Is terrorism in the eye of the beholder?

To say that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder does not necessarily mean that the definition of terrorism can only exist subjectively, it is the evaluation of terrorism and the corresponding approval or disapproval that is relative.

There are aspects to take into consideration that contribute to an evaluation of terrorism such as Emile Durkheim's theory of the collective consciousness, the media and its influence upon the individual and their political or moral stance. It is complicated to define terrorism with such negative connotations attached to the term that people begin to think that terrorism is wrong and that defining terrorism becomes a moral judgment. To say that the definition of terrorism itself is a moral judgment and relative to the individual would render current definitions and thereby laws against terrorism useless.

I aim to explore to what degree terrorism may be in the eye of the beholder, either as a definition or an appraisal and how this may work with official definitions of terrorism already existing. Even with a neutral definition of terrorism self-serving perceptions of terrorism at a domestic or international scale will remain.

Each individual may have a different conception of what terrorism is and its definition, but "leaving the definition implicit is the road to obscurantism" (Gibbs 1989). Leaving terrorism undefined leaves judgements of what makes an act terrorist dependent on the individual and can therefore mean that anything can possibly be seen as terrorism, or nothing can be seen as terrorism. This can cause issues in the dispensing of justice and the clarity of the law.

Many definitions of terrorism currently exist in different authoritative bodies which does suggest that there is no complete definition that is recognised by every group (Shamir & Shikaki 2002). With sociologists and authoritative figures proposing their own ideas of what terrorism is, the idea that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder is supported.

To define terrorism, it is important to analyse the act itself rather than the people behind it and although acts of terrorism can vary there are commonalities between the acts to be identified (Nathanson 2010). This idea can be misunderstood and lead the focus to who carries out the act instead of what the act itself is. Stephen Nathanson discusses such issues at length in the aim to create a definition of terrorism that contains no political bias or moral judgment within the definition. Nathanson's definition is that terrorist acts are of "serious, deliberate violence or credible threats", are committed with the aim of promoting a social or political agenda, target a sample of the population in order to influence the larger group, and "intentionally kill or injure innocent people or pose a threat of serious harm to them" (Nathanson 2010). Other definitions, including Gibbs' (1989), centre specifically on the effect of fear that influences the larger group or that property can also be a target of terrorism, so the destruction of property may be aligned with the killing or injuring of people to achieve the same purpose of promoting a political or social agenda.

It is with a definition such as this that people can then decide which, if any, terrorist acts are good or bad and their attitudes also determine their willingness to label acts as terrorism (Nathanson 2010). The phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' can, to a degree, still be used even with terrorism having a strict and clear definition. Nathanson, however, declares that the 'one man's terrorist' view is flawed in terms of its use as a definition as it still depends on moral judgements and is relative to the individual. If a terrorist act is committed an individual may not label it as such due to the alignment of ideals between the terrorists and themselves (Nathanson 2010).

Implementing a fixed definition of terrorism in this scenario, the evaluation of the terrorist act as being right or wrong is in the eyes of the beholder and what one man considers to be wrong and committed by a terrorist may be seen as right by another who is then reluctant to label it as terrorism due to the negative connotations (Nathanson 2010).

Ecoterrorism is a field where this scenario is likely to occur particularly since it is domestic rather than international terrorism, minimising cultural differences. In America, ecoterrorism has been overshadowed by the publicity focused on Islamic terrorism. Despite harming people as well as businesses and infrastructure and causing more than $100 million in damages in America (Anti-Defamation League 2005), animal and environmental rights activists (including the Animal Liberation Front, for example) may be seen as fighting for a good cause that outweighs the negative consequences of their terrorist acts. Nevertheless, a terrorist act has still been committed according to the definition despite the varying appraisals by the individuals. With an active meaning in effect the individual is not solely responsible for defining what is and is not terrorism, but instead chooses which they wish to personally recognise or label as such. It is in this form that terrorism can be in the eyes of the beholder.

