Analytical Book Review
Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues
Sociology of Deviance
Evan Mowry
In this book, author Gus Martin attempts to provide a comprehensive view of terrorism’s effects on modern society, society’s role in affecting terrorism, the many different manifestations of terrorism in the world, and the future of terrorism.
Part I: Overview
Martin split his book into four sections. In the first, a conceptual review, he covers the first two chapters, discussing the various definitions of terrorism as well as a historical overview of the causes of terrorism. He outlines the beginnings of terrorism during Roman times as well as its evolution from a tool of marginalized demographics to that of the state (first evident during and after the French Revolution), and how that has influenced its contemporary utilization.
Martin switches in chapter two from historical data to theory, attempting to formulate his own definition of terrorism and providing a semantic framework from which to view the rest of his book. He provides an ideological matrix of extremist groups, explaining the common motives behind an entire spectrum of ideological precepts, from fringe left to fringe right. Further, he identifies the problems with defining terrorism, and constructs four perspectives with which to view terrorist definitions: that of the interpretations of terrorist acts in a terrorist environment; of the false dichotomy between terrorism and freedom fighting; of whether political violence is an element exclusive to the fringe of society or whether it is viewed as a rational action of the mainstream; and that of the social rationalizations to acts of political violence.
In the second section, he examines the terrorists themselves, and the different qualities terrorists have depending on the form their violence takes. In chapter four, he analyzes state terrorism.
Martin splits state terrorism into two major spheres: international and domestic. He further divides international and domestic terrorism into patronage and assistance terrorism, patronage being direct, government-perpetrated terrorist acts, and assistance being governmental encouragement and support of said violence. He continues dividing, defining the different methods of assistance (ie, ideological, financial, etc) as well as the types (ie, episode-specific, logistically supportive, etc).
In chapter five, he looks at dissident terrorism. In chapter six, he analyzes the terrorist left and in seven, the terrorist right. In chapter eight, he analyzes criminal and religious terrorism. Finally, in chapter nine, he discusses the effects these forms of terrorism have when their actions or structures traverse national boundaries.
In section III, Martin casts away his previous categorizations and attempts to illuminate the universal aspects of terrorism: its objectives, motives, and methods.
In chapter ten, he discusses how terrorists choose their targets, how they impact their targets, and whether or not their methods are effective. He provides yet another matrix, listing the five criteria for effectiveness as media and political attention, impact on an audience, concessions from an enemy interest, disruption of societal routines, and provocation of the state.
In chapter eleven, Martin explores the role of the media in terrorism. He outlines how terrorism relies on the media for the five criteria listed above, and also describes the difficulties inherent in providing comprehensive media coverage while not playing the part of a propaganda relay for terrorists or their opponents, and also the friction between states and their media with regards to terrorism.
In the final section, IV, Martin brings the entire topic home, first discussing the myriad forms of terrorism in and affecting the United States in chapter 12, then outlining the different governmental responses to terrorism in chapter 13, and finally providing a prediction of the features of terrorism in the future: what will likely happen or change, how terrorism can be controlled, and what the United States specifically can expect for the future.
Part II-1: Analysis
I felt that Gus Martin did not attempt to analyze Terrorism sociologically. His language was extremely objective and calm, although I did detect a hint of Social Conflict Theory in his writings, because in many of his matrixes he listed grievances as perceptions grounded in reality, not as ideological goals. The Palestinians are not fighting, according to Martin, for the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state; they are harassing the Israelis to protest years of perceived oppression, and are not exclusively religious (Martin, pp. 122-123).
Because of his objectivity in compiling this book, I had to supplement his reading with my own understanding of sociological theories in order to view terrorism from a more sociological and less political viewpoint.
Many of Martin’s descriptions of dissenting violence (particularly that of the right) echo the sociological theories of Anomie-Strain and Differential Association.
