The Social Underpinnings Of Terrorism

The Social Underpinnings of Terrorism

What drives terrorists to the extremes that they go to in order to fulfill their goals? How are terrorist made, and can they be profiled? These are questions that have challenged sociologists, criminologists, and average people alike for as long as terrorism has existed. In Terrorism and Homeland Security by Jonathan R. White, many details about the social underpinnings of terrorism are given. Their motivation, their backgrounds, their uniqueness, and how to approach all of these aspects from different criminological standpoints - all of this is explained thoroughly. Through analyzing the excerpt from this book, the reader will learn that terrorism is not as simple as average crime, nor is the topic as easy to approach.

In this piece, the author goes into detail about many aspects about the social underpinnings of terrorism, or simply put, the basic social ideas about terrorism. For instance, the author states that terrorism in a social process, and thus has two different potential frameworks to it. The "meaning framework" is a framework taken by sociologists to analyze the meaning behind the things that terrorists do. Group and individual behavior is studied from a perspective that believes that the way the world is interpreted motivates the actions that people (or terrorists, in this case) take. Terrorists are unhappy with the world, and so they take action to change it. The other framework, the "structural framework," states that groups (in this case, terrorist organizations) form because their society has a dire need, or because a group of people is being wronged. This approach looks at the way organizations function due to this - it is thus called the structural framework.

Terrorism as a religious process is also an aspect that is examined in this piece. Marxist theory states that as modernity in science increases, religion will decline. But religion has proven to last, and some may claim that religion is a stronger driving force in people's lives than ever. Now, does this affect terrorism? Some would argue that it does, while some would disagree. There is no denying, though, that religion is partially a religious process. Many acts of terrorism are driven by fundamentalist ideas that are either bastardizations of religion, or skewed beliefs that are not even religious but "claim religion." White says that religion often serves as the basis for many acts of terrorism because religion (a set of traditions and beliefs) acts as a deterrence from confusion from choices in life. If this is basis - this comfort - is ever threatened by another set of beliefs, this will often result in violence, and this is what leads to religious terrorism. Furthermore, religion often spawns mindsets in terrorists that are not present in secular terrorists. An example of this is the "lone wolf complex." This simply means that a person needs an excuse for their actions and ideology, and religion, which provides this rather easily, becomes their driving force. As well as this, religious terrorism typically provides terrorists with the idea that they have much to gain, and not much to lose. In this, religious terrorism is many times more dangerous (and more lethal) than secular terrorism.

The excerpt focuses on types of criminology, as well, namely practical criminology. Oftentimes, classic criminology (Beccaria's criminology) is what is typically associated with terrorism. Classic criminology uses the most modern theories of individual and group behavior. But the other branch of criminology, practical criminology, can also be heavily associated with terrorism. This branch of criminology focuses on the common actions of people who break laws. Now, it is apparent that this is a very valid means of approaching the sociology of terrorism. But the problem that is often found with this is that terrorists behave very differently. They behave differently from each other (their actions are very sporadic), and they behave very differently from other criminals. Terrorists are much more focused because they are a part of something much greater.

This leads to one of the main questions that White presents in this article. Can the terrorist personality be profiled? Many sociologists and criminologists have different thoughts on this. The typical profile of a terrorist (young, unmarried, middle class, etc.) proved to be sorely flawed, as the profile applied mainly to people who weren't terrorists. But psychologists do believe that certain types of people are drawn to terrorist groups. People who feel left out, rejected, or alienated. But in the end, these assumptions are rather broad, as not all people who have those mental qualities will be terrorists, and vice versa. In the end, many people (and I, myself) agree that terrorists cannot truly be profiled. And even if they could be, if terrorist groups learned that they were being profiled, they would simply select operatives who did not match the profile. In the end, what matters is not profiling terrorists, but preventing people who are likely to become terrorists from going over the edge and doing so. And White even presents the speculation that if a person becomes "radicalized," (becomes a terrorist due to ideals that have gone far) that they can be "deradicalized," as well. In the end, prevention from terrorism and neutralizing terrorist ideals are what can stop terrorism, simply because terrorists are so ambiguous and various.

It is apparent that the author of this book agrees that terrorism is no simple matter to deal with. Many different approaches can be taken to try and "figure out" terrorism, and some may prove to be more effective than others. However, it seems that the author stressed throughout the entire piece that sociologists and criminologists should not focus so much on trying to identify terrorism (because terrorism is so ambiguous, various, and susceptible to change), but should rather try to prevent minds from succumbing to thoughts of terrorism, and the like. This, according to White, seems to be the most effective way to approach Terrorism from a sociological standpoint. Terrorists can come from all different backgrounds, they can have religious or secular motives, and they can be in groups or by themselves. But terrorists cannot fit a specific mold.