Due to the negative connotations of the term 'terrorism' self-serving perceptions arise in order to avoid being labelled (Shamir & Shikaki 2002). Shamir and Shikaki (2002) suggest that "nations in conflict would tend to perceive their own acts of political violence as legitimate while condemning the other side's violence as terrorism." An explanation of why terrorism can be viewed differently despite the many definitions that exist and the negative association is the clash of civilisations thesis. Individuals influenced by this perspective are "likely to view terrorism as an unavoidable and inherent aspect of the other group's character . . . that is not amenable to change, and that may be resolved only through the defeat of the opposing group" (Kimhi & Hirschberger 2009). An example of this can be seen in George W. Bush's war or crusade against terrorism. Cultural differences and differing social norms between the Middle East and America, for instance, can make defining terrorism difficult as opposing groups may have different beliefs on what terrorism is. It is due to these cultural differences, perceptual biases and defensive natures that "people often distort their judgments so that events in the social environment will be reconstructed to conform to their personal convictions" (Kimhi & Hirschberger 2009). These self-serving perceptions are heavily "influenced by the values, aspirations, and convictions of one's social and cultural group" (Kimhi & Hirschberger 2009).

The link between the individual and the larger group is an important aspect of Durkheim's collective consciousness theory. This theory suggests that "an act does not offend the collective consciousness because it is a crime, but the converse: it is a crime because it offends that consciousness" (Roach Anleu 2006). This relates to the defining and evaluation of terrorist acts by the individual that is influenced by their societal group or, by enlargement, the group as a whole. It seems that Durkheim suggests that defining what constitutes a crime, or in this case terrorism, is dependent on the moral judgment of the collective. The media plays a significant role in the strengthening and reinforcement of the collective consciousness through the image they put forth of crime. The shock wave of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were repeated by the media in such a fashion "to become anchored into our collective consciousness" (Matusitz 2014). Although what acts are defined as terrorism and how terrorism is evaluated can be in the eye of the beholder, there are many published definitions of terrorism that exist that are representative of particular groups' ideals and presumably represent the ideals of the large majority or the collective consciousness.

Although there is no universal agreed-upon definition of terrorism, those that exist (particularly in criminal law) are likely a representation of the ideals and morality of the larger group or society or 'collective consciousness' according to Durkheim's theory (Roach Anleu 2006). Individuals may have varying definitions of terrorism that is due to influences by media and culture. As a consequence the case of 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' arises as the negative attachment to the term terrorism may not align to people's varying perceptions of right and wrong. In the clash of civilisations idea self-serving perceptions of terrorism develop despite the existence of legal definitions of terrorism. The evaluation of a terrorist act can be interpreted differing ways and the definition of terrorism does not only exist in the eye of the beholder, but can also exist on a scale greater than the individual through the shared ideals of members of a society.

________________

References are below.

Thank you for reading, your attention is much appreciated. If you enjoyed this piece, leave a heart!

You might also like to read this:

References

Anti-Defamation League. (2005). Ecoterrorism: Extremist in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements. Retrieved 1 November, 2015, from http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/ecoterrorism.html

Gibbs, J. P. (1989). Conceptualization of Terrorism. American Sociological Review, 54(3) 329-340. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095609

Kimhi, S., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Hirschberger, G. (2009). Terrorism in the Eyes of the Beholder: The Impact of Causal Attributions on Perceptions of Violence. Peace and Conflict, 15, 75–95. doi: 10.1080/10781910802589899

Matusitz, J. (2014). Symbolism in Terrorism: Motivation, Communication, and Behavior. Available from https://books.google.com.au/

Nathanson, S. (2010). Terrorism and the Ethics of War. Available from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/search/basic?sid=a10c7837-3310-4412-9bd6-707594780a4b%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=128

Roach Anleu, S. L. (2006). Deviance, Conformity & Control (14th ed.). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia.

Shamir, J., & Shikaki, K. (2002). Self-Serving Perceptions of Terrorism Among Israelis and Palestinians. Political Psychology, 23(3), 537 - 557. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00297