalent map -- or whether it is considered that the conceptual situation is so straightforward from a mainstream perspective that it does not call for such systemic analysis.

If mainstream strategies aim to ensure the elimination of radical perspectives and those who embody them, will emergency preparedness be endangered by the lack of such perspectives -- following their successful eradication? (Eradication as the Strategic Final Solution of the 21st Century?, 2014). How are strategic measures, framed as "exceptional" or "extraordinary", to be distinguished from those which might otherwise be termed as necessarily "radical" responses to a crisis?

With respect to terrorism, as an evil act, Boaz Ganor, as author of The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle: a guide for decision makers (2005), recently argued that:

The paradox is that despite the scope of local and international terrorism, there is still no international consensus on one definition for the phenomenon of terrorism.
The suggested definition is: "Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence by a non-state organization aimed at civilians or civilian targets with the purpose of achieving political goals."

This definition differentiates between the political goals that motivate terrorist campaigns and the method of implementation - deliberate attacks against civilians. Unlike the widespread cliché, One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter [mentioned above], the suggested definition determines that there is no political, ideological, religious, or other goal that can justify engaging in deliberate acts of terrorism against civilians. (Security and Defense: a League of Nations fighting terror, The Jerusalem Post, 5 December 2015)

Like many definitions which suit particular agendas, this definition fails completely to address the conditions under which people experience terror, however that intimidation may have been engendered. It uses a way of framing the challenge which can be described metaphorically as blinkered, or as a form of tunnel vision -- indicative of the reluctance to consider alternatives to a preferred line of thought (Ingrid Mathieu, When Vision Becomes Tunnel Vision, Psychology Today, 3 August 2011).

Effectivly it defines terrorism to exclude actions by individuals or state organizations, or against non-civilians. This could be interpreted as implying that no state can be understood as engendering terror, however any such action is to be understood as related to terrorism -- despite extensive commentary on state terrorism and on state-sponsored terrorism. This is somewhat extraordinary, if not radical, in that it excludes the actions of the German state with rspect to the Holocaust, any Israeli implication in the Nakba exodus of Palestinians, or any implication of the UssR in the Holdomor. Effectively the definitiion divorces terror from terrorism.

Combatting evil: Most curious is that despite the multiplicity of views, it is readily assumed that "evil" (as the fundamental enemy) is itself clearly defined -- despite views to the contrary and lack of institutional efforts to clarify a henomenon to which authorities so frequently allude in justifying radical measures.

Furthermore it could be argued, for example, that the goals of ISIS are "religious" (even "spiritual") rather than political, at least as jihadists claim to believe -- however "political" is defined by others. Jihad is a form of religious engagement reminiscent of the Christian Ecclesia Militans (Richard M Heilman, Church Militant Field Manual: Special Forces Training for the Life in Christ, 2012; Paul Scalia, The Church Militant or the Church Belligerent? Catholic Answers). However questionable, this was indicated by Pope Benedict XVI to be an appropriate description of Church members, since it is "necessary to enter into battle with evil" (Pope Calls 'Church Militant' an Apt Description for Faithful on Earth, Zenit, 22 May 2012).

The assumption Ganor makes that his definition would enable consensus is as inherently problematic as the quest for effective consensus on the less controversial question of climate change has recently demonstrated (The "Saving of Humanity" framed by "Sinking of the Titanic": rising sea of discontent engendered by warming climate of opinion, 2015). The argument fails to address issues underlying any quest for consensus in a global civilization which appears inherently ungovernable (The Consensus Delusion: mysterious attractor undermining global civilization as currently imagined, 2011; Ungovernability of Sustainable Global Democracy? 2011).

Given the world view of the Abrahamic religions, Ganor's specific proposal for a League of Nations Fighting Terrorism as a focus for consensus could itself be understood as a preparatory measure in relation to the end times scenarios in which those religions believe so strongly and particularly, as with Christian Zionists. Ganor's proposal effectively mirrors and serves the agenda of ISIS in configuring forces for an Apocalyptic confrontation -- with each side defining itself to be a force for good, and the other as a force for evil. If consensus is then to be understood as a matter of belief, curious questions arise in relation to the degree of terror also engendered by natural disasters (Is God a Terrorist? Definitional game-playing by the Coalition of the Willing, 2004).