Future literature on this subject may not be very various, unless very dramatic breakthroughs in sociological thought pertaining to terrorism are made. The matter stands that terrorism has been, at its roots, the same for as long as it has existed. To elaborate, terrorism has always been subject to change, it has always been very difficult to identify and define, and it has always been dubious. In this, it is apparent that a writing on this, whether it were written one hundred years in the past or one hundred years in the future, would have the same content and take on the topic, if seen from the same perspective. With this, it seems, whether due to the needs of people, or by order of some mad religious influence, terrorism will never fade away. Until terrorism can be more effectively prevented and identified, it will always be a part of society.

Background to the Middle East

       When asked about one thinks about international terrorism today most people would immediately think of terrorist groups located in the Middle East or maybe just the Middle East in general. While you are correct in saying that most terrorist groups are located in the Middle East, but people lack the knowledge or understanding the goals of these groups or why they are even here. While some exist just to fight Western philosophies and lifestyle, majority of these militant groups exist to bring a single stable Arab state for Islam. These views and many others stem violence in the region, and European and American interference definitely does help ease the situation. This reading provides key information and insight to the Middle East and how religion, interpretations, and the West drastically changed the region, not for better, but for worse.  

Map of the Middle East

     The author went into great detail into explaining why the Middle East today is so unstable. Immediately the author explains why if one does not understand the regions people and their religious beliefs then one cannot fully understand why there is so much turmoil there. He then gives a brief overview and history of the regions main religion and main cause of violence and terrorism, Islam. The religion divides into two main groups, Shiite's and Sunni. These two have been fighting for centuries to determine which belief is more correct and which one should rule over a nation (Islam teaches that religion and state are one). This plus eventual Western interference and their conflicting religions caused complete and utter chaos, which we would come to call The Crusades. This is the beginning of the militant views towards the West. However that's not the only reason that started terrorism in the Middle East, in fact there are a plethora of reasons. According to the author majority of these  reasons stem from:

Western spheres of influence

• Religion- Besides internal Islamic fighting, other religions, mainly Judaism and the creation of Israel created extreme tension in the region, where both religions claim Jerusalem as their holy city.
• Western Influence: The Crusades, World War I and II led to the breaking up of the singular Ottoman Empire and went back on their initial promise of the creation of a unified, single, Arab state. They instead broke up the Middle East and set up spheres of influences and led to revolts and terrorist attacks by the people of their respective nations.
• Palestine/Israel: The Zionist movement led to Jewish families moving to the area of Palestine and both Jews and Arabs were wary of each other. At the time it was illegal for the Jews to set up their own self-government for their community. After WWI and the creation of Israel this infuriated the Arab community and after WWII when a heavy influx of Jewish families were flooding the new Israel to escape Hitler, the Arabs couldn't stop the amount of them from entering the area. This creation of a Western supported and created Jewish state is, well by that description alone, against everything the Arab community stands for. The Palestinians and other neighboring countries were up in arms against this nation.

The reason why all of this information is important is because without it, as an individual who is from the West and non Islamic, I could never understand what they fight for or why they fight and I could not have an intelligent conversation or argument of the current situation in the Middle East. I also believe that without this knowledge we can't possibly think of a potential solution, let alone commit to attempt to help a country located in the Middle East. Even if we did come up with a solution, I doubt that it would be accepted there. As history has proven, why should the nations in the Middle East trust a Western nation like us? What have we done to show them that we aren't going to take back our word like the British did? We haven't earned their trust, and politicians don't understand that. They don't want Western help, as far as they're concerned the West has done nothing but lie, exploit and force their Western views on them. Politicians lack this knowledge, without the understanding on how things work, they can never make a solution to the problem with the Middle East, which is why every "solution" they have attempted has failed or backfired.

Gender-Based Theories

Gender-Based Theories

     Gender theories are a group of perspectives that specifically target gender as an important variable in understanding crime. These perspectives are meant to sensitize scholars to the “invisibility” of women in the field. The author suggests that this could be largely based the view of a patriarchal society which empowers males in all fundamentally social interactions. This view essentially states that females are subordinate and males are dominant. Feminist criminology is in part focused on critiquing these traditionally male-based views on understanding crime.

