The Role of Discourse in the Social Construction of Security and Terrorism Deconstructing the War on...

8/13/2019 The Role of Discourse in the Social Construction of Security and Terrorism Deconstructing the War on Terror

1/88

The Role of Discourse in the Social Construction

of Security and Terrorism:Deconstructing t he War on T error

UB Number: 08014957

MA Dissertation 2009

Department of Peace StudiesUniversity of BradfordNo. of words: 14.416


2/88

2

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ... ..p. 3

2.0 The Social Construction of Security From Critical Security Studies toPoststructuralism the importance ofdiscourse and identity...p. 10

Securitization/Desecuritization theory..p. 14

Identity/Differenceconcept... ...p. 20

Specifying similarities anddifferences... p. 25

3.0 The Social Construction of TerrorismDebating the definitionalconundrum ofterrorism... p. 28

The politics of naming... p. 34

State terrorism p. 40

Terrorism studies...p. 46

4.0 Deconstructing the War on T error ..p. 48

5.0 Russias W ar on Terror .....p. 57

6.0 Conclusions: towards a reconceptualizationof counterterrorism ....p. 66

7.0 Bibliography ...p. 69


3/88

3

1. 0 Introduction

Several years after the events of September 11, 2001, the effects of the attacksand the subsequentwar on terrorism, which former President George W.Bush declared some days later1, can still be traced globally2. Evidently,nowadays, and after two US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the deathsthey generated, the repression of civic liberties in a vast number of countriesunder new anti-terrorist legislations3, the human rights violations in AbuGhraib and Guantnamo Bay prison camps4, and the gigantic influence whichthe war on terrorism had in certain other ongoing conflicts around the

world (Israel, Russia, China, Philippines, etc)5

, no one can disagree with theview that the war on terrorism discourse has beenthe hegemonic politicaldiscourse 6, at least, for the greatest part of the 21st century7. As aconsequence, in a world where obviously w ords, rhetoric and discourses are

1 Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end untilevery terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. Bush, G. W.(2001c), Address to a joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20.2 While it is often proclaimed that the events of 9/11 changed "everything," it is important tostress that even more than the carnage and impact of that day it has been the response of theBush administration and its impact on the multiple audiences around the world which havebeen more important than the Al Qaeda attacks in shaping the post 9/11 world, in Stohl, M.(2008a), The Global War on Terror and State Terrorism, Paper presented at the49th AnnualInternational Studies Association Convention , San Francisco, 26-29 March 2008, available athttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p252903_index.html, p. 11.3 Whitaker, B. E. (2007), Exporting the Patriot Act? Democracy and the war on terror in theThird World, Third World Quarterly , vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1017-1032.4 Hannah, M. (2006), Torture and the Ticking Bomb: The War on Terrorism as aGeographical Imagination of Power/Knowledge, Annuals of the Association of AmericanGeographers, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 622-640.5 Chomsky, N. (2003), Commentary: moral truisms, empirical evidence, and foreign policy,Review of International Studies, vol. 29, no. 4, p. 609.6 A hegemonic political discourse is one where the public debate uses mainly thelanguage, terms, ideas, and knowledge of the dominant discourse, and where alternativewords and meanings are rarely found and dissenting voices are almost never heard, in Jackson, R. (2005a),Writing the war on terrorism. Language, politics and counter-terrorism ,Manchester, Manchester University Press, p. 19.7 The year 2006 saw a peak in Western disenchantment with GWOT [Global War onTerror], expressed in public opinion polls and finally symbolized at the government levelwhen Robert Gates became the U. S. Secretary of Defense, effectively ending the Bush -Cheney strategy, in Russell, J. (2009), The Geopolitics of Terrorism: Russias Conflict withIslamic Extremism, Eurasian Geography and Economics, vol. 50, no. 2, p. 185.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p252903_index.htmlhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p252903_index.html


4/88

4

more important than ever before 8, a study of their role in the field of securityis considered indispensable.

Indeed, having as a starting point the well-known division of Cox betweenpr oblem-solving and critical theories 9, this essay will argue for the socialconstructed nature of security. In view of this, I will employ two differenttheories, securitization and identity/difference theory, which can beconsidered as parts of an inclusive definition of critical security studies10.Therefore, I will first outline securitization/desecuritization framework,especially giving emphasis to the concept of desecuritization, which, in myopinion, may be very useful in the combat of terrorism11, especially owing toits further and profound securitization after 9/1112. Afterwards, through anexamination of the role of identity/difference in the formationof USAs , andadditionally in Wests, foreign policy and security, I will try to answer, based

8 Peteet, J. (2005),Words as interventions: naming in the Palestine -Israel conflict, ThirdWorld Quarterly , vol. 26, no. 1, p. 171.9 Cox, R. (1981), Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International RelationsTheory, Millennium: Journal of International Studies , vol. 10, no. 2, p. 129.10 Indeed, on the word ofWver, others think of critical in a more inclusive sense whereCT [Critical Theory: the theory inspired from Frankfurt School] is only one possible format,and CSS as a broad movement therefore includes also other forms of theory that is critical,even if it is not Critical Theory, i.e. feminism, normative theory and post-structuralism.Wver, O. (2004), Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New Schools in Security Theory andtheir Origins between Core and Periphery, Paper presented at International Studies Association Conference, Montreal, 1720 March, p. 7. However, Wver along with the co-authors of Securitization: A New Framework for Analysis, have denied the categorization ofsecuritization in the framework of CSS. See Buzan, B. Wver, O. - de Wilde, J. (1998),Security: A New Framework for Analysis, London, Lynne Rienner, p. 35 & 205.11 If the priority is to preserve liberal values, one is pushed towards the option of learning tolive with terrorism as an everyday risk while pursuing countermeasures that stop short ofcreating a garrison state. This choice is not to securitize terrorism, but instead to make it partof normal politics. Taking this route avoids a contradiction between counterterrorist policiesand liberal values, in Buzan, B. (2006), Will the global war on terrorism be the new ColdWar, International Affairs , vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 1117-1118.12 Kelstrup, M. (2004), Globalisation and societal insecurity: The securitisation of terror ism

and competing strategies for global governance, in Guzzini, S. & Jung, D. (eds .),Contemporary security analysis and Copenhagen peace research, London, New York, Routledge,pp. 107-116.


5/88

5

in the discursive practices approach 13, how the war on terror became thedominant discourse globally.

At this point, is considered necessary to provide a definition of discourse, inconsideration of its significance to the objectives of this essay. Thus, withreference to Shepherd, discourses are understood here as systems ofmeaning-production rather than simply statements or language,

encompassing narratives, texts and images, systems that fix meaning,

however temporarily, and enable us to make sense of the world. 14 Besides,this essay will be structured on the premises of critical discourse analysis,which aims primarily to illustrate and describe the relationship betweentextual and social and political processes.15 Indeed, according to Foucault,discourse analysis consists of not of no longer treating discourses asgroups of signs (signifying elements referring to contents or representations)but as practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak. 16 Particularly, this essay will be based in secondary sources, in order todemonstrate and deconstruct the dominance of the current securitynarratives.

However, discourse is central also in the understanding of another sociallyconstructed notion, the notion of terrorism17; something that is one of thecentral arguments of this essay. Therefore, I will first try to depict the debate

13 A Discursive Practices Approach emphasizes the linguistic construction of reality , in Doty,R. L. (1993), Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post -Positivist Analysis of U.S.Counterinsurgency Policy in Philippines, International Studies Quarterly , vol. 37, no. 3, pp.302, authors emphasis.14 Shepherd, L. J. (2006), Veiled references: Constructions of gender in the Bushadministration on the attacks on Afghanistan post-9/11, International Feminist Journal ofPolitics, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 20.15 Jackson, R. (2008), The ghosts of state terror: knowledge, politics and terrorism studies,Critical Studies on Terrorism , vol. 1, no. 3, p. 378.16 Cited in Shepherd, L. J. (2008a),Gender, Violence and Security: Discourse as Practice, London,Zed Books, p. 19.17 'Terrorism is not a discrete topic that might be conveniently examined apart from the

political, social and economic context in which it takes place.... Terrorism is a creature of itsown time and place, Cited in Tololyan, K. (1987), Cultural narrative and the motivation ofthe terrorist, Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 217-218.


