[Robert's-Theory of Terrorism in Gestalt Psychology] International Relations ...

[Robert Nyakundi]

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on the international relations theory context of the contemporary discourse on terrorism. It is contended that the discourse predominantly subscribes to a prevailing global order that is overwhelmed by the complexities of post-international politics, interdependence and structural relations. The discourse is seen to be incarcerated in a conceptual prison, to the extent that scholars of terrorism and politicians dealing with the issue

find it difficult to escape the premise of state predominance and therefore adhere to assumptions about hierarchy, authority, and sovereignty. This theoretical posture exhibits a rationalist bias that marginalises contrasting viewpoints and distorts political rhetoric, practice and policy. To validate these claims, the theoretical landscape that provides the context of the discourse on terrorism is assessed, followed by a reflection on the limits of concepts and perspectives of terrorism within this landscape. Since competing conceptions are, with few excepti ons, mostly underdeveloped, marginalised or even silenced, the opportunity exists for conciliatory theorising and bridge-building.

1. INTRODUCTION

This article addresses the international relations theory context of the contemporary discourse on terrorism. (1) The basic contention is that parsimonious theories of terrorism subscribe to a prevailing global order that is overwhelmed by or oblivious to some of the complexities of post-international politics, the interdependence that sustains it, and the structural relations that underpin it. (2) In addition, it is argued that the discourse on terrorism tends to be rationalist in nature. Within the confines of international relations theory the limits of this rationalist mode of theorising and the conceptualisations that accompany it, curtail a critical and reflectivist approach to the subject matter. The rationalist bias and dominance marginalise contending perspectives and may even distort political rhetoric, practice and policy.

In order to address these claims, this article covers two aspects. (3) On the one hand, it assesses the theoretical landscape of international relations within which the discourse on terrorism is located. On the other hand, within the context of this landscape, it briefly examines the theoretical contours of the discourse. The aim is to indicate that this discourse, not unlike that on other sectoral security concerns, is embedded in and representative of mainstream theorising of a positivist, explanatory and problem-solving nature. In conclusion, since competing conceptions are with few exceptions underdeveloped, marginalised or even silenced, the need and opportunity exist for conciliatory, extra-paradigmatic theorising and bridge-building.

2. STATING THE PROBLEM

Considering the topical nature of terrorism since the events of 11 September 2001, the deluge of divergent interpretations, commentaries and projections is hardly surprising. However, within the political sciences and related disciplines, strategic studies in particular, the phenomenon of terrorism has traditionally been one of the most researched, written-about and topical issue-fields. In addition, within social science disciplines ranging from sociology, through criminology to psychology, and within the fields of theology and law, terrorism has received ample attention. These contributions have also culminated in various multi- and interdisciplinary endeavours to explain and understand terrorism as a threat to state and society; a phenomenon that apparently defies logic, rationality and ethics, as well as most attempts to resolve, contain or deter it. Although several research and government institutions, mostly in Western countries, focus on terrorism as an ongoing concern, public and academic interest in it usually ensues from acts of national and international terror and therefore fluctuates. Hence cataclysmic events as experienced recently add to the incidental and temporary salience of the issue-field.

Irrespective of the aforesaid, the structural features and turbulent nature of post-Cold War politics have contributed to the resurgence of terrorism, albeit in adapted forms and modes that depart in many respects from the predominantly ideology-based and revolutionary variants of the former bipolar era. Thus, the attention given to terrorism in academic and government circles over the past decade and its prioritisation on security agendas is not unexpected. However, these endeavours often go unnoticed except for the informed public and, those involved in security affairs. Admittedly, 11 September 2001 and its aftermath is still on the events horizon and therefore in historical terms too close to the present to allow a conclusion on whether or not it constitutes a watershed that introduced irrevocable and enduring change in the parameters and fundamentals of global politics. Nevertheless, it can be accepted that the immediate impact, intermediate repercussions and longer-term ramifications of the attack on t he United States (US) will ensure that terrorism remains a permanent fixture of politics for some time to come.

As has often been the case in the past, bearing the contending interpretations of recent events and the dominance of a Western discursive elite in mind, contemporary (attempts at) analysis provides ample evidence of the problematic nature of conceptualising terrorism and the limits of theories to adequately explain and provide an understanding of its causes and rationale. In part, this problem is reducible to certain meta-theoretical dimensions of the discourse, more specifically to the limits of contemporary concepts and perspectives. To put it differently and to paraphrase and quote Rosenau in the context of this discussion, the discourse on terrorism is incarcerated in a conceptual and theoretical prison to the extent that scholars, "like politicians, are prisoners of their paradigms, unwilling or unable to escape the premise of state predominance and constantly tempted to cling to familiar assumptions about hierarchy, authority, and sovereignty". (41)

--
Posted By Robert Nyakundi to Robert's-Theory of Terrorism in Gestalt Psychology at 3/10/2010 09:59:00 AM