     A paternalistic society, also referred to as paternalism, is organized around independence for males with dependency for females. Paternalism also suggest that women need to be protected, for their own good, since the patriarchal power relations in our social system explain why women are more likely to be victimized by friends or intimates within her home, rather than by a stranger or away from home. This patriarchal power is one of the central elements to the way crime is defined and studied. While the idea of protecting women does not sound to be disadvantageous to women, in the case of Turner v. Safley it is evident that the “protection” given to the females is discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court criticized the Missouri Department of Corrections for routinely approving the male inmate’s marriage requests, but only allowing female inmate marriage requests when the situation involves the presence of a child born out of wedlock. In this case, the paternalistic policies were unconstitutional in addition to being discriminatory against females. Paternalism has been argued to be the main reason most female juveniles are detained more frequently than their male counterparts.

     There are many goals associated with gender theories, and one is to provide feminist perspectives to criminological knowledge. Most of the knowledge collected is of “men’s perspective” which can be limited when discussing topics such as personal conflict, crime, and crime prevention. 

Feminism

     As far as criminology is concerned, there is no single feminist criminological theory. There are five different specialized perspectives that are discussed in this post: liberal feminism, radical feminism, Marxist feminism, socialist feminism, and postmodern feminism. The debate continues on whether to incorporate feminist thought into previous criminological theories or to start fresh and theorize without any input from previous theories.

• Liberal Feminism

     This is considered the first feminist perspective on gender discrimination and criminology. The basis for the idea was that females deserved equal treatment in regards to the criminal justice system. Due to this idea and belief, gender-based laws and practices were questioned and examined. These liberal feminists denounced the idea of public/private division, in which females were to only have power in the domestic or private world. The presumption was that as females became integrated into the work force, justice would be evenly dispensed, and there would be a decrease in discrimination.

• Radical Feminism

 The rise of radical feminist criminology is a product of the emergent radical criminology and a critique of liberal feminism. This feminism deals with the crime fostered through the creation of the patriarchal and sexist society within the capitalist and economic society. Sexism defines the value of women in terms of family, which overall give men control. This control is used to develop legal concepts that define women as property and de-emphasize assault on women.

• Marxist Feminism

     Early Marxist theorists never addressed female criminality, and because of this Marxist feminists view the capitalist system as exploiting subordinate groups. These groups would often be based on race or gender. Theorists focused on the division of labor and how females were given lower value and status labor positions. Polly Radosh has described the sexual division of labor as “the epitome of economic inequality.” Again, this marginalization of women’s worth is heavily dependent on males. This feminist theory explains why women are more frequently arrested for property crimes as well as sexually oriented offenses.

• Socialist Feminism

     The oppression of women, under socialist feminism, is identified as a symptom of the patriarchal capitalist system. Females are exploited by this system for their labor and sexuality. Socialist feminism is a uniting of both the radical and Marxist principles. The female crimes discussed are usually limited to property crimes. This type of feminism explains that females are more likely to commit vice crimes and property crimes as opposed to men who commit violent street crime. 

• Postmodern Feminism

     As the name suggests, postmodern feminism is the most recent perspective that shares with non-feminist views when it comes to gender within the criminological framework. To postmodern feminists, the more pressing issue is of gender, not crime. The nature of gender in conjunction with crime shifts when explored along with ethnicity, social status, and age. Prior life experiences are more factors that could alter the motivations of women’s behavior. When these experiences are negative such as racism, molestation, or rape, it adds to the complexity of women’s lives and the meanings of illegality.

Terrorism Defined

            In chapter one of the book Terrorism and Homeland Security by Jonathan R. White, terrorism is explained in many diverse ways. Certain problems exist when trying to define the word terrorism. Since terrorism is defined differently by almost everyone, actually putting a definition with the word can be difficult and dangerous. There are various things to take into account when trying to define terrorism.

            Why is defining terrorism complicated? H. H. A. Cooper described the task of defining terrorism with his quote, “a problem in the problem definition.” Even though most individuals would say that terrorism is a major problem, the majority would have different views on what terrorism actually is. Terrorism is described as being pejorative because it has negative connotations associated with the term. Is terrorism always pejorative? Most terrorist organizations today label themselves as revolutionaries, freedom fighters, or self-defense movements, and their supporters do not view their acts as terrorism. Could one country’s freedom fighter be considered a terrorist by an opposing country?

Terrorism is qualitative because it cannot be measured or weighed. The meaning of terrorism will also change as the social situation changes. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous quote “I know it when I see it,” that originally referred to pornography, can also be applied to terrorism.

Potter Stewart

The U.S. government has numerous definitions of terrorism from the U.S. legal code, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of State and the Department of Defense. Terrorism also changes with history. Modern terrorism started during French Revolution (1789-1799), and the definition has fluctuated from describing the French government’s actions to describing the violent actions of hate groups or any violent groups independent from a state.