6/88

6

over the definition of terrorism, presenting the different approaches to defineit through the years, as well as the most crucial obstacles towards a commondefinition. Actually, as maintained byToros a ny article on terrorism must

enter the labyrinthian debate on what terrorism means and how it is to bedefined. 18 Apart from this, the negative connotations that terrorism hasacquired through the years, has turned it into, as indicated by Badiou, a termwith no neutral readability, but intrinsically propagandistic 19. Indeed,

since terrorism is a term of condemnation 20, is used regularly by states andnon-state actors to delegitimize each other. In fact, in the struggle fordiscourse dominance,the politics of naming 21 play a vital role throughout

the evolution of the conflict for publics hearts and minds in the modernmedia -saturated environment 22. Moreover, I will explore the notion of stateterrorism, one of the most controversial subjects throughout the history ofterrorism studies, which has also been one of the most well-trodden issuesof contention between most orthodox or mainstream Terrorism Studies andproponents of critical approaches.23 After this, I will portray the frameworkof critical approaches on terrorism, in order to criticize the traditional

terrorism studies 24 along with the current counterterrorism paradigm. In

18 Toros, H. (2008), We Dont Negotiate with Terrorists! : Legitimacy and Complexity inTerrorist Conflicts, Security Dialogue, vol. 39, no. 4, p. 408.19 Cited in Bowden, B. (2009), "Terror: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism", Paper presented at the50th Annual International Studies Association Convention , New York, 15 February 2009, availableat http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p313434_index.html, p. 8.20 Weinberg, L. & Eubank, W. (2008), Problems with critical studies approach to the study ofterrorism, Critical Studies on Terrorism , vol. 1, no. 2, p. 186.21 The politics of naming is about this contest, examining how names are made, assigned a nddisputed, and how this contest is affected by a series of global dynamics and events , in Bhatia, M. V. (2005), Fighting words: naming terrorists, bandits, rebels and other violentactors, Third World Quarterly , vol. 26, no. 1, p. 6-7.22 Dauber, C. (2001), Image as Argument: The Impact of Mogadishu on U.S. MilitaryIntervention, Armed Forces &Society, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 205-229.23 Booth, K. (2008), The human faces of terror: reflections in a cracked looking -glass, CriticalStudies on Terrorism , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 76.24 The term has been coined by the Critical Terrorism Studies project. See for example.Gunning, J. (2007), A Case for Critical Terrorism Studies?, Government and Opposition , vol.42, no. 3, pp. 363-393, Breen Smyth, M. Gunning, J. Jackson, R. Kassimeris, G. Robinson, P. (2008), Critical Terrorism Studies -an introduction, Critical Studies on Terrorism ,

vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-4.,Franks, J. (2009), Rethinking the Roots of Terrorism: Beyond OrthodoxTerrorism Theory A Critical Research Agenda, Global Society, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 153-176. Fora case against seeHorgan, J. & Boyle, M. J. (2008), A case against Critical Terrorism
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p313434_index.htmlhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p313434_index.html


7/88

7

addition to this, I will argue for a definition of terrorism as a strategy ortactic of political violence that can be, and frequently is, employed by bothstate and non-state actors and during times of war and peace. 25

Besides, I will describe the major events in the American war on terrorism,from its declaration and its reformulation to a long war rhetoric 26 till the endof Bush administration, owing to the fact that has been the archetype of thecurrent securitization of terrorism27 and the escalation of identity/differencenarrative28. Moreover, I will display the reason behind the construction of thewar on terror discourse, which impelled the whole world in a good versus

evil binary logic. Thus, I will pose a how possible question, todeconstruct the dominance of the war on terror discourse a nd to showhow the subjects, objects, and interpretive dispositions [of the discourse]were socially constructed such that certain practices were made possible.29 Inaddition to this, I will illustrate the counter-productivity of the currentcounterterrorism approach, which was the single agenda [of Bushadministration] in its global policy 30. In addition to this, I will try to

Studies, Critical Studies on Terrorism , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 51-64, Weinberg, L. & Eubank, W.(2008), Problems with critical studies approach to the study of terrorism, Critical Studies onTerrorism , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 185-195, Jones, D. M. & Smith, M. L. R. (2009), Were All TerroristsNow: Critical or Hypocritical Studies on Terrorism, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism , vol.32, no. 4, pp. 292-302.25 Jackson, R. (2007a), The core commitments of critical terrorism studies, European PoliticalScience, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 248.26 Rogers, P. (2006),Into the Long War , Oxford Research Group International Security Report

2006, London, Ann Arbor, MI, Pluto Press.27 Buzan, B. (2006), op. cit., p. 1103.28 Jackson, R. (2005b), op. cit., p. 19.29 In posing such a question, I examine how meanings are produced and attached to varioussubjects/objects, thus constituting particular interpretive dispositions which create certainpossibilities and preclude others, in Doty, R. L. (1993), op. cit., p. 298. Besides, according toGardinger, b y analyzing foreign policy in such a way, the central question for researchpurposes is how a certain discursive representation becomes dominant in the securitydiscourse which constitutes political power relations, in Gadinger, F. (2009), Practices ofU.S. foreign policy: a process-oriented analysis of the war on terror, Paper presented at theat the 50th Annual International Studies Association Convention , New York, 15-18 February 2009,

available at http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p313625_index.html.30 Zulaika, J. & Douglas, W. A. (2008), The terrorist subject: terr orism studies and the absentsubjectivity, Critical Studies on Terrorism , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 32.


8/88

8

deconstruct the Islamic terrorism discourse, which ha s negative effects toand has been systematically interconnected with the praxis and the concept ofthe war on terrorism31.

What is more, I will try to illustrate the significance of the language of thewar on terror in the case of Chechnya and Russias conflict. Indeed, through

a description of the modern history of the conflict, namely after the demise of

the USSR and up to the end of Putins administration, I will try to show the

importance of discourse and the exploitation of the Islamic factor 32 after9/11, to what has became known as Russias war on terror 33. Thus, withChechnyas instance as an example I will indicate the failure of the

contemporary counterterrorist approach, which is still grounded extensivelyin the war on terrorism logic, principally in cases of conflict -relatedterrorism. The latter has defined by Stepanova, as the terrorism [which] is

systematically employed as a tactic in assymetrical local or regional armedconflicts [and] is tied to the concrete agenda of a particular armed conflict

and terrorists identify themselves with a particular political cause (or causes) the incompatibility over which is fought. 34

On the whole, this essay aims first to demonstrate the importance of discoursein the social construction of security and terrorism. Furthermore, it will try todeconstruct the war on terrorism , along with the two major securitynarratives, thoseof traditional terrorism studies and Islamic terrorism,

which have been very influential and in continuous interaction with theformer. Needless to say, these two narratives had not only facilitated thecreation and final supremacy of the war on terrorism as a global

31 Jackson, R. (2007b), Constructing Enemies: Islamic Terrorism in Political and AcademicDiscourse, Government and Opposition , vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 394-426.32 Russell, J. (2002a), Exploitation of the Islamic Factor in the Russo -Chechen conflict beforeand after 11 September 2001, European Security , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 96-109.33

Russell, J. (2007),Chechnya - Russias War on Terror , Abingdon, Routledge.34 Stepanova, E. (2008),Terrorism in asymmetrical conflict. Ideological and structural aspects ,Oxford, SIPRI, Oxford University Press, p. 9.


9/88

9

phenomenon, but also continue to dictate the international studies onterrorism35. Moreover, I will call fora desecuritization of the terrorist threat,which of course is real but exaggerated, due to itsrandom nature, and is

evoking an unrealistic - and costly- quest forperfect immunity from it. 36 Inthis sense, Huysmans deconstructivist strategy of desecuritiza tion may befound very useful37. In addition, I will argue for a paradigm shift in thecounterterrorism approach, which will be able tosee terrorism as a strategy,[and as] a human choice 38 , to facilitate acts of dialogue 39 and to reverse[the] naming -isolating-radicalising process, creating in its place anegotiatingincludinglegitimizing one. 40Last but not least, this essay will

join those voices calling for a critical turn41 in the terrorism studies, whichwill widen the terrorism studies current agenda and challenge the dominantsecurity discourses42.

35 Jackson, R. (2009), The Study of Terrorism a fter 11 September 2001: Problems, Challengesand Future Developments, Political Studies Review, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 171-184.36 Fidas, G. (2007), The Terrorist Threat: Existential or Exaggerated? A Red TeamPerspective, Paper presented at the48th Annual International Studies Association Convention ,Chicago, 28 February 2007, available athttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p181269_index.html37 Huysmans, J. (1995), Migrants as a Security Problem: Dangers of Securitizing SocietalIssues, in Miles, R. & Thranhardt, D. (eds.) , Migration and European Integration: The Dynamicsof Inclusion and Exclusion, London, Pinter, pp. 66-67.38 Booth, K. (2008), op. cit., p. 72.39 Fierke, K. M. (2005), The War on Terrorism: A Critical Perspective, Irish Studies inInternational Affairs , vol. 16, p. 60.40 Toros, H. (2008), op. cit, pp. 422-423.41 See for example Herring,E. (2008), Critical terrorism studies: an activist scholarperspective, Critical Studies on Terrorism , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 197-211.42 Mahajan, G. (2007),Multiculturalism in the Age of Terror: Confronting the Challenges,Political Studies Review, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 318.