Fringe conservative political dissent is characterized by “…an uncompromising belief in ethno-national or religious superiority, and terrorist violence is justified as a protection of the purity of the group” (Martin, pp. 26). It seems reasonable that, due to these beliefs, the society perpetrating terrorist acts could exert “a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconforming rather than conforming conduct”, where “conforming” in this case is interpreted as conforming not to their own cultural standards, but to those of the west, or at least the dominant culture in the region. Globalization has intensified many fringe right perspectives, as they view the influx of “Americanization” as threatening to their culture or religion.
Additionally, fringe right dissent seemed to fit Differential Association theory, in that there seems to be a significant cultural bias (in the case of Muslim extremists) against America and Israel, and deviant behavior, such as suicide bombings, are becoming more and more common as more and more young people who have grown up in an atmosphere advocating martyrdom feel that it is no longer deviant (or admirably deviant) to do so.
Many of the cases of State Terrorism, such as that of Augustus Pinochet in Chile, very closely resembled Social Conflict theory. Acts labeled deviant ranged from support of rebels to being a student, as determined by the Pinochet regime.
An interesting hypothesis to note when discussing sociological theories of violence is that of Robin Morgan. In her book “The Demon Lover”, Morgan outlines a feminist view of terrorism, arguing that a historical focusing of masculinity into an ideal “Demon Lover”: a man who does not fear death, and who, through trials and tribulations, eventually usurps the father figure, has produced a global culture of violence. She explains that there is a general consensus among the men of the world that power is to be strived for and that struggle is righteous in itself, regardless of the costs or effects.
Part II-2: Analysis
Because terrorism is at the forefront of foreign and domestic policy issues in today’s political sphere, it is viewed as more important today than it was many years ago. In addition, with the end of the cold war, United States politics there has been a shift in focus away from State-Sponsored Terrorism and Fringe-Left Terrorism and towards Fringe Right, dissenting political violence. In part this is due to the aforementioned end of the Cold War. The political climate of the US is no longer rabidly bent on the eradication of Marxist ideologies.
Another reason we have focused more on Fringe-Right Terrorism is because globalization has become much more relevant to our economy and culture. We no longer feel our culture infringed upon when Capitalism is attacked; we are becoming more defensive towards our national identity and ideology than our economic system. We no longer speak of “communists” with such contempt; we label “terrorists” our enemies, despite their belief that they’re fighting for the very same things Americans originally fought the British for.
I feel that the topics we covered in class that parallel the topic of terrorism the best are those of Racial and Ethnic Interpersonal Violence (Chasin, pp. 275) and Suicide Bombings (T & C, pp. 79)
Terrorism in many of its forms grows out of Racial and Ethnic conflict. The majority of cases of State-sponsored terrorism have included racist elements, and race is a huge labeling factor in today’s terrorist environment. Additionally, statements like these:
“You go on missions to impress your friends. You get a name as a tough guy who is down with the neighborhood and down with his people.” (Chasin, pp. 276)
…and:
“The underlying causes of brutality for a lot of cops in New York and other big cities are fear, racism, and misunderstanding of other cultures. They fear that new immigrants and new arrivals in the city are unwashed hordes about to take over the streets.” (Chasin, pp. 293)
…are telling in the sense that they are American versions of the same feelings being expressed by those in the Muslim world. For the first, replace [tough guy] with [martyr], and for the second, replace [brutality] with [extremism]; [cops in New York and other big cities] with [Muslims in the Middle East]; [unwashed hordes] with [Americans who want to subsume your culture]. In doing so, we see the parallel between inter-ethnic violence within our own borders and inter-cultural violence without, and how the drive toward individual affirmation by one’s culture can result in extreme acts that would not be undertaken in other circumstances.
In Thio & Calhoun’s chapter on Suicide Bombings they explore the rebirth of the concept of “the martyr” and how, at its core, terrorism is possible. The manner in which they explained suicide bombers’ perspectives allowed me to understand the concepts in Martin’s book much more fully. Their description of the idea of the martyr, and how it lends power to the powerless; in a sense, suicide bombers sacrifice their life to gain power over another group, which I understood before, but I didn’t really understand the thought mechanics behind it.
Also discussed is the tactical advantage to terrorism, which I had not considered very much. Calhoun mentions that:
“The fact that al-Qaeda has nothing tangible to gain from its operations-it does not fight conventional wars in order to capture territory- is not a disadvantage. On the contrary, this makes it virtually unassailable.”