            Depending on the context of the act, terrorism can be defined as military force. What is the difference between military force and terrorism? During times of war, armies use commando and guerrilla warfare tactics that resemble terrorism but are never actually described as being terroristic. When conflicts exist between opposing countries, governments can label each other as terrorists and increase the backing power from their own countries. When governments are in a counterterrorist movement, civilians usually welcome harsh counterattacks and power abuse from their government, even in America. When groups are labeled as terrorists, most individuals will automatically see them as inhuman, and illegal methods of handling so-called terrorists become acceptable. I fear that America’s methods of dealing with terrorists can be considered cruel and ruthless.

One way terrorism has been defined is by “declaring war on it.” After the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, President Bush stated that America was in a war with terrorism. The US Constitution provides no reference for declaring war on a concept. Some legal scholars believe that President Bush only increased public anxiety by declaring war on terrorism. 

Walter Laqueur described terrorism as the “use of force to achieve a political objective by targeting innocent people.” Looking back on September 11, 2001, his definition seems like a fairly accurate description. The terrorist attack on 9/11 did target innocent people to attempt to gain political power. The victims often are symbolic targets to represent the main target that the terrorist group is attacking.

The author states that since conflict is inevitable between humans, most organizations are constantly at war with each other. Though peace may be the final goal, organizations are maintained by using force and coercion. According to White, accepting this assumption is the key to understanding terrorism. Conflict is normal, and terrorism is simply a form of conflict. Terrorism is not just “senseless violence;” a reason always exists for a terrorist attack whether it is for religion, economic gain, excitement, or justice.

Spectrum of Conflict

The U.S. Army created a spectrum of conflict after the Vietnam War. This spectrum ranges from normal social conflict to war of unlimited mass destruction with terrorism right in the middle.

Terrorism and Homeland Security was written for criminal justice students, law enforcement professionals and military personnel to have a better understanding of terrorism. After reading this article, I realized that terrorism is not just random violence committed by a group of people. Terrorists are usually very passionate about their cause, often so passionate that they would die for the good of their group. White described the different definitions of terrorism in a way that was informative and easy to understand. Although conflict is inevitable, hopefully America will find an effective way to deal with terrorism while keeping her humanity.

Qualitative Analysis

This section will be devoted to a critical analysis of Chapter 1 from Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology, Eighth Edition. We will be touching on some of the fundamentals of theory and how it applies to qualitative research.

     In its most basic and general form, qualitative analysis is simply the study of human behavior and decision-making. Its purpose is to answer the questions of how and why people do the things they do, not necessarily the who, where, or when. (The latter three are down the path of quantitative, or numerical analysis.)
     The goal of qualitative research is to understand humans and how they function and respond in a society. Methods almost always take the form of focused studies of a small sample, rather than an attempt to get a view of the group as a whole (as in surveys or polls.) The strategy is to test whether certain phenomena link to other phenomena (the reading used an example of whether or not church attendance leads to decreased rates of delinquency–it doesn’t.) Once a pattern is found in a small group, the theory can be tested on a larger scale. Using quantitative methods, scientists can then determine whether the theory is still valid when applied to the whole. 

     In the article cited, the author stresses the importance throughout of a balanced take on theory and methodology. The statement is made repeatedly that we are not to commit “methodological narcissism”–that is, method for method’s sake, making something more complicated than it has to be simply to make it seem more credible or “scientific.” In qualitative research, it is acceptable to provide analyses that consist of appearance and impressions. Once research moves to quantitative, it is a must to provide data in the form of cold, hard numbers.

     Derived from this definition, it isn’t inaccurate to speculate that people might use crude versions of qualitative analysis without even realizing they are doing so. Sometimes to be qualitative, scientists will use methods like immersion–living in a specific place with a specific group of people, and recording responses and thought patterns either in the subject or in themselves that differ from some form of a control sample.

     While it is important to remain objective when performing any type of scientific research, we do have to understand our subject when that science is sociological. It is important to keep in mind that there are always exceptions to any theories, especially in humanity. We have to keep a level head because data could be corrupt, location-specific or even time-specific. What is true for one person on one day may not be true for another person on another day. People change and circumstances change. Sometimes errors in research occur, and researchers must leave room for them to do so and yet still be useful.

     Future research on the subject will involve how to better clarify the theories proposed. Things will change between now and the future, and theories and their applications will change with them. Literature will be more accurate and will have more data underneath its belt, so it will be easier to determine if previous experimentation was beneficial or not. From these data, scientists will be better prepared to present new theories, make new connections, and thus write better literature on the subject.

     From this reading, we can easily see how more research improves our understanding. In a way, we could say that qualitative analysis helps to “humanize” scientific research and experimentation. Also, it is imperative for gaining a greater insight into human behavior. 