10/88

10

2.0 The Social construction of security

From critical security studies to poststructuralism the

importance of discourse and identity

After the end of the Cold War and the demise of bipolarity, a dynamicframework of approaches, that has already been developed in the marginsof security studies43, emerged to challenge political realisms power. Thisframework, defined as critical security studies, named after a conference atYork University in Toronto, entitled asStrategies in Conflict: Critical Approachesto Security Studies44, rejected the principles of the four Enlightment

doctrines 45 that positivist theories, namely realism and liberalism, stillaccept. Indeed, central role in the development of these approaches hasplayed Robert Cox s dichotomy of problem solving and critical theory,which can be located back toHorkheimers distinction between traditionaland critical theory 46. Thus, according to Cox, the first is defined as a theorywhich takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and powerrelationships and the institutions into which they are organised as the given

framework for action, whereas the second as a theory that calls them intoquestion by concerning itself with their origins and how and whether they

43 Ashley, R. K. & Walker, R. B. J. (1990), Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile:Dissident Thought in International Studies, International Studies Quarterly , vol. 34, no. 3,Special Issue: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissidence in International Studies, pp. 259-

268.44 Mutimer, D. (2007), Critical Security Studies: A Schismatic History, in Collins A.,Contemporary Security Studies , Oxford, Oxford University Press inc., p. 54.45 These are objectivism, empiricism, naturalism and behaviouralism. Thus, according toSmith, objectivism can be defined as referring to the view that objective knowledge of theworld is possible;naturalism as meaning that there is a single scientific method which cananalyse both the natural and the social worlds; empiricism as involving the claim thatknowledge has finally to be justified by experience; andbehaviourism as meaning that we donot need to worry about what actors think they are doing to explaintheir behaviour, inSmith, S. (1996), Positivism and beyond, in Smith, B. Booth, K. Zalewski, M. (eds.),International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 35-36.46 Hoffman, M. (1987), Critical Theory and the I nter-Paradigm Debate, Millennium: Journal ofInternational Studies , vol. 16, no. , pp. 237238.


11/88

11

might be in the process of changing. 47 In addition to this, the notion thattheory is always for someone for some purpose originated as well fromCox48, guided critical security studies to refute traditional security studies

as ...not some neutral reflectionbut[as] itself an interpretive mode 49, aswell as a mechanism for the construction of political community. 50 Indeed,with reference to Krause, critical security studies essentially share, in spite ofthe other four principles, the recognition of the social construction of realityand security, and the absence of objective knowledge51. Moreover, on thewords of Linklater, they centre around understandings of the processes of

inclusion and exclusion, which have in a sense always been the centralconcerns of the discipline of international relations 52.

Afterwards, a number of authors, frequently described as poststructuralists53,highlighted the importance of discourse and identity in the social constructionof security. Therefore, in a discursive practices approach, as Doty assertedit, the productive nature of language does not depend on nor necessarilycoincide with the motivations, perceptions, intentions, or understandings ofsocial actors[but] is seen as a set of signs which are part of a system for

47 Cox, R. (1981), op. cit., p. 129.48 Ibid, authors emphasis. 49 Klein, B. S. (1997), Conclusion: Every Month is Security Awareness Month, in Krause, K.& Williams, M. C. (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, London, UCL Press,p. 362. Clearly as George claimed the positivist -realist image of the world out there hasbecome reality, and the foundationalist approach to knowledge has become the onlylegitimate way of understanding global human society, in George, J. (1994), Discourses ofGlobal Politics: A Critical (Re)introduction to International Relations , Boulder, Lynne Rienner, p.223.50 Klein, B. S. (1997), op. cit., p. 363. Indeed, as stated byBooth, one of the reasonswhyrealism accurately described some of the reality of the time was because it had helpedto construct some of that reality, in Booth, K. (2005 a), Critical Explorations, in Booth, K.(ed.),Critical Security Studies and World Politics , Boulder, Lynne Rienner, p. 5.51 Krause, K. (1998), Critical Theory and Security Studies: The Research Programme ofCritical Security Studies," Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 33, no. 3, p. 316.52 Cited in Stearns, J. (1998),Gender and International Relations , Cambridge, Polity, p. 109.53 Hansen, L. (1997), A Case for Seduction? Evaluating the PoststructuralistConceptualization of Security, Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 369-397.


12/88

12

generating subjects, objects, and worlds. 54Thus, discourse scholars55, rejectthe distinction between discursive and non -discursive practices, due to thefact that every object is constituted as an object of discourse. 56Indeed, as

Funkenstein stresses, every narrative is, in its way, an exercise in world -making. 57Besides, as indicated by Jackson, discourse theorizing isestablished on a number of theoretical commitments, at first about languageas constitutive or productive of meaning; and then about discourse asstructures of signification which help to construct social realities, as beingproductive of subjects authorised to speak and act, as necessarilyexclusionary and silencing of other modes of representation, and as

historically and culturally contingent, inter-textual, open-ended andrequiring continuous articulation and re-articulation58. Apart from this, thenotion of identity occupies also major importance in the writings of thisapproach, and actually for the whole critical security studies framework,given that the issue of identity is inseparable from security. 59 In effect,identity is also socially constructed through discourses60 and can be seen as

54 Doty, R. L. (1993), op. cit., p. 302.55 Milliken, J. (1999a),The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique ofResearch and Methods, European Journal of International Relations , vol. 5, no. 2, p. 225.56 Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (2001),Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical DemocraticPolitics, 2nd edition, London, Verso, p. 107. Besides, according to Campbell, although theworld exists independently of languagewe can never know that (beyond the facts of itsassertion), because the existence of the world is literally inconceivable outside of languageand our traditions of interpretation, in Campbell, D. (1998),Writing Security: United StatesForeign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Revised edition, Manchester, Manchester UniversityPress, p. 6, authors emphasis.

57 Funkenstein, A. (1992), History, Counterhistory, and Narrative, in Friedlander, S. (ed.),Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the Final Solution , Cambridge, HarvardUniversity Press, p. 79.58 Jackson, R. (2008), op. cit., p. 378.59 Booth, K. (1997), Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist, in Krause, K. &Williams, M. C. (eds.),Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, London, UCL Press, p. 88.60 On the question of how knowledge, truth, and meaning are c onstituted, the focus is onlanguage, understood not as an asset employed by a pre-existing subject or as a constraintimposed on the subject, but as a medium through which the social identity of the subject ismade possible, in George, J. & Campbell, D.(1990), Patterns of Dissent and the Celebrationof Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations, International StudiesQuarterly , vol. 34, no. 3, Special Issue: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissidence inInternational Studies, p. 285.


13/88

13

either an act or a structure. Thus, according to McSweeney, identity as an act,refers to the capacity of individuals to sustain a story about the self or thecollective self, and as a structure, it relates to the story, or narrative,

sustained, from which individuals draw to enact identity. 61

At this point, is regarded necessary to suggest a definition of security, whichthis essay comprehends and examines as a discursive practice rather than

as a direct representation of an objective threatening reality,62 whichcannotbe separated from the process of identity formation and even the constitutionof subjectivity. 63 Nonetheless, I do not argue that there are not real threats to

the security, but the aim of this essay is to show how these threats areconstituted as such, either they are real or not64. Therefore, I draw on the ideaof Huysmans to approach security througha thick signifier analysis, whichunravels how security is embedded in a formation of rules which defines itin its specificity and explains how it organizes relations to nature, to otherhuman beings and to the self,65 via applying the securitization theory andthe identity/difference concept.

61 McSweeney, B. (1998), Durkheim and the Copenhagen school: a response to Buzan andWver, Review of International Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 137.62 Hansen, L. (1997), op. cit., p. 376.63 Stern, M. (2006), We the Subject: The Power and Failure of (In)Security, SecurityDialogue, vol. 37, no. 2, p. 192.64 Thus, security exists either when they are no threats or when there is an ability toneutralize the threats so that basic survival is not affected. Security is relational and relative.It has the character of a social fact, which can be and will be interpreted by observers as wellas by the agents themselves, in Kelstrup, M. (2004), op. cit., p. 108.65 Huysmans, J. (1998a), Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier,European Journal of International Relations , vol. 4, no. 2, p. 249.


14/88

14

Securitization/Desecuritization theory

The securitization theory has been one of the threeconceptual tools 66, along

with the security sectors and the regional security complexes, developed bythe Copenhagen School of security studies 67. This has been the name givento a number of scholars, with Buzan and Wver probably the most prominentamong them, based in the Centre for Peace and Conflict Research (COPRI).Indeed, Copenhagen Schools project has been one of the most pioneering68 and innovative69 attempts in the field of security studies to broaden anddeepen70 the definition of security71, away from the traditional state-centricand militaristic logic of realism, which once more after 9/11has dominatedbut not monopolized the discipline72.