It is evident that the complex environment of the times enables pursuit of a variety of agendas, whether or not these contribute to manifestations of radicalism considered problematic. It is especially evident that the arms industry has benefitted significantly from cultivation of a politics of fear and the security policies consequent on simplistic framing (Andrea Germanos, We're in the Business of Killing Terrorists and Business is Good, Common Dreams, 4 December 2015). According to Air Force SecretaryDeborah Lee James: We're in the business of killing terrorists and business is good (Air Force burning through bomb stockpiles striking ISIL, USA Today, 3 December 2015).

In endeavouring to clarify the dynamics of the challenge, indications such as the following can be highlighted as meriting exploration both in isolation and as they might be more insightfully related to one another. Many have been discussed separately, as noted, but numerous challenges to that clarification remain. In that sense the question meriting attention is how such dynamics are to be more fruitfully related to one another, rather than any focus on particular dynamics to be deprecated from a particular perspective.

As noted above, especially challenging is the increasingly "slippery" nature of conventional definitions and categories, despite the strongest of claims and assertions variously made. Examples are to be found with respect to population issues, as separately argued (Scientific Gerrymandering of Boundaries of Overpopulation Debate, 2012). Given the problematic negativity implied in opposition to government action, also of interest are the past issues with respect to "nongovernmental" organizations (Public Management, 1995). Is there a continuing implication for some that "nongovernmental" implies a form of radicalism contesting the authority of the state.

In this context description and explanation are called into question. Metaphorically this slipperiness can be experienced as "mercurial", offering a degree of mirroring recalling the distorting effects of a fairground hall of mirrors. Given the extent to which evidence is massaged, many facts are increasingly questionable -- leading to a new understanding of the half-life of knowledge. As indicated by the "concrete proof" of the existence of WMD in Iraq, the situation is exacerbated by the extent to which leading politicians themselves admit the need to lie and engage in doublespeak (as noted above).

The purpose here is not to develop arguments variously made in the past but rather to refer to such articulations and to cite sources exemplifying the challenge.

Distinction between normal, abnormal and extreme: In this respect valuable distinctions can be explored, possibly calling for qualification of use of such terms. Arguments have been presented within the following:

Value attached to excellence and the exceptional, whether with respect to creativity, skill or courage: Much is made of excellence and the exceptional -- widely cited and rewarded. However, as noted above, the irony for a civilization in crisis is that any "extraordinary" insight could now be readily condemned as "radical" -- thereby inhibiting new thinking potentially vital to the survival of that civilization. Any vital creative effort at critical thinking could be deprecated for such reasons -- especially given the pressure to be positive (as noted above). Can the failure of any initiative no longer be recognized, to enable improvement, if it is a requirement that its outcome be framed as positive?

In relating the argument to religious censorship through reference to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, it is especially relevant in the light of current moves towards forms of electronic censorship through presumptions of factual accuracy by Google's search engine based on its Knowledge Vault (Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links, New Scientist, 25 February 2015). This raises questions regarding its subsequent ability to deliver search results on unconfirmed hypotheses, perspectives beyond the mainstream, and contested political opinions, notably in the light of increasing recognition of the so-called half-life of knowledge (Samuel Arbesman, The Half-Life of Facts: why everything we know has an expiration date, 2013). Today's "facts" have a distinct probability of proving to be tomorrow's "lies". A subsequent proposal by Google has explicitly envisaged the possibility of eliminating negative elements.

Framed otherwise, it is appropriate to ask in what contexts radical thinking is encouraged, rather then deprecated and censored as abnormal: the United Nations system, regional organizations (EU, OAS, ASEAN, etc), the military, religions (the Catholic Church, etc), academia? Some institutions have promoted the formation of "networks of excellence" or "centres of excellence" (Networks of Excellence: key to the future of EU research, 2007; Expert Group on the Future of Networks of Excellence, 2000). The question of relevance is whether these admit of any thinking which could be recognized as "critical" or "radical".

Academic disciplines clarify the process -- through peer review -- by which radical approaches are excluded from consideration, with the implication that their pursuit may well endanger a career or institutional funding. Precaution dictates that researchers define their inquiry in a manner consistent with the mainstream and foundation policies. There is then the curious challenge of being "original", without being "radical" -- despite the "normal" being necessarily susceptible to deprecation as "average".

Increasingly confused collective understanding of "radical": Curiously it would seem that only in the arts (radical art, radical poetry, radical design, and the like) and in technological innovation are "radical" approaches now valued as meriting careful consideration -- exemplified by the conscription of hackers by "normal" institutions in anticipation of cyberthreats. Given the increasing interest in profiling for marketing and security purposes, of some relevance is how those engaged in radical pursuits are defined in terms of normal category sets.

