What is Terrorism?

Drew Nelson

Professor Shirk

POL357: Global Politics of Terrorism

5 February 2018

What Is Terrorism?

Terrorism is violence used against and in opposition to a constitutional order. This definition was described by Phillip Bobbitt in his work Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. Terrorists use violence as terror to work adversely to a current regime or constitutional order. The terrorists fundamentally disagree with the government or a major part of it. This definition implies that terrorism is not used by anyone else, only those who are trying to take down a government or change a specific part of that government. The users can be state-sanctioned or non-state actors. It also implies that terrorism can be used against non-military and military targets by state and non-state actors. This definition has similarities but differs with Mike Rapport’s definition that terrorism needs to be used against non-military targets by non-state actors. It also differs with Charles Tilly’s definition that terrorism does not have to be politically-oriented.

Bobbitt discusses different constitutional orders and how terrorists of the time worked against them. First, he examines the princely states of the sixteenth century. The terrorists of the time were formal mercenaries who were out of work. These groups were connected with the state but also worked against it. They were known to target innocent civilians, but also had similar motives of the state. Next, Bobbitt takes a look at terrorists during the kingly states of the seventeenth century. The terrorists of this time were usually buccaneers which were a type of pirates. Terrorism and war mostly took place in the Americas where it was known that there was never peace. During this time, there was an imaginary line that separated the New World from the Old. West of this line was fraught with war and terrorism, while the kingly states could be at peace in Europe.  The buccaneers and other pirates of the times became terrorists against their rivals and were oftentimes state-led. Bobbitt then discusses the territorial states of the eighteenth century. These states were very preoccupied with their borders and where they lie, so much of the terrorism was focused on state’s order. The terrorism of this time took place mostly in the colonial territorial states. The most common terrorists were the Native Americans and the Barbary Corsairs. The Native Americans terrorized the colonists during the French and Indian War and was their type of warfare. The Native Americans were enlisted by both the French and British to attack colonists. They used tactics like massacres, torture, and kidnapping to use against their targets. The motives of these attacks were economic and commercial. Here, they worked against specific orders while being employed by another. The Barbary Corsairs used organized crime to terrorize trading settlements. These pirates extorted the ships and goods on them to attack British and American ports. Next, he examines the state-nations of the nineteenth century. The terrorists of this time were anarchists who were attacking political leaders. It is quite clear how targeting politicians is working against the state’s goals or a state actor. However, the anarchists were not known to target innocent civilians and counter the narrative that terrorists do not attack non-military actors. Subsequently, Bobbitt looks into terrorists within the nation-states of the twentieth century. In this period, nationalists were the ones using terror to accomplish their goals. Here, one can see that a terrorist does not have to be working against their own government and it can be against another constitutional order. It was noted that the terrorists of this time did not see themselves as terrorists, rather “freedom fighters.” Finally, Bobbitt discusses the terrorists of the market-states in the twenty-first century. These governments are based on the market and that the two have similar goals. These states had interest in the promotion of globalization, so the terrorists worked against this. A major part of the pushback was due to the fact that globalization brought on imperialism and western market-states like the United States and Great Britain interfering in Middle Eastern countries. The terrorists believed that they were fighting against this paternalism and control by targeting military actors within their country and innocent civilians in the 9/11 attack. In his work, Bobbitt describes terrorism from the sixteenth to the twenty-first century.

Through the description of terrorism throughout the centuries, Bobbitt gives a definition of the term. Terrorism is using violence as terror to accomplish a goal that works against a constitutional order. The terrorist could be state-sanctioned or have nothing to do with the government. Their targets could be military or non-military victims. All of the terrorists described previously worked adversely to a state or against specific actors in a state. One can also see how the terrorists did not have to be part of the state like the anarchists working against the state-nations. However, other terrorists were state-sanctioned. Some examples of these include the pirates who were not punished for their crimes as long as they helped the state they belonged to and the Native Americans who were enlisted by the French and British. Again, one can see Bobbitt’s understanding that they attacked state and non-state actors as well. The anarchists of the nineteenth century targeted political leaders and public servants. While the mercenaries of the princely states and the anti-globalist terrorists of the twenty-first century targeted innocent civilians. This definition of terrorism involves political goals, to fight against a constitutional order so that the definition has clear boundaries.

Mike Rapport defines terrorism as using political violence against non-military targets by non-state actors. Bobbitt would agree that it uses political violence but would object to the users and targets. As stated before, terrorism can and has been used by state-sanctioned and non-state actors. Also, terrorism has and can be used on military and non-military targets. It is imperative to note that Rapport’s definition is very similar to the United States State Department’s definition. This allows one to better understand the how the United States understands and responds to their perceived terrorism.

Charles Tilly also differs in his definition of terrorism. Tilly understands that terrorism uses terror as a tactic and usually to achieve a political goal. However, the actors are not obligated to be attempting to achieve a political goal. The implications of this definition suggest that terrorism is something that can be used by anyone and any such violence could be considered terrorism. If one were to rob a bank using a gun, then Bobbitt would argue that this is not terrorism like Tilly may. The goal of robbing a bank is to acquire money that the robber does not have, it does not have any political connections. This is, of course, assuming that the robber isn’t doing this to fight against capitalism or the specific government’s economic system is. Thus, robbing the bank cannot be a form of terrorism because it is not trying to achieve a political goal it is only economic. By not drawing clear lines around the definition, then one could argue that many things are terrorism even though they are not. And if everything is terrorism then nothing is terrorism. This would be detrimental to governments like the United States who have and continue to work against their understandings of terrorist groups.

 Finally, Lisa Stampnitzky argues that terrorism is a socially constructed word created by experts to help them study the phenomenon. That it was created for political reasons and used how a state wants to use it. Stampnitzky’s definition and the others provided prior can exist together. Bobbitt’s definition, for example, describes terrorism as violence used against a constitutional order used by anyone against anyone. Thus, Bobbitt’s definition does not negate Stampnitzky’s. They can be the same, that the idea of terrorism is used for this while also being a socially constructed concept. Stampnitzky’s terrorism just allows others to understand the history behind the phenomenon and how to respond to it.

Philip Bobbit’s definition of terrorism is that it is violence used against a constitutional order. This can be used against both military actors and innocent civilians. It can also be used by state-sanctioned and non-state actors. Terrorism is not only used against non-military targets by non-state actors like Rapport describes in his work. It also cannot be used for any reason like Tilly argues, it has to be accomplishing a political goal. Bobbit’s definition can fit in with Stampnitzky’s though, as it still can be socially constructed to understand the phenomenon while still following how he describes it. Although it seems trivial to quibble over the definition, it is important to understand the idea so that governments can conceptualize it and then respond to it accordingly.   

 Works Cited

Philip Bobbitt. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008.

Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism, and Terrorists.” Sociology Theory. Volume 22. Number 1. Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium. March 2004.

Rapport, Mike. “The French Revolution and Early European Revolutionary Terrorism.” The Routledge History of Terrorism, edited by Randall D. Law. London: Routledge, 2015.

Stampnitzky, Lisa. Disciplining Terror: How Experts Invented “Terrorism.” Cambridge University Press.