Nevertheless, this essay will focus particularly on the notion of securitization,

which has been perhaps the most significant conceptual development t hathas emerged specifically within the security studies, 73 and, with reference to

66 Floyd, R. (2007), Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security: bringing together theCopenhagen and the Welsh Schools of security studies, Review of International Studies, vol.33, no. 2, p. 329.67 The name Copenhagen School was coined by Bill McSweeney in his review article in 1996.McSweeney, B. (1996), Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School, Review ofInternational Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 81-94. Apart form this, Iver Neumann has named theproject as the Copenhagen coterie of international relations. See Neumann, I. B. (1996), Selfand Other in International Relations, European Journal of International Relations , vol. 2, no. 2,p. 162.68 Sheehan, M. (2005),International Security. An analytical survey , London, Lynne Rienner, p. 3.69 Smith, S. (2005), The Contested Concept of Security, in Booth, K. (ed.), Critical SecurityStudies and World Politics , Boulder, Lynne Rienner, p. 37.70 To be exact, to broaden security means to expand it beyond military issues and to deepen itby to incorporate non-state actors in its study.71 Moreover, as indicated byHuysmans, they constitute possibly the most thorough andcontinuous exploration of the significance and the implications of a widening security agendafor security studies, in Huysmans, J. (1998b), Revisiting Copenhagen: or, on the creativedevelopment of a security studies agenda in Europe, European Journal of InternationalRelations, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 480.72 Linklater, A. (2002), Unnecessary Suffering, in Booth, K. & Dunne, T. (eds.), Worlds in

Collision: Terrror and the Future of Global Order , Palgrave MacMillan, New York, p. 311.73 Mutimer, D. (2007), op. cit., p. 60.


15/88

15

Wver, is what defines most distinctly the [Copenhagen] school in ametatheoretical sense. 74 Therefore, securitization is defined as thediscursive process through which an intersubjective understanding is

constructed within political community to treat something as an existentialthreat to a valued referent object, and to enable a call for urgent andexceptional measures to deal with the threat. 75 Owing to that, security isrealized asa self -referential practice, because it is in this practise that theissue becomes a security issue not necessarily because a real existentialthreat exists but because the issue presented as such a threat. 76 Subsequently, for Copenhagen School, security is inevitably socially and

discursively constructed77, whilethe way to study securitization is to studydiscourse. 78

Hence, the process of securitization is what in language theory is called a

speech act. It is not interesting as a sign referring to something more real; it isthe utterance itself that is the act. 79 Stemming from this speech-act approachof securitization, we can recognize three different entities participating in theprocess, namely the referent object, the securitizing actors and the functionalactors80. Besides, securitization can be seen as a two-staged process, according

74 Wver, O. (2004), op. cit., p. 8. Besides, according to Sheehan, this process of securitizationhas a metatheroritical function, because it makes clear that what counts as a security issue isalways a result of political and social discourse, in Sheehan, M. (2005), op. cit. ,p. 3. 75

Buzan, B. & Wver, O. (2003),Regions and Powers. The Structure of International Security ,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 491.76 Buzan, B. Wver, O. - de Wilde, J. (1998), op. cit., p. 24.77 But security is not just a discursive practice, it is also at the same time a political practice.Or, put differently, poststructuralism does not see a clear division between the discursive andthe political, both practices are integral to each other, in Hansen, L. (1997), op. cit., p. 376.78 Buzan, B. Wver, O. - de Wilde, J. (1998), op. cit., p. 25.79 Ibid, p. 26.80 Thus Buzan et al define referent objects as the things that are seen to be existentiallythreatened and that have a legitimate claim to survival, securitizing actors as the actorswho securitize issues by declaring something- a referent object-existentially threatened, andfunctional actors as the actors who affect the dynamics of a sector, Ibid, p. 36.


16/88

16

to Emmers81. Thus, the first stage is the identification of the threat, whichtakes place when an issue is presented [through a speech act] as posing anexistential threat to a designated referent object by a securitizing actor 82.

Afterwards, the second stage is considered complete when the actor of thesecuritization convinces the audience that the threat isreal, that is to saythat puts at risk the survival of the referent object83. These two stages composea successful securitization, which can be differentiated from a securitizing

move, due to the latter is only the discourse that takes the form of presentingsomething as an existential threat toa referent object 84. Likewise, everysuccessful securitization is followed by the application of emergency actions,

which break away of rules, to tackle the existential threat. In this sense, theCopenhagen School has also defined security asthe move th at takes politicsbeyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue either as aspecial kind of politics or as above politics. 85

Though, in spite the fact that, as Williams claims, any issue is capable ofsecuritization if it can be intensified to the point where it is presented andaccepted as an existential threat 86, every securitizing move has to followtwo categories of facilitating conditions 87 (or twoconstitutive rules 88): the

81 Emmers, R.(2007), Securitization, in Collins, A., Contemporary Security Studies , Oxford,Oxford University Press, p. 111.82 Buzan, B. Wver, O. - de Wilde, J. (1998), op. cit., p. 21.83

Thus Sheehan insists that Security means survival in the face of existential threats, butwhat constitutes an existential threat is not the same across different sectors, nor is itperceived in the same way by different societies at the same time, nor even by the society atdifferent periods in history,in Sheehan, M. (2005), op. cit., p. 62. 84 Buzan, B. Wver, O. - de Wilde, J. (1998), op. cit., p. 25. Thus, according to Roe,what thisshows is that although the stage of identification is a fundamental part of the securitizationprocess (rhetorical securitization), the success or failure of security policy (activesecuritization) rests firmly in the stage of mobilization, in Roe, P. (2008), Actor, Audience(s)and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UKs Decision To Invade Iraq, SecurityDialogue, vol. 39, no. 6, p. 633.85 Ibid, p. 23.86 Williams, M. C. (2003), Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics,International Studies Quarterly , vol. 47, no. 4, p. 516.87 Buzan, B. Wver, O. - de Wilde, J. (1998), op. cit., p. 32.


17/88

17

internal, linguistic-grammatical condition, and the external, contextual andsocial condition89, in order to be successful. These two conditions, withregards toBuzan et al are regarded as: (1) the demand internal to the speech

act of following the grammar of security, (2) the social conditions regardingthe position of authority for the securitizing actor that is, the relationshipbetween speaker and audience, and (3) features of the alleged threats thateither facilitate or impede securitization. 90 In this regard,securitization[can be seen as] a kind of call and response process: an actor makes a callthat something is a matter of security, and the audience must then respond

with their acceptance of it as such [thus] t he argument has to be framed in

such a way as to achieve the level of reasonance required to legitimizeemergency measures. 91 Moreover, the Copenhagen School asserts that everyobject can be placed in a spectrum that extends from non-politicized topoliticized and securitized; with regard to this spectrum can be identifiedfour [dif ferent] processes known respectively as politicization, de-politicization, securitization and de-securitization. 92

Although, in spite the fact that securitization theory has strived for thereconceptualization of security, security itself, according to the CopenhagenSchool, should be seen as negative, as a failure to deal with issues of normalpolitics. 93 Thus, Wver is extremely critical framing issues in terms of

88 Balzacq, Th. (2005), The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience a ndContext, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 171-172.

89 A successful speech act is a combination of language and society, of both intrinsic featuresof speech and the group that authorizes and recognizes the speech, in Buzan, B. Wver, O.- de Wilde, J. (1998), op. cit., p. 33.90 Ibid, p. 33.91 Roe, P. (2004), Securitization and Minority Rights: Conditions of Desecuritization,Security Dialogue, vol. 35, no. 3, p. 281.92 Neuman, I. B. (1998), Identity and the Outbreak of War: Or Why the Copenhagen Schoolof Security Studies Should Include the Idea of Violisation in its Framework of Analysis,

International Journal of Peace Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 17.93 Buzan, B. Wver, O. - de Wilde, J. (1998), op. cit., p. 29.


18/88

18

security 94, promoting, on the other hand, a strategy of desecuritization.Indeed, desecuritization, defined as the process by which a politicalcommunity downgrades or ceases to treat something as an existential threat

to a valued referent object, and reduces or stops calling for urgent andexceptional measures to deal with the threat 95, is - ceteris paribus theideal of securitization approach 96. Clearly, owing to the fact that security,above all, is a powerful political conceptthat energizes opinion and moves

material power 97 and that still evokes an image of military defense-relatedthreat perception 98, dealing with certain issues, such as environment99 andmigration100, through its frame is considered counterproductive. In spite of

that, Wver offers three different alternatives to reach desecuritization,namely: initially not to talk about issues in terms of security; subsequently, ifan issue is already securitized to keep the responses in forms that do not

generate security dilemmas; and finally to move security problem back tonormal politics101. Other strategies of desecuritization have also developedfrom a number of scholars in the field of migration studies, in order to

94 Floyd, R. (2007), op. cit., p. 330. The preference for desecuritization can be additionallydemonstrated owing to the fact that where normal politics is marked by what I might callthe three Ds discussion, debate and deliberation by contrast emergency politics [and security]is constituted by the three Ss silence, secrecy and suppression, in Roe, P. (2006),Reconstructing Identities or Managing Minorities? Desecuritizing Minority Rights: AResponse to Jutila, Security Dialogue, vol. 37, no. 3, p. 426.95 Buzan, B. and Wver, O. (2003), op. cit., p. 489.96 Laustsen, C. B. & Wver, O. (2000), op. cit., p. 708.97 Booth, K. (2005b), Introduction to Part 1: Focuses on Security, in Booth, K. (ed.),CriticalSecurity Studies and World Politics , Boulder, Lynne Rienner, p. 23.98 Sheehan, M. (2005), op. cit., p. 54.99 Deudney, D. (1990), The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and NationalSecurity, Millennium: Journal of International Studies , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 461476.100 Huysmans, J. (2000), The European Union and the Securitization of Migration, Journal ofCommon Market Studies, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 751-777.101 Wver, O. (2000), The EU as a Security Actor: Reflections from a Pessimistic

Constructivist on Post-Sovereign Security Orders, i n Kelstrup, M & Williams, M. (eds.),International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security, andCommunity, London, Routledge, p. 253 & Roe, P. (2004), op. cit., p. 284.