Understood in this way it is appropriate to ask how radical reform and radical strategies are to be envisaged, and in what context. Or is it now the case that such initiatives must necessarily exclude any form of radical creativity -- with reform being understood simply as an adaptation of the normal? Is this only too evident in the case of the decades-long UN reform process?

Assertive conflation of understandings and implications of radicalisation: As noted above, this exercise has been inspired by the very particular meaning now given to radical and radicalisation in many contexts -- ranging from the political through the media to academic studies. The terms are now used without qualification thereby calling into question any meaning to be associated with creativity, new thinking, strategic initiatives or worldviews with which "radical" has been previously associated with the highest appreciation as a potential indicator of excellence. The same may be said of "extreme" and "extremism", despite their former appreciation with respect to sport, physical courage and engagement in high-risk enterprises.

The unquestioning association of "radicalism" and "extremism" with terrorist violence has resulted in evocation of traditional religious frameworks by which they can be framed in demonic terms, as separately noted (Radicalisation versus Demonisation?, 2015).

In a period in which many are obliged to reframe their worldviews in response to the "nothing" with which they are faced as a consequence of strategic initiatives and empty political promises, the process of "radicalisation" merits subtler exploration (Radicalisation of Existence and Identity: recognizing the global emergence and influence of daimonic dynamics, 2015). To the extent that the new thinking required in response to global crises may need to be radically creative, it is highly regrettable that such creativity should come to be deprecated through conflation with confused understanding of the varieties of terrorism.

Varieties of radical -- as a perspective or worldview
Varieties of radicalism -- being radical or so perceived
Varieties of radical action
Varieties of radicalisation -- becoming a radical and adopting radical modalities

With respect to any understanding of a process of radicalisation, the framing offered by Robert Kuttner (Thinking About President Trump, The Huffington Post, 13 December 2015) is of relevance:

America has been a sitting duck for a figure like Trump for a long time. More and more Americans are simply disconnected from government, politics and civic life. They are deeply cynical. Voting turnout keeps falling, especially among lower income people. The collapse of civic life means that too many Americans don't pay attention, don't have well informed views, think all politicians are crooks and phonies anyway, and are habituated to view everything as entertainment. The more of anti-politician a figure like Trump seems, no matter how boorish or mendacious, the better. What the hell, the regular crowd hasn't fixed the economy or saved us from terrorism. This guy at least talks tough and doesn't take any guff from either the PC people or wimps like Jeb Bush. When citizens do not pay attention, they do not bother to disentangle fact from fiction. If Trump's claims are outright lies, it doesn't matter as long as they are simple and reassuring.

Varieties of fear as variously instilled and cultivated: Anything radical can be perceived as threatening, if not terrifying. Of particular interest is how to distinguish forms of fear which are valued from those which are deprecated as undesirable. The distinction is problematic to the extent that anything new and unusual -- the abnormal and the anomalous -- can be perceived as threatening, at least by some. The challenge is especially evident in relation to the cultivation of "terrifying" experiences, whether at fairgrounds or in the form of extreme sports.

Undertaking any new initiative is commonly recognized as involving a degree of fear -- whether public speaking, competitive sport, any form of examination, sexual intercourse, etc. Some games may deliberately cultivate a degree of fear, if only in online war gaming. Instilling a degree of fear is a common feature of initiation into a collectivity, most notably the hazing process in universities, the military, and prisons. Such processes are defended as essential to group bonding. With respect to the fear engendered, they may be difficult to distinguish from that associated with bullying in those same contexts -- or in neighbourhoods.

A degree of fear may be experienced, and valued, as a stimulating feature of any form of risk-taking.

Varieties of terrorism as experienced, instigated and framed: When experienced as "terrifying", the distinction from "terrorism" of various forms of fear-inducement is as yet to be fully clarified. Examples meriting particular attention include:

  • Bullying: The case of bullying in whatever context is especially relevant to such argument (Neil Marr and Tim Field, Terrorism in the playground BullyOnline.org; Bullying and Terrorism, BullyOnly.org; National Association of People Against Bullying, Bullying: Continuing Acts of Terrorism). How to distinguish between inducing terror in a school context, a neighbourhood, a prison, a workplace, or the military?