This is particularly salient when considering T & C’s chapter 50, How Social Science Can Reduce Terrorism (T & C, pp. 307). I am of the opinion, being extremely well-versed in terrorism for an undergraduate student, that military options cannot halt, or even slow, the spread of terrorism. Empirical evidence suggests that military action against communities actually increase terrorist activity. Bearing that in mind, the next step is to attempt to discover what actions can reduce terrorism; if not war, then what? I believe the use of a sociological imagination, when combined with information about specific terrorist conflicts, can provide us with a humane, although seemingly dichotomous solution. Thio and Calhoun suggest humanitarian outreach, fair trade agreements, and diplomatic compromises, which seems antithetical to much of the United States. Why should we help people who are attacking us? What we (as a country) fail to see, is that that is what they really want, and terrorism is the only method they feel effective in getting their message across.
Part III: Evaluation and Comment
On a scale of one to ten, from an educational perspective, I would give this book a nine. It’s only lack is that it does not explore, from a sociological perspective, why terrorism occurs. Citing evidence of extreme poverty and oppression does little to explain beyond the surface of the phenomenon; Martin does not attempt to explain the conscious choice to terrorize vs. some other form of protest.
Much of the material in the book I was familiar with, but the matrices provided rearranged already known material into a more accessible framework. I also found the frequent use of examples extremely comprehensive, as every new concept is paired with a real world instance of its occurrence. He provides ample empirical evidence, and exhaustive definitional support for the many forms of political violence he explores.
I would not recommend this book for someone who already has a great knowledge of terrorism and is looking to further explore the underlying causes. However, for someone with only passing background knowledge (or for someone like myself, who frequently writes papers on the subject and is looking for easily accessible sources of information and theories), this book would provide an ample foundation to base the rest of your terrorist education off of. In addition, anyone interested more specifically in the interplay between governments and terrorism, or governments and media, would do well to read the relevant chapters in this book.
Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues
Sociology of Deviance
Evan Mowry
In this book, author Gus Martin attempts to provide a comprehensive view of terrorism’s effects on modern society, society’s role in affecting terrorism, the many different manifestations of terrorism in the world, and the future of terrorism.
Part I: Overview
Martin split his book into four sections. In the first, a conceptual review, he covers the first two chapters, discussing the various definitions of terrorism as well as a historical overview of the causes of terrorism. He outlines the beginnings of terrorism during Roman times as well as its evolution from a tool of marginalized demographics to that of the state (first evident during and after the French Revolution), and how that has influenced its contemporary utilization.
Martin switches in chapter two from historical data to theory, attempting to formulate his own definition of terrorism and providing a semantic framework from which to view the rest of his book. He provides an ideological matrix of extremist groups, explaining the common motives behind an entire spectrum of ideological precepts, from fringe left to fringe right. Further, he identifies the problems with defining terrorism, and constructs four perspectives with which to view terrorist definitions: that of the interpretations of terrorist acts in a terrorist environment; of the false dichotomy between terrorism and freedom fighting; of whether political violence is an element exclusive to the fringe of society or whether it is viewed as a rational action of the mainstream; and that of the social rationalizations to acts of political violence.
In the second section, he examines the terrorists themselves, and the different qualities terrorists have depending on the form their violence takes. In chapter four, he analyzes state terrorism.
Martin splits state terrorism into two major spheres: international and domestic. He further divides international and domestic terrorism into patronage and assistance terrorism, patronage being direct, government-perpetrated terrorist acts, and assistance being governmental encouragement and support of said violence. He continues dividing, defining the different methods of assistance (ie, ideological, financial, etc) as well as the types (ie, episode-specific, logistically supportive, etc).
In chapter five, he looks at dissident terrorism. In chapter six, he analyzes the terrorist left and in seven, the terrorist right. In chapter eight, he analyzes criminal and religious terrorism. Finally, in chapter nine, he discusses the effects these forms of terrorism have when their actions or structures traverse national boundaries.