19/88

19

challenge the current securitization of migration102, with the most prominentamong them Huysmanss deconstructivist strategy 103. To sum up, as Roecertifies d esecuritization is desirablein terms of its potential efficacy, its

greater democratic -ness, [due to] the very impossibility of securitizationitself in an uncertain world and for the possibilities it offers for reordering thedomestic in a perhaps more just way. 104

Notwithstanding, securitization theory, in spite of its popularity andsuccess, evidenced by the number and scope of publications working with it105, has also received a lot of criticisms. Thus, several critics have

questioned the theory about: the responsibility of the analyst106, the absence ofgender107, the exclusive reliance on language108, the under-theorization ofdesecuritization109, the exclusive form of the securitizing move 110, and itsconceptualization of identity, which Copenhagen School recognizes as thereferent object of societal security111; indeed, this issue has been one of the

102 Indeed, with reference to Munck, security has increasingly become the dominant prismthrough which migration is viewed today. See Munck, R. (2008), Globalisation andMigration: an introduction, Third World Quarterly , vol. 29, no. 7, p. 1231.103 In accordance with this, then,the policy maker is a s tory-teller who supposes that, bytelling a story in a particular way, he/she contributes to the production and reproduction ofthe social world; telling a story is considered as an action inside the world which helps tostructure it. This strategy buildson the principle that to tell a story is to handle the world, inHuysmans, J. (1995), op. cit., p. 67.104 Roe, P. (2004), op. cit., p. 284. 105 McDonald, M. (2008), Securitization and the Construction of Security, European Journal ofInternational Relations , vol. 14, no. 4, p. 565.106 Eriksson, J. (1999), Observers or Advocates? : On the Political Role of Security Analysts,Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 311-330.107 Hansen, L. (2000), The Little Mermaids Silent Security Dilemma and the Abs ence ofGender in the Copenhagen School, Millennium: Journal of International Studies , vol. 29, no. 9,pp. 285-306.108 Williams, M. C. (2003), op. cit.109 Floyd, R. (2007), op. cit.110 McDonald, M. (2008), op. cit.111 The Copenhagen School understands the concept of identity in an objectivist way, as a

fixed entity; while poststructuralists, like McSweeney , understand it as an active process.For the Copenhagen controversy see McSweeney, B. (1996), op. cit., Buzan, B. & Wver, O.(1997), Slippery? contradictory? sociologically untenable? The Copenhagen school replies,


20/88

20

most debatable in the theory. Yet, in spite the various disagreements, all seemto acknowledge that securitization is an outstanding distinctive feature112 inthe security studies, which, on the word of Taureck, should be seen only as a

theoretical tool of analysis with which the analyst can trace incidences ofsecuritization and desecuritization. 113

Identity/Difference concept

The importance of identity in the field of security and foreign policy has beenin the centre of the attention of a number of critical scholars, albeit its absence

from the modern concept of security114. Furthermore, they have maintainedthat identity should be approached from a deconst ructionist, sociologicalangle, which focuses on the processes and practices by which people andgroups construct their self image.115 Thus, according to Campbell,

deconstructive thought is the concept of the performative constitution of

identity, which functions within discourse, but in so doing, it transgressesand erases the discursive/extra discursive distinction.116 Besides, identities

Review of International Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 241-250, McSweeney, B. (1998), op. cit., &Williams, M. C. (1998a), Modernity, identity and security: a comment on the Copenhagencontroversy, Review of International Studies, vol. 24, no.3, pp. 435-439. 112 Knudsen, O. (2001), Post -Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization,Security Dialogue, vol. 32, no. 3, p. 358.113 Taureck, R. (2006), Securitization theory and securitization studies, Journal ofInternational Relations and Development , vol. 9, no. 1, p. 55.114

The apparent absence of a concern with identity in conceptions of security needs to beunderstood in fact as an historical legacy of a conscious attempt to exclude identity concernsfrom the political realm, or as what might be called anegative identity practice[which] saw[identity] as perhaps the primary source of violence and insecurity[and tried] to marginalize [it], in Williams, M. C. (1998b), Identity and the Politics of Security, European Journal ofInternational Relations , vol. 4, no. 2, p. 205.115 McSweeney, B. (1996), op. cit., p. 82.Thus, according to Butler, [t]he deconstruction ofidentity is not the deconstruction of politics; rather, it establishes as political the very termsthrough which identity is articulated, in Butler, J. ( 1999),Gender Trouble, revised edition,London, Routledge, p. 189.116 Campbell, D. (1998b),National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia ,

Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 24-25. In fact, according to Mendieta, an identity is not a prius , object or substratum, or essential substance. It is a social locus, and asocial locus is an imagined and imaginary topos, in Mendieta, E. (2003), Afterword:


21/88

21

are always constituted in relationship with difference, through practices of

differentiation that distinguish identity in whose name they operate fromcounter-identities. 117 Indeed, the discursive dependence of identity to

difference118, in order to define itself, and the threat that the latter represent,shape the paradox of difference 119, which applies also to the formation ofthe identity of other imaginary entities, such as the state or the nation120.Consequently, owing to the notion that identity is achieved through the

inscription of boundaries that serve to demarcate an inside from an outside,

a self from an other, a domestic from a foreign, 121 states security isbound into a dependent relation with insecurity... [and] must continue to

produce images of insecurity in order to retain its meaning. 122

This relationship between security and insecurity finds its primaryapplication to the states sovereignty 123, opposed to the perceived

Identities Postcolonial and Global, in Martin Alcoff, L. & Mendieta E. (eds .), Identities: Race,Class, Gender, and Nationality , Oxford, Blackwell, p. 408.117

Rumelili, B. (2004), Constructing identity and relating to difference: u nderstanding theEUs mode of differentiation, Review of International Studies, vol. 30, no. 1, p. 31.118 Besides, on the word of Jackson, language has a binary structure such that almost everynoun, adjective and verb has its direct opposite, in Jackson, R. (2005a), op. cit. p. 21.119 Indeed, Connolly claims that there is a double relation of interdependence and strifebetween identity and difference, which constitutes the paradox of difference, in Connolly,W. E. (1991),Identity /Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, Ithaca, NY, CornellUniversity Press, pp. 646.120 Identities connected to ethnic groups, nations and civilizations are neither fixed givensnor are they totally fluid. They are always partially under construction, especially regardingsecurity threats, in Faist, Th. (2002), Extention du domaine de la lutte: InternationalMigration and Security before and after September 11, 2001, International Migration Review ,vol. 36, no. 1, p. 11.121 Campbell, D. (1998a), op. cit., p. 9. Indeed, with reference to Connolly, identity requiresdifference in order to be, and it converts difference into otherness in order to secure its ownself-certainty, in Connolly, W. E. (1991), op. cit., p. 64. 122 Burke, A. (2002), Aporias of Security, Alternatives , vol. 27, no. 1, p. 20. This is, what Sternnames the paradox of (in)security; namely the situation that when people attempt toprotect themselves and to create a sense of security, they also produce danger, fear andharm, in St ern, M. (2006), op. cit., pp. 187-188.123 The most important expression of these understandings, indeed the crucial modernpolitical articulation of all spatiotemporal relations, is the principle of state sovereignty, in

Walker, R. B. J. (1993),Inside/outside: international relations as political theory , Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, p. 6. Besides, the principle of state sovereignty has constituteditself historically as a powerful answer to the questions of political identity; it divides the


22/88

22

international anarchy, and also tostates foreign and security policies. Thus,statesby securing their identities engage in boundary -producing politicalperformances t hat construct the external realm as different, inferior, and

threatening 124. Indeed, a state identity is secured through discourses ofdanger 125, namely discourses of politics [which] frame prevailing notions ofpolitical community, possible subjects of security, and relations between(sovereign) self and other in times of perceived threat and danger. 126 In thissense, states define everything different from its identity as forms ofotherness, not only to its external world, but also to its internal 127. However,states identity, seen as discursive construction, must be in a process of

constant reproduction, defined along the lines of insecurity.Thus, statesenunciation of threat is integral to its existence, or, as Campbell stated, is itscondition of possibility. 128 Consequently, both foreign129 and security policiesshould not be seen only as responses to possible threats to a state, but also in

a sense the practice of statecraft itself. 130

Therefore, several researches have demonstrated the processes through states,and nations in general, have discursively constructed and generated their

world into a clear inside and a clear outside, and it tells us who we are by pointing out whatwe are not and what to fear, in Hansen, K. (1997), op. cit., p. 374. 124 Rumelili, B. (2004), op. cit., p. 35.125 Campbell, D. (1998a), op. cit., p. 50.126 Stern, M. (2006), op. cit., p. 188.127 This evokes the notion of double exclusion, in relation to which domestic discontinuitiesfrom the dominant discourse are managed as external threats and are excluded from theinternal realm, so as to the inscription of domestic society to appear unproblematic, inCampbell, D. (1998a), op. cit., p. 63 . Besides, this is correlated with the notion of strangers(the sociologically marginal), who on the words of Neumann, play an important role incollective identity formation inasmuch as their very presence brings the question of who isself and who is other to the fore, in Neumann, I. B. (1996), op. cit., p. 147. 128 Campbell, D. (1998a), op. cit., p. 13. Actually, for a state to end its practices forrepresentation would be to expose its lack o prediscursive foundations; stasis would bedeath, Ibid, p. 12.129 The relationship between identity and foreign policy in a mutually constitutive way hasbeen at the centre of the poststructuralist research agenda in IR. Thus, foreign policies relyupon representations of identity, but identities are also produced and reproduced through

the formulation of foreign policy, in Gadinger, F. (2009), op. cit., p. 13.130 Sheehan, M. (2005), op. cit., p. 142.