The Organization and Financing of Terrorism

Before looking at this chapter, it is important to understand what terrorism is.  In chapter one “Terrorism Defined,” the author states that there is not one agreed upon definition for terrorism, but many departments of the United States’ government have defined terrorism.  In my opinion, the Department of Defense’s definition is the best – “terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives” (7).  In this chapter, the author discusses the different models of terrorism, their organizational style, and how they are financially supported. 

Throughout history, there have been three different models of terrorism – rural, urban, and insurrection.  Rural terrorism is associated with guerrilla warfare and nationalistic rebellions like the Chinese Communist Revolution, Cuban Revolution, and Nicaraguan Revolution.  During these revolutions, terrorism played a limited role; its purposes were “to strike at the government’s logistical network […and] demoralize the government” (57).  Urban terrorism, which was popularized by Frantz Fanon and Carlos Marighella, includes the use of guerilla warfare in an urban setting and terrorism to “terrorize Westerners and their lackeys into submission” (58).  Insurrection is a combination of terrorist attacks using modern technology and globalization.  Insurgency has become the most popular type of terrorism because of the availability of information online, ease to communicate globally, and employment of less people.

One of the most important elements of a terrorist group is secrecy.  The ability to keep the organization a secret directly affects group size.  Small groups are good because it is easier for things to remain unknown, but large groups last longer because they have more supporters.  Every person in a terrorist group is categorized into a subgroup.  There are different types of organizational styles for terrorist groups, which include pyramid, umbrella, virtual, chain, hub, and terrorist network.  In a pyramid organization, there are four levels – command, active cadre, active supports, and passive supports.  An umbrella organization includes multiple pyramids under a sheltering group, which provides money and supplies.  These organizations are not directly involved in terrorism and are deemed legitimate organizations because they represent a political cause, which is actually used to distract from the terrorist activities completed by the pyramids.  Out of all organizational styles discusses in this chapter, it seems that terrorist networks are paramount.  Terrorist networks are composed of “groups, supplies, weapons, and any structure that supports an operation” (65).  Individuals from different groups can come together to complete an operation, and once the task is complete, they go their separate ways.  This makes it is hard to determine who is responsible for the action.  Most importantly, terrorist networks are best because they can be one entity, yet also separate groups; this is imperative because it is expensive to run a group, and it becomes very costly to run one large group.  According to reports and analyses, a terrorist operation costs much less than running a terrorist group to plan and prepare for the operation.   

Terrorist groups raise money through legal and illegal methods.  Legal activities include soliciting contributions, running businesses, operating nongovernment organizations, creating charities, wiring money, using banks, and using informal money transfer systems.  Informal money transfer systems include money laundering, the Black Market Peso Exchange and the hawala system.

Hawala System

Illegally, groups acquire money by engaging in drug trades, smuggling money and cigarettes, pirating CDs and DVDs, selling counterfeit clothing and cigarettes, identity theft, extortion, kidnapping, fraud, robbery, and other criminal activities.  When referring to the use of drug-trade profits to finance terrorism, the term narcoterrorism is sometimes used.  While there is proof that drug sales are used to finance terrorist groups, it is controversial to use the term narcoterrorism.  Those who disapprove of the use of narcoterrorism believe that using the word means there is a link between terrorism and drugs, and since not all terrorist activities and drug sales are related to one another, it is inappropriate to use the term.  Opponents also argue that linking drugs and terrorism will give the government more power because more people will be afraid of drug dealers and grant the government more power.

The author has provided ample information for a person to become well informed on the organization and finance of terrorist groups.  In this chapter, I have learned that it is hard to maintain a terrorist group because its greatest strength and weakness is secrecy.  To me, secrecy is a greater weakness than strength because in order for a terrorist group to be long lasting, it needs to be large.  If operations are kept a secret, isn’t there the possibility of two terrorist groups planning the same thing?  Also, if groups are to be kept unknown, how do they solicit money from others or receive help with laundering money?  I have also learned that there is a wide range of financial resources for terrorist groups.  I was surprised to learn that some activities that I thought were illegal are actually legal, such as creating charities, which fund terrorism. 

Overall, the chapter was well written, but some topics could be better explained.  When discussing Marighella’s four-stage model of urban terrorism, the author should list the four stages, so that there is a clear shift between phases.  Also, when describing Marighella’s basic structure of a terrorist group, what other groups are needed besides firing groups?  Listing other groups would give readers a better image of what the structure would look like.  Lastly, multiple times the author compares terrorists and organized criminals.  What is the difference?  I thought they were the same, so it was difficult to understand the comparisons.