In section III, Martin casts away his previous categorizations and attempts to illuminate the universal aspects of terrorism: its objectives, motives, and methods.
In chapter ten, he discusses how terrorists choose their targets, how they impact their targets, and whether or not their methods are effective. He provides yet another matrix, listing the five criteria for effectiveness as media and political attention, impact on an audience, concessions from an enemy interest, disruption of societal routines, and provocation of the state.
In chapter eleven, Martin explores the role of the media in terrorism. He outlines how terrorism relies on the media for the five criteria listed above, and also describes the difficulties inherent in providing comprehensive media coverage while not playing the part of a propaganda relay for terrorists or their opponents, and also the friction between states and their media with regards to terrorism.
In the final section, IV, Martin brings the entire topic home, first discussing the myriad forms of terrorism in and affecting the United States in chapter 12, then outlining the different governmental responses to terrorism in chapter 13, and finally providing a prediction of the features of terrorism in the future: what will likely happen or change, how terrorism can be controlled, and what the United States specifically can expect for the future.
Part II-1: Analysis
I felt that Gus Martin did not attempt to analyze Terrorism sociologically. His language was extremely objective and calm, although I did detect a hint of Social Conflict Theory in his writings, because in many of his matrixes he listed grievances as perceptions grounded in reality, not as ideological goals. The Palestinians are not fighting, according to Martin, for the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state; they are harassing the Israelis to protest years of perceived oppression, and are not exclusively religious (Martin, pp. 122-123).
Because of his objectivity in compiling this book, I had to supplement his reading with my own understanding of sociological theories in order to view terrorism from a more sociological and less political viewpoint.
Many of Martin’s descriptions of dissenting violence (particularly that of the right) echo the sociological theories of Anomie-Strain and Differential Association.
Fringe conservative political dissent is characterized by “…an uncompromising belief in ethno-national or religious superiority, and terrorist violence is justified as a protection of the purity of the group” (Martin, pp. 26). It seems reasonable that, due to these beliefs, the society perpetrating terrorist acts could exert “a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconforming rather than conforming conduct”, where “conforming” in this case is interpreted as conforming not to their own cultural standards, but to those of the west, or at least the dominant culture in the region. Globalization has intensified many fringe right perspectives, as they view the influx of “Americanization” as threatening to their culture or religion.
Additionally, fringe right dissent seemed to fit Differential Association theory, in that there seems to be a significant cultural bias (in the case of Muslim extremists) against America and Israel, and deviant behavior, such as suicide bombings, are becoming more and more common as more and more young people who have grown up in an atmosphere advocating martyrdom feel that it is no longer deviant (or admirably deviant) to do so.
Many of the cases of State Terrorism, such as that of Augustus Pinochet in Chile, very closely resembled Social Conflict theory. Acts labeled deviant ranged from support of rebels to being a student, as determined by the Pinochet regime.
An interesting hypothesis to note when discussing sociological theories of violence is that of Robin Morgan. In her book “The Demon Lover”, Morgan outlines a feminist view of terrorism, arguing that a historical focusing of masculinity into an ideal “Demon Lover”: a man who does not fear death, and who, through trials and tribulations, eventually usurps the father figure, has produced a global culture of violence. She explains that there is a general consensus among the men of the world that power is to be strived for and that struggle is righteous in itself, regardless of the costs or effects.
Part II-2: Analysis
Because terrorism is at the forefront of foreign and domestic policy issues in today’s political sphere, it is viewed as more important today than it was many years ago. In addition, with the end of the cold war, United States politics there has been a shift in focus away from State-Sponsored Terrorism and Fringe-Left Terrorism and towards Fringe Right, dissenting political violence. In part this is due to the aforementioned end of the Cold War. The political climate of the US is no longer rabidly bent on the eradication of Marxist ideologies.
Another reason we have focused more on Fringe-Right Terrorism is because globalization has become much more relevant to our economy and culture. We no longer feel our culture infringed upon when Capitalism is attacked; we are becoming more defensive towards our national identity and ideology than our economic system. We no longer speak of “communists” with such contempt; we label “terrorists” our enemies, despite their belief that they’re fighting for the very same things Americans originally fought the British for.