23/88

23

national identities, whilst they have been designating threatening others.Indeed, Bhatia argues that the key to understand the colonisation period arethe discourses used by the Europeans to separate them from the indigenous

populations, and thus to legitimize their civilizing intervention131. In thesame way, McDougall describes the attitude of Europeans towards Algeria,claiming that one of the ways that they promoted their imperialism has beenthe delegitimizationof the natives to savages 132. Furthermore, Neumanndemonstrates the historical and cultural circumstances under which Europecreated a number of others , such as the Turk133 or the Russian. Actually, onhis words, a variety of others have been and are instrumental in the process

of forging European identity, up to this day134.

Besides, a number of authors examining the cold war period have shown theuse of the Soviet Union asother by the United States135. Indeed, it is ratheracknowledged nowadays, that the Cold War was only partly about the

superpower confrontation [and] it was also a mode of [American]hegemony [which] constructed a geopolitical order in terms of us and

them, friend and foe. 136 Thus, Campbell, after the assessment of thestrategies and texts of the post-war American foreign policy, concluded that

131 Bhatia, M. V. (2005), op.cit., p. 12. Besides, according to Fierke, anotherrole ofdifference [as opposing the identity, is] in constructing hierarchy and the legitimacy ofintervention, in Fierke, K. M. (2007), Critical Approaches to International Security , Cambridge,Polity Press, p. 77.132 McDougall, J. (2005), Savage wars? Codes of violence in Algeria, 1830s - 1990s, Third

World Quarterly , vol. 26, no. 1, 117-131.133 In fact, as Neumann asserts the dominant other in the history of the European statesystem remains the Turk, in Neumann, I. B. (1999),Uses of the Other: The East in EuropeanIdentity Formation , Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, p. 39.134 Ibid.135 Dalby, S. (1988), Geopolitical Discourse: The Soviet Union As Other, Alternatives , vol. 13,no. 4, pp. 415-442,Nathanson, Ch. E. (1988),The Social Construction of the Soviet Threat: AStudy in the Politics of Representation, Alternatives , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 443- 483 & Weldes, J.(1996), Constructing National Interests, European Journal of International Relations , vol. 2, no.3, pp. 275-318.136 Dalby, S. (1997), Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas inContemporary Security Discourse, in Krause, K. & Williams, M. C. (eds.), Critical SecurityStudies: Concepts and Cases, London, UCL Press, p. 19.


24/88

24

the cold war was an important moment in the (re)production of American

identity and a pervasive historical configuration of the discursiv e economyof identity/difference relationship 137. Besides, through the inspection of

certain instances in the history of the USA, he argued that America constitutesthe imagined community par excellence , something that makes itpeculiarly dependent on representational practices for its being. 138 Thisdependency has prompted the USA to find a replacement,in the threatdeficit 139 created, after the demise of the USSR. Thus, several attempts havebeen made throughout the years to fillthis gap in the US nar rative of self asconstituted in opposition to one major other 140 with the war on drugs, Japan, China, Iraq, the clash of civilizations and rogue states 141 temporarilyoccupying it. During the Bush administration, obviously, this gap ha d beenoccupied by the war on terror 142, which was characterizedas a return ofthe past and was distinguished by awillingness to draw [over again] the

137 Campbell, D. (1998a), op. cit., p. 168 & 196.138 Ibid, p. 91. However, Neumann claims that Campbell overstates the case by insisting onits uniqueness. Detailed work along the ethnographical path has shown how humancollectives are not moreor less real for being imagined, and for sustaining themselves bymeans of narratives of selves which involve the whole gamut of metaphor: they all do. In thelight of this, it makes little sense to insist that the United States should be more imaginedthan other collectives, in Neumann, I. B. (1996), op. cit., p. 158.

139 Buzan, B. (2006), op. cit., p. 1101.140 Neumann, I. B. (1996), op. cit., p. 158.141 Noam Chomsky has asserted that, in the logic of US governments, rogue states arethose that do not obey the rules set by the powerful in the international system - hencetheir rules - the rules of the US. Rogues are thus those states that the US define as such.The rogue discourse is the discourse of the powerful, Korf, B. (2006), Who is the rogue?Discourse, power and spatial politics in post-war Sri Lanka, Political Geography, vol. 25, no. 3,p. 280.142 At the end of the Cold War the United States lost the Soviet Empire but did not find arole. It did when the post -Cold War collided with the future on 9/11 and became the waragainst terrorism, in Booth, K. & Dunne, T. (2002), Worlds in Collision, in Booth, K. &Dunne, T. (eds.),Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order , Palgrave MacMillan,New York, p. 19.


25/88

25

lines of superiority/inferiority between us and them143, between civilizedand savages144.

Consequently, the identity/difference conception has been crucial in theunveiling of the structure of security, defined as a performative discourse

constitutive of political order 145 and in a dependent and antagonistic relationto insecurity, signified as difference146. Nonetheless, some argue that identitycan be defined towards difference not necessarily through the logic ofotherness, meaning not in an antagonistic relationship147. All thingsconsidered, the concept of identityhas been important portraying that therole of discourse of security has been to construct notions of us and them, ofinside and outside in ways that have presented as natural 148.

Specifying similarities and differences

After the depiction of both these theories it is possible to identify a number of

similarities in the way they understand security. Thus, both theoriesemphasize the performative and discursive nature of security. Actually,identities and securitizationsexist in an interdependent relationship in the

143 Campbell, D. (2002), Time Is Broken: The Return of the Past in the Response to September11, Theory and Event, vol. 5, no. 4,available at http://muse.edu.jhu/journals/theory_and_event/v005/5.4campbell.html. 144

After the tragedy of 9/11, however, terrorism was proclaimed the new savagerythreatening Americas empire of democracy, in Ivie, R. L. (2005), Savagery in democracysempire, Third World Quarterly , vol. 26, no. 1, p. 55.145 Campbell, D. (1998a), op. cit., p. 199.146 The unity of the self results from the dynamics of negation. Because objects and otherpersons are forms of negation, the stuff against which the self establishes coherence, thehuman subject develops as a result of an "ontological rift," a striving to resist being absorbedby otherness,, in Shapiro, M. J. (1997),Violent cartographies: mapping cultures of war , London,University of Minnesota Press, p. 41.147Fierke, K. M. (2007), op. cit., pp. 78-79.See also Milliken, J. (1999b), Intervention andIdentity: Reconstructing the West in Korea, in Weldes, J. - Laffey, M. - Gusterson, H. Duvall, R. (eds.),Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger ,Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 91-117.148 Smith, S. (2005), op, cit., p. 49.
http://muse.edu.jhu/journals/theory_and_event/v005/5.4campbell.htmlhttp://muse.edu.jhu/journals/theory_and_event/v005/5.4campbell.html


26/88

26

security narratives, according to Sheehan149. Furthermore, they display howimages of threat and danger whether or not fit realityget inscribed into

existing discourses/scripts and hence into patterns of understanding and

legitimation.150 In addition, they both think of security as a negativesituation,which incorporates the trace of insecurity in the very articulationofitself .151 As a matter of fact, Wver maintains that insecurity is largely aproduct of security discourses and security policy. 152 Besides,the commondenominator of these two theories is that it focuses on identity formationand self/other relations in terms of the clash ofdifferent discursivepractices. 153 As a consequence, several scholars have argued that the

securitization in face of identityends up in an us against them logic, thusequated with the identity/difference relationship154. Therefore, Bigo alsoclaims that by securitizing societal issues, the security discourses insecuritizethe audience they address, in a dual process of (in)securitization155. Moreover,in both theories can be traceddespite the explicit disavowal some kind ofemancipatory impulse.156 Likewise, a number of authors argue for the idea offostering an ethos of critique 157, which destabilizes the dominant narrativesand gives voice to the marginalized ones.