  • Domestic violence: Given the incidence of domestic abuse and violence (and the levels of terror which may be experienced by husband, wife or children), at what stage is systematic abuse (possibly fatal) to be recognized as "terrorism"? Whether within or outside the family, why should rape be excluded from any meaningful definition of terrorism, especially when extended to gang rape (Alan Dershowitz, Rape as Terrorism, The Huffington Post, 28 February 2007; Alona Ferber, When Israel Classifies Rape As Terror -- and Not, Forward, 15 December 2015)

  • Risk-taking endangering others: Given the potentially fearful implications of risk-taking for others -- notably with respect to loss of livelihood -- it is appropriate to ask how this ise usefully to be distinguished from terrorism (Extreme Financial Risk-taking as Extremism: subject to anti-terrorism legislation? 2009).

  • Terror associated with training: How best to frame the the nature of the terror deliberately induced in military training (possibly leading to suicide), correctional boot camps, or in enhanced interrogation? Variants may be evident in the experiences offered in initiation rituals (notably hazing, also with its incidence of fatalities), or to those in quest of individual development.

  • "Terrifying people": Such a characteristic is frequently attributed to to people in communities, institutions, or the world of politics (Heather Digby Parton: Election 2016: Two Terrifying People are Leading the Pack for the GOP Nomination, Salon, 14 December 2015). It is of course a primary feature of organized crime and the intimidation with which its purposes are achieved. Concerns have been expressed that veterans of campaigns to avert terrorist action elsewhere may be experienced as terrifying in the communities to which they return. As with bullying, how should the "terror" induced be understood in relation to "terrorism"?

  • Domestic terrorism: There is considerable convenience to the implication that terrorism is induced from elsewhere -- from other countries and cultures. Recognition that homegrown terrorism may be engendered within a culture, in the absence of outside influence, is especially problematic (Paul Cruickshank and Nic Robertson, Analysis: The spread of U.S. homegrown terrorism, CNN, 13 May 2010; Lindsay Beyerstein, Examining the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, In These Times, 1 November 2007). If not deliberate, it is for example extraordinary that organized crime is not considered in terms of terrorism legislation -- given the numbers involved and the impact on society. More ironic however is the ease with which it is assumed that "radicals" can be "eradicated" would seem to take no account whatsoever of the difficulties experienced in "eradicating" organized crime -- or, more generally, in engaging in other forms of warfare metaphorically framed for political purposes (Review of the Range of Virtual Wars: strategic comparison with the global war against terrorism, 2005). The subtleties of definition are currently evident with respect to a situation in Oregon in the US, as argued by Chris Weigant:
    Federal land is currently being occupied by protestors. Or, according to some, by domestic terrorists. But pigeonholing these guys with either label isn't quite as easy as it might first seem.... at least for those who care about the concepts of fairness and consistency.... things start to get muddled for those prone to knee-jerk assessments or condemnations. Because the arson part of this law has been most notably used not against "alleged Islamic terrorists," but against "eco-terrorists" in the late 1990s.... Those who now advocate what seem like commonsense courses of action for the government to take in Oregon might want to consider how they felt about Occupy Wall Street and all its emulators across America.... The hardest question to ask in this vein might be: What do you think the public would loudly be demanding right now if it were a group of armed Muslims?... But those who are quick to label the group domestic terrorists should remain consistent. Were the Occupy Wall Street folks also terrorists? ... Does occupation of property define the term, or is it threats of (or acts of) violence?... Where should the legal line be drawn? When does political protest devolve into terrorism?... It's a lot easier to fall back on ideological knee-jerk responses to such incidents than it is to have a real debate about the definition of what is acceptable political protest and what should be called terrorism (or even "a prosecutable offense," for that matter).(Occupation, Arson, and Terrorism, The Huffington Post, 6 June 2016)

Questionable reframing of category boundaries -- as "conceptual gerrymandering": The indications presented above help to clarify the problematic process through which distinctions are now made and consecrated. This has notably been evident in the careful crafting by the USA of the legality of "enhanced interrogation" (considered admissible) as distinct from "torture" (whose practice was denied). Long after dubious processes were formally authorised, these distinctions have however been called into question by the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture (2014)

The process whereby "terrorism" is now recognized was clearly highlighted in the case of the San Bernardino shootings in California in 2015. Initially defined as yet another mass shooting in the USA, it was only when it was determined that those responsible had had a degree of indirect contact with ISIS. The FBI's investigation revealed that the perpetrators were "homegrown violent extremists" inspired by foreign terrorist groups, but were not directed by such groups or part of a terrorist cell or network. Thereafter the mass shooting was reframed as an act of terrorism (FBI investigating San Bernardino shooting as an act of terrorism, The Guardian, 4 December 2015). This was related to radicalisation in the following terms:

President Barack Obama says the US "will not be terrorised" by Wednesday's mass shootings in San Bernardino, California. "We are strong. And we are resilient," he said in his weekly radio address, adding that it was "entirely possible" the two attackers had been radicalised. (San Bernardino attack: US 'will not be terrorised' - Obama, BBC News, 5 December 2015)

The facts of the matter are further confused by the strategic advantage to be derived by claims by either the USA or ISIS that the latter was indeed ultimately responsible -- whether or not any concrete proof of such claims can be presented without the suspicion of misrepresentation. It is especially curious that "terrorism" should be understood as primarily instigated from elsewhere for political advantage -- precluding recognition of "domestic" terrorism and that undertaken for other purposes. The matter is further confused by the complex instances of so-called state terrorism instigated "legitimately" in order to destabilize other countries and regimes in the advancement of national interest.

The earlier case of the Chattanooga shootings in Tennessee 2015 further "clarified" the definitional confusion. As noted by David Franci (Are the Shootings in Chattanooga Terrorism? Foreign Policy, 17 July 2015):

The FBI says it is investigating whether the brutal killings of four Marines at the hands of Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez in Tennessee Thursday constitute an act of terrorism. But despite the growing fears that the shooter may have been motivated by his Islamic faith, it's far from clear that Abdulazeez should actually be considered a terrorist.

That's according to Gary LaFree, director of the National Center for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. His organization maintains the Global Terrorism Database, which tracks terrorist attacks around the world. For years, he has been trying to bring clarity to a murky and controversial issue: When is an attack terrorism, and when is it some other type of crime?

The fluidity with which categories of relevance to this discussion are reframed merits consideration in its own right. It can be usefully compared to the gerrymandering of political constituencies -- hence the reference to conceptual gerrymandering (Systematic Gerrymandering of Declared Threats and Legality of Response: opportunistic exceptionalism underlying promulgated rules of governance, 2013). The argument can be extended to include the extent to which the categories used can be employed differently in different contexts without explicit qualification. This is consistent with what is otherwise recognized as doublespeak. As noted above, through lying and other processes, those representative of normal mainstream perspectives may well indulge in doublespeak as a means of defining and advancing their agendas. Whether such gerrymandering is to be recognized as a feature of radical creative thinking -- notably through exploitation of metaphor -- merits exploration in its own right.

In the spirit of "going to the root of the matter", a more radically fruitful point of departure would be to recognize how fear and terror are induced in different contexts and circumstances before seeking to deprecate and criminalize particular forms as "terrorism". Expressed otherwise, given the level of terror to which many are exposed in their daily lives, it is regrettable that recognition of "terrorism" is restricted in such a narrow and arbitrary manner -- such as to trigger its consideration within quite different legislative provisions. Missing is a recognition of the full spectrum of intimidation in all its forms.

"Memetic encroachment" with regard to radical and radicalisation: Whereas encroachment is more commonly recognized in relation to biophysical space, there is a case for recognizing the degree to which distinct forms of encroachment may obscure subtle memetic forms of relevance to the distinction of radical thinking. In a separate document (Varieties of Encroachment, 2004) major categories of encroachment were distinguished with respect to a terrorism-related study (Errorism vs Terrorism? Encroachment, Complicity, Denial and Terraism, 2004). These included:

Encroachment of bio-physical space
Encroachment of socio-political space
Encroachment of economic space
Military-industrial encroachment

Encroachment of psycho-cultural space
Encroachment of inter-personal space
Temporal encroachment
Structural encroachment

The question meriting exploration is through what processes previously valued terms can be appropriated and reframed pejoratively -- to the point of justifying the demonisation of those who can be qualified by such terms and may well have identified with them. This is a traditional feature of propaganda, updated through sophisticated news and image management ("spin"), and extending into what is otherwise recognized as negative campaigning. The process can be usefully recognized as a form of memetic warfare, as separately discussed (Mainstream hegemony and its conceptual defence system, 2001; Conceptual defence systems and memetic warfare, 2001). The possibilities of such warfare have been usefully analyzed in terms of the actions of terrorist groups by Brian J. Hancock (Memetic Warfare: the future of war, Military Intelligence, 36, 2010, 2, pp. 41-46). The question is whether these insights are now informing the memetic reframing of radical and radicalisation as a western riposte.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here