I feel that the topics we covered in class that parallel the topic of terrorism the best are those of Racial and Ethnic Interpersonal Violence (Chasin, pp. 275) and Suicide Bombings (T & C, pp. 79)
Terrorism in many of its forms grows out of Racial and Ethnic conflict. The majority of cases of State-sponsored terrorism have included racist elements, and race is a huge labeling factor in today’s terrorist environment. Additionally, statements like these:
“You go on missions to impress your friends. You get a name as a tough guy who is down with the neighborhood and down with his people.” (Chasin, pp. 276)
…and:
“The underlying causes of brutality for a lot of cops in New York and other big cities are fear, racism, and misunderstanding of other cultures. They fear that new immigrants and new arrivals in the city are unwashed hordes about to take over the streets.” (Chasin, pp. 293)
…are telling in the sense that they are American versions of the same feelings being expressed by those in the Muslim world. For the first, replace [tough guy] with [martyr], and for the second, replace [brutality] with [extremism]; [cops in New York and other big cities] with [Muslims in the Middle East]; [unwashed hordes] with [Americans who want to subsume your culture]. In doing so, we see the parallel between inter-ethnic violence within our own borders and inter-cultural violence without, and how the drive toward individual affirmation by one’s culture can result in extreme acts that would not be undertaken in other circumstances.
In Thio & Calhoun’s chapter on Suicide Bombings they explore the rebirth of the concept of “the martyr” and how, at its core, terrorism is possible. The manner in which they explained suicide bombers’ perspectives allowed me to understand the concepts in Martin’s book much more fully. Their description of the idea of the martyr, and how it lends power to the powerless; in a sense, suicide bombers sacrifice their life to gain power over another group, which I understood before, but I didn’t really understand the thought mechanics behind it.
Also discussed is the tactical advantage to terrorism, which I had not considered very much. Calhoun mentions that:
“The fact that al-Qaeda has nothing tangible to gain from its operations-it does not fight conventional wars in order to capture territory- is not a disadvantage. On the contrary, this makes it virtually unassailable.”
This is particularly salient when considering T & C’s chapter 50, How Social Science Can Reduce Terrorism (T & C, pp. 307). I am of the opinion, being extremely well-versed in terrorism for an undergraduate student, that military options cannot halt, or even slow, the spread of terrorism. Empirical evidence suggests that military action against communities actually increase terrorist activity. Bearing that in mind, the next step is to attempt to discover what actions can reduce terrorism; if not war, then what? I believe the use of a sociological imagination, when combined with information about specific terrorist conflicts, can provide us with a humane, although seemingly dichotomous solution. Thio and Calhoun suggest humanitarian outreach, fair trade agreements, and diplomatic compromises, which seems antithetical to much of the United States. Why should we help people who are attacking us? What we (as a country) fail to see, is that that is what they really want, and terrorism is the only method they feel effective in getting their message across.
Part III: Evaluation and Comment
On a scale of one to ten, from an educational perspective, I would give this book a nine. It’s only lack is that it does not explore, from a sociological perspective, why terrorism occurs. Citing evidence of extreme poverty and oppression does little to explain beyond the surface of the phenomenon; Martin does not attempt to explain the conscious choice to terrorize vs. some other form of protest.
Much of the material in the book I was familiar with, but the matrices provided rearranged already known material into a more accessible framework. I also found the frequent use of examples extremely comprehensive, as every new concept is paired with a real world instance of its occurrence. He provides ample empirical evidence, and exhaustive definitional support for the many forms of political violence he explores.
I would not recommend this book for someone who already has a great knowledge of terrorism and is looking to further explore the underlying causes. However, for someone with only passing background knowledge (or for someone like myself, who frequently writes papers on the subject and is looking for easily accessible sources of information and theories), this book would provide an ample foundation to base the rest of your terrorist education off of. In addition, anyone interested more specifically in the interplay between governments and terrorism, or governments and media, would do well to read the relevant chapters in this book.
posted by evan at 10:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home