149 Sheehan, M. (2005), op. cit., p. 142.150 Guzzini, S. (2004), The Cold War is what we make of it: When peace research meetsconstructivism in International Relations, in Guzzini, S. & Jung, D. (eds.),Contemporarysecurity analysis and Copenhagen peace research, London, New York, Routledge, p. 49.151 Dillon, M. (1995), Security, Philosophy and Politics, in Featherstone, M. Lash, S. Robertson, R. (eds.),Global Modernities, London, Sage, p. 162.152 Wver, O. (2004), op. cit., p. 11.153 Neumann, I. B. (1996), op. cit., p. 162.154 Williams, M. C. (2003), op. cit., p. 519. See also Huysmans, J. (1998b), The Question of theLimit: Desecuritization and the Aesthetics of Horror in Political Realism, Millennium: Journalof International Studies , vol. 27, no. 3, p. 570.155 Bigo, D. (1995), Grands dbats dans un petit monde. Les dbats en relations internationalset leur lien avec le monde de la scurit [Great Debates in a Little World : Debates inInternational Relations and Their Link with the World of Security],Cultures & Conflits, vol.1920, pp. 748.156 Wyn Jones, R. (2005), On Emancipation: Necessity, Capacity, and Concrete Utopias, inBooth, K. (ed.),Critical Security Studies and World Politics , Boulder, Lynne Rienner, p. 218157 Mutimer, D. (2007), op. cit., p. 70.


27/88

27

Nonetheless, there are certain features that differentiate the two approaches.In fact, the acceptance by the Copenhagen School of certain realist features,such as the greater capability of state elites to securitize158, distinguish it from

the non-state focus of the other theories of CSS. Additionally, the specificdiscursive formation of the securitizing move prevents the widening ofsecurity in favour of a state-centric direction. Moreover, the conceptualizationof identity - the referent object of societal security - as objectified andsedimented is in great opposition with the fluid and always underconstruction perception of the poststructuralist viewpoints. On top of, thefocus of securitization approach on speech act, according to some,downplays the importance of contextual factors, such as the identitypolitics159. What is more, the Copenhagen School itself has refuted theassociations with the critical security studies, admitting that the state remainsthe central point of the security concept160. On the other hand, the necessityregarding the state to constantly reaffirm its identity through narratives ofsecurity/insecurity indicates that, according to the poststructuralperspectives, desecuritizationcan never really happen. 161

Nevertheless, and despite of the several differentiations, the two theories

arrive at similar understandings of the modern form of security as an

intricate part of the practises of the sovereign state 162 and highlight the

158 As Wver argues, security is articulated only from a specific place, in an institutionalvoice, by elites , in Wver, O. (1995), Securitization and Desecuritization, in Lipschutz, R.D. (ed.),On Security , New York, Columbia University Press, p. 54. Besides, on the words ofMcDonald, the focus only on dominant voices and their designation of security and threat isnormatively problematic, contributing to the silencing of marginal voices and ignoring theways in which such actors have attempted precisely to contest these security constructions,in McDonald, M. (2008), op. cit., p. 574.159 McDonald, M. (2008), op. cit., p. 571.160 Wver, O. (1995), Securitization and Desecuritization, in Lipschutz, R. D. (ed.), OnSecurity, New York, Columbia University Press, pp. 46-86.161 Behnke, A. (2006), No way out: desecuritization, emancipation and the eternal return ofthe political a reply to Aradau, Journal of International Relations and Development , vol. 9, no.1, p. 65.162 Hansen, L. (1997), op. cit., p. 378.


28/88

28

constructed, intersubjective character of the concept . and hence also of themodus operandi of security politics. 163

3.0 Social Construction of TerrorismDebating the definitional conundrum of terrorism Terrorism has been one of the most abstract and controversial phenomenon inthe political sciences164, owing, at first, to the profound absence of thenecessary consensus to define it. Indeed, the ineffectual quest for a definition,which has been ongoing more than 30 years165, has triggered some to name it

as a clich in search of a meaning 166 or asa semantic, terminological, andconceptual minefield167. In truth, the opinions of the various scholars are sodiverse that terrorism through the years has classified either as a technique168,a tactic169, a weapon -system 170, a method to achieve an end171, a strategyof action in a conflict situation 172, a form of identitarian conflict 173, the

163 Neumann, I. B. (1998), Identity and the Outbreak of War: Or Why the Copenhagen Schoolof Security Studies Should Include the Idea of Violisation in its Framework of Analysis,International Journal of Peace Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 18.164 Schmid, A. P. (1983), Political Terror: A Research Guide to Concepts, Theories, Data Basesand Literature, New Brunswick, Transaction Books, p. 110.165 Weinberg, L. Pedazhur, A. Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2004), The Challenges ofConceptualizing Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 778.166 Cited in Kennedy, R. (1999), Is one persons terrorist anothers freedom fighter? Westernand Islamic approaches to just war compared, Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 11, no. 1,p. 4.167 Duyvesteyn, I. (2004), How New Is The New Terrorism?, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism ,September 2004, vol. 27, no. 5, p. 440.168 Chaliand, G. & Blin, A. (2007), Introduction, in Chaliand, G. & Blin, A. (eds.), The historyof terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda, London, University of California Press, p. 5.169 Richardson, L. (2006),What terrorists want: Understanding the terrorist threat , New York,Random House, p. xxii.170 Wilkinson, P. (2006),Terrorism versus democracy: the liberal state response, 2nd edition, Londonand New York, Routledge, p. 3.171 Jones, D. M. & Smith, M. L. R. (2009), op. cit., p. 300172 Stohl, M. (2008a), op. cit., p. 4.173 Deshpande, A. (2003),Modernity, Terrorism and the Masquerade of Conflict, Economicand Political Weekly, vol. 38, no. 14, p. 1372.


29/88

29

peacetime equivalent of war crimes 174, or even as awarfare 175. Besides,according to some,the term has become so widely used in so many contextsas to become almost meaningless 176 or analytically useless 177, something

that has as a consequencethat its now commonly used simply to stigmatizeany individual or group one doesnt like, for almost any kin d of behaviourinvolving force.178 Furthermore, terrorism has frequently characterized as anessential contested concept, namely a concept that essentially involves

disputes about their proper use on the part of their users. 179 In view of that, anumber of academics has claimed that the pursuit for a common definition isfruitless and should be abandoned180, since it is possible for researchcommunity to remain active indefinitely without ever producing meaningfulexplanatory results. 181 On the other hand, there are several scholars arguingthat the definitional problem should not become an obsession, given that themost disciplines are engaged in never-ending debates over their fundamentalvalues and theories182. The major challenge for them is to understand the realnature of terrorism, without necessarily to achieve defining it183. Besides,others are even more disapproving in finding a common definition, whichwill simplify a considerably complex phenomenon184, putting different kinds

174 Schmid, A. P. (2004), Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism, Terrorism and PoliticalViolence, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 203.

175 Silke, A. (1996), Terrorism and the Blind Mens Elephant, Terrorrism and Political Violence ,vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 12-28.176 Richardson, L. (1999), Terrorists as transnational actors, Terrorism and Political Violence,vol. 11, no. 4, p. 209.177 Duyvesteyn, I. (2004), op. cit., p. 440.178 Blum, W. (2005), Myth & Denial in the War against Terrorism, in Malik, A. A. (ed.), WithGod on Our Side: Politics & Theology of the War on Terrorism, Bristol, Amal Press, p. 108.179 Connolly, W. E. (1993),The Terms of Political Discourse, 3rd edition, Princeton, PrincetonUniversity Press, p.10.180 Laqueur, W. (1999), The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction,New York, Oxford University Press.181 Silke, A. (2001), The Devil You Know: Continuing Problems with Research on Terrorism,Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 2.182 Zulaika, J. & Douglas, W. A. (2008), op. cit., p. 28.183 Stohl, M. (2006), Winners and Losers in the War on Terror, Paper presented at the47th Annual International Studies Association Convention, San Diego , 22 March 2006 , available athttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99962_index.html, p. 7.184 Tololyan, K. (1987), op. cit., p. 217.
http://convention2.allacademic.com/one/isa/isa06/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=1&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=6f5a5762faf5356d1c36489f641d675chttp://convention2.allacademic.com/one/isa/isa06/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=1&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=6f5a5762faf5356d1c36489f641d675chttp://convention2.allacademic.com/one/isa/isa06/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=1&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=6f5a5762faf5356d1c36489f641d675chttp://convention2.allacademic.com/one/isa/isa06/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=1&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=6f5a5762faf5356d1c36489f641d675chttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99962_index.htmlhttp://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99962_index.htmlhttp://convention2.allacademic.com/one/isa/isa06/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=1&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=6f5a5762faf5356d1c36489f641d675chttp://convention2.allacademic.com/one/isa/isa06/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=1&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=6f5a5762faf5356d1c36489f641d675c


30/88

30

of terrorism under an inclusive and problematic label185, or even marginalizealternative points of view186. Likewise, Booth claims that that the big debatestaking place in the study of terrorism do not represent a weakness, but

rather a sign of life. 187

Another reason for the definitional chaos that exists around the term is theabsence of an accepted international designation, due to the inadequateconsensus between the states.In effect, the United Nations General Assemblydebate on terrorism on 1972 undoubtedly demonstrated the lack ofcooperation and common will between the states to reach an agreement; these

were depicted in the dispute over the notions of freedom fighters andterrorists188. Besides, the disagreement for the status of the liberationstruggles still remains vibrant, if someone takes into consideration the recentKuala Lumpur Declaration on International Terrorism (2002) by theOrganisation of Islamic Conference, which restates the right of legitimatestruggle for national liberation or self-determination against colonialism andforeign occupation189. Therefore, the existing twelve global conventions andthe severalregional treaties do not define or refer to the terms terrorism orterrorist, but are sectoral; to be precise, they only define particular crimes as

terrorist attacks, such as hostage taking or hijacking 190. Indeed, the absenceof an agreed definition and the case-specific current treaties have as aconsequence that internationallythe term of terrorism has no legalsignificance. 191 In spite of the definition deficit in the international arena,

185 Grob-Fitzgibbon, B. (2005), What is Terrorism? Redefining a Phenomenon in Time ofWar, Peace & Change, vol. 30, no. 2, p. 237.186 Horgan, J. & Boyle, M. J. (2008), op. cit., p. 57.187 Booth, K. (2008), op. cit., p. 67.188 Sproat, P. A. (1991), Can the state be terrorist?, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism , vol. 14, no.1, p. 20.189 Bowden, B. (2009), op. cit., p. 5.190 Saul, R. (2005), Attempts to Define Terrorism in International Law, NetherlandsInternational Law Review, vol. 52, no. 1, p. 58.191 Whittaker, D. J. (2007),The Terrorism Reader , 3rd edition, London and New York, Routledge,pp. 290-291.


31/88

31

there are plentyof terrorisms definitions, even in each state, incorporated inthe various antiterrorist laws and national legislations, and also in thefoundational statements of the different states agencies. However, the

occurred diversity of formal definitions, even between the agencies of onestate is remarkable. Thus, albeit the common features that the most formaldefinitions share192, there is a tendency in every agency to employ adefinition that reflects its own priorities and parameters. 193 Moreover, thisthorny situation has been even more complicated by the observed expansionof the definition of terrorism after the 9/11 in USA and EU, which brought awhole array of unrelated issues under a terrorist characterization194.

In addition to that, there are a number of other reasons as well which hinderan agreement on a definition. At first, terrorism is habitually used to describea range of different forms of violence, from common crimes to other forms ofpolitical violence, such as guerrilla warfare and freedom fighting. Thedifferentiation of terrorism from the last two types of political violence hasbeen a major hindrance, given that has been the main point of dissent in theinternational fora and that terrorism has been integral to many conflicts,where insurgents, freedom fighters or terrorists use to employ sometimes thesame tactics195. However, terrorism and freedom fighting refer to disparatethings, as terrorism refers to a method of struggle and freedom fighting to acause; subsequently handling the two terms as mutually exclusive is alogical fallacy, whereas a person or a group can be both196. What is more,

192 Martin, G. (2006),Understanding terrorism: challenges, perspectives, and issues , 2nd edition,London, Sage, p. 47.193 Bowden, B. (2009), op. cit., p. 4. See also Dunn, E. W. Moore, M. Nosek, B. A. (2005),The War of the Words: How linguistic Differences in Reporting Shape Perceptions ofTerrorism, Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 67-86.194 Fekete, L. (2004), Anti -Muslim Racismand the European Security State, Race &Class, vol.46, no. 1, p. 6.195 Stepanova, E. (2008), op. cit., p. 1.196 In other words, some insurgent groups are both terrorists and freedom fighters, some areeither one or the other, and some are neither, , in Merari, A. (2007), Terrorism as a Strategyof Insurgency, in Chaliand, G. & Blin, A. (eds.), The history of terrorism: from antiquity to alQaeda, London, University of California Press, p. 27.


32/88

32

nowadays can be noticed a stretching of the term, in order to include

disparate phenomena, which may not even involve the use or threat ofviolence, such as cyber -terrorism 197. Moreover, the use of the word in the

most of the cases as a disapproving label or as something that ones enemiesonly commit is another decisive impediment198. Apart from this, if onlysomeone combines also the (ab)use of the term by contemporary mass mediaand other powerful actors, especially duringthe period of the war onterrorism, can understand the co nvoluted nature of the problem. Indeed, inthe present erathat, on the words of Der Derian, has now been defined byterrorism199, the latter can be realized as the Foucaultian pistm of ourtimes 200, a meta-issue201, an influential cultural phenomenon and also as apowerful signifier202.

In fact, its fundamentally and inherently political 203 nature along with thediscursive construction of reality and security, as I have already contended,determine the social constructed nature of terrorism as well. Besides, as statedby Schmid and Jongman, the nature of terrorism is not inherent in the

197 Weinberg, L. Pedazhur, A. Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2004), op. cit., p. 779. Indeed, accordingto Hoffman, virtually any especially abhorrent act of violence that is perceived as directedagainst society ... is often labelledterrorism, cited in Grob-Fitzgibbon, B. (2005), op. cit., p.235.198 The danger inherent in the normative definition is that it verges on the polemical. Ifterrorist is what one calls ones opponent (regardless of whether or not ones friend is afreedom fighter), then the word is more of an epithet or a debating stratagem than a labelthat enables all who read it, whatever their ideological affiliation, to know what terrorism isand what is not, in Crenshaw, M. (1983), Introduction: Reflections on the Effects ofTerrorism, in Crenshaw, M. (ed.), Terrorism, Legitimacy, and Power: The consequences of PoliticalViolence, Middletown, Connecticut, Wesleyan University Press, p. 2.199 Der Derian, J. (2005), Imaging terror: logos, pathos and ethos, Third World Quarterly , vol.26, no. 1, p. 26.200 Indeed, as Zulaika and Douglas claim, terrorism has become the epistemologicalgatekeeper that determines which ideas are allowed currency and what sciences may beconstituted, in Zulaika, J. & Douglas, W. A. (2008), op. cit., p. 29.201 In the sense that is often regarded as a phenomenon that can be the cause of manyproblems, a symbol of threat and danger in the appliance of meta-politics. See Faist, Th.(2002), op. cit., p. 12.202 Breen Smyth, M. Gunning, J. Jackson, R. Kassimeris, G. Robinson, P. (2008), op. cit.,

p. 1.203 Hoffman, B. (2006),Inside terrorism, Revised and expanded edition, New York, ColumbiaUniversity Press, p. 2.


33/88

33

violent act itself[thus] one and the same actcan be terrorist or not,depending on intention and circumstance. 204 Therefore, terrorism is a socialfact decided through symbolic labelling, social agreement

andintersubjective practices 205. Likewise, terrorism is produced andreproduced through terrorism discourse, meaning that different discoursesformulate different definitions of terrorism206; something that Burkesuccessfully named the radical instability of the unifying master -terms of[the] field: terror and terrorism. 207 Actually, that can be clearlydemonstrated through a genealogical exploration of the notion over the pasttwo hundred years, during which the notion changed radically from the

regime of terror of the French Revolution and the revolutionary movementsin the end of the 19th century, to the positive concept of the liberationstruggles and the sub-state terrorism of today. That is why, Hoffmanmaintained thatas the meaning and usage of the word have changed overtime to accommodate the political vernacular and discourse of each successiveera, terrorism has proved increasingly elusive to define. 208 In this sense,terrorism is a creature of its own time and place 209, bound with the social,cultural and political context in which is generated210.

Notwithstanding, after that critical reflection of the debate of the designationof terrorism, I have to propose a working definition, in order to promotefurther the causes of this essay. Thus, taking into consideration the

204 Schmid, A. & Jongman, A. (1988),Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors,Concepts, Databases, Theories and Literature, Oxford: North Holland, p. 101.205 Jackson, R. (2009), op. cit., p. 172.206 Hlsse, R. & Spencer, A. (2008), The Metaphor of Terror: Terrorism Studies and theConstructivist Turn, Security Dialogue, vol. 39, no. 6, p. 571.207 Burke, A. (2008), The end of terrorism studies, Critical Studies on Terrorism , vol. 1, no. 1,p. 38.208 Hoffman, B. (2006), op. cit., p. 20.209 Oliverio, A. & Lauderdale, P. (2005), Terrorism as Deviance or Social Control: Suggestionsfor Future Research, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, vol. 46, no. 1-2, p. 164.210

Like all political phenomena, terrorism is defined by the duality between professed ideasand their implementation. And, like all p

The Role of Discourse in the Social Construction of Security and Terrorism Deconstructing the War on...

Documents

Transcript of The Role of Discourse in the Social Construction of Security and Terrorism Deconstructing the War on...