Sociology of terrorism
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Part of a series on |
Sociology |
---|
Sociology of terrorism is a field of sociology that seeks to understand terrorism as a social phenomenon. The field defines terrorism, studies why it occurs and evaluates its impacts on society. The sociology of terrorism draws from the fields of political science, history, economics and psychology. The sociology of terrorism differs from critical terrorism studies, emphasizing the social conditions that enable terrorism. It also studies how individuals as well as states respond to such events.
Concept
The sociology of terrorism field views terrorism as a "social construction."[1] Defining terrorism involves interpreting events and determining causes. This definition process and the resulting presentation to the public can manipulate public perceptions and promote certain interests.[1] The field analyzes how people are motivated to engage in collective acts of violence for political change.[2][3] The field states that this type of violence, as a social behavior, relies on communication, shared and competing norms and values, and levels of social and self-restraints.[4] Terrorists are seen to have emerged from societies where radical norms and values proved more influential.[4] The sociological inquiry into these issues is approached on the basis of disciplinary insights in theoretical, methodological, and thematic respects.[5]
History
Pre-September 11 attacks
After the
The most comprehensive study on the definition of terrorism comes from Weinberg, Pedahzur and Hirsch-Hoefler (2004) who examined 73 definitions of terrorism from 55 articles and concluded that terrorism is "a politically motivated tactic involving the threat or use of force or violence in which the pursuit of publicity plays a significant role."[6] However, Weinberg et al. point out that definitions of terrorism often ignore symbolic aspects of terrorism. Sociology has a unique vantage point to assess terror due to its focus on symbolism.
Post-September 11 attacks
Since the September 11 attacks, Mathieu Deflem (
Methods of Study
Researchers have proposed different focus areas to guide the sociological study of terrorism. Much terrorism research focuses on preventing and reacting to terrorism events. Turk and Tosini highlight the importance of defining terrorism.[8] Turk explains that how parties define terrorism impacts a public's understanding of terrorism.[8] It is an intentional choice when a government chooses to call a group a terrorist group. Who is defining terrorism and how they define it is a major focus area in the sociology of terrorism.
Researchers can also study terrorism as communication and socialization. Terrorism as communication focuses on terrorism as an indicator. A group or individual is communicating frustration with policy or an aspect of society.[8] Other researchers focus on how terrorists are socialized. Researchers look to understand the conditions that lead people to opt for terrorist acts.[8]
In the research, whether terrorism is the independent or
Recent Research in the Field
The Public and Terrorism
How society reacts to and understands terrorism is a core research question in the sociology of terrorism. In their article How the Public Defines Terrorism, Huff and Kertzer conducted a conjoint experiment to understand what influences an individual to define an event as terrorism. They found that the type of act (i.e. shooting, bomb), casualties, and background information on the actor had significant influence.
Policing and Citizens
Early peer-reviewed literature after the September 11 attacks examined policing and citizen responses to terror during the September 11 attacks.[11] It also examined interactions between first responders (police, rescue teams, etc.) and communities. Ramirez, Hoopes and Quinlan (2003) rightly predicted that police organizations would change fundamental styles of profiling people[12] and police agencies would alter their mission statements after the September 11 attacks. There is strong reason to believe that even the smallest of local police agencies are apt to feel some kind of pressure to deal with the issue of terrorism.[13]
Some sociologists and legal scholars have contemplated the potential consequences of aggressive (or
Moral Panic
More recent work in the sociology of terrorism field is philosophical and reflective and has focused on issues such as moral panic and over-spending after the September 11 attacks. Costanza and Kilburn (2005), in an article entitled Symbolic Security, Moral Panic and Public Sentiment: Toward a sociology of Counterterrorism argued that the issue of symbolism is of much importance to understanding the war on terror.
Assessing Homeland Security Measures
Despite the
Another methodological problem in the development of sociology of terrorism as a sub-field is one of finding operational measures for key concepts in the study of homeland security.[16] Both terrorism and homeland security are relatively new concepts for social scientists, and academicians have yet to agree on the matter of how to properly conceptualize these ideas.
Three sociological perspectives
Structural functionalism
Functionalism is “the theory that various social institutions and processes in society exists to serve some important (or necessary) function to keep society running.” This sociological perspective draws on the work of sociologists like Émile Durkheim, and gets its name from the idea that the best way to study society is to identify the roles that different aspects of society play.[17] Social deviance, loosely understood, can be taken to mean any "transgression of socially established norms." This can range from the minor–slamming a door in someone's face–to the major–a terrorist act. Thus terrorism is a deviant behavior.[18] Functionalism sees terrorism–which is a form of crime–as a temporary deviation from the normal goings on of society, and is in a way functional to society.[19]
A sociologist that utilizes structural functionalism would explain the existence of any social phenomena by the function they perform. Therefore, terrorism is functional because it joins individuals together in opposition, and brings a sense of belonging to the group opposing it. This feeling of
Theories by Talcott Parsons have also shaped thinking within structural functionalism. Such is the case of one of his students named N. Luhmanns. In Luhmanns' Social System theory, for example, modern society is a textbook example of a functionality differentiated society which has many distinctive sub-systems - which functionally evolved compared to previous historical less differentiated societies (Hunting and Gathering, Agricultural, Horticultural, Pastoral Societies etc.), that were often much smaller and more traditionally based or operated under mechanical forms of social solidarity according to Emile Durkheim. Luhmann carefully describes this evolution of system differentiation in one of his published articles that highlights these three different kinds of differentiation including (1) Segmentation (which is based on "equal-subsystems" and resembles a form of village or settlement in which the environmental conditions themselves are the sources of inequality, but not yet the whole structure of society. (2) Stratification , on the other hand, is clearly made up of "unequal sub-system" or inequality that is based on either rank or status in a stratified system of hierarchy. A good example of a stratified system is feudal society during the Middle Ages in Europe. (3) Functional differentiation , on the other hand, is the most differentiated and the most advanced. An example here is modern advanced industrial societies that have reached social complexity and numerous sub-systems which still multiple and expand compared to the capacities available to both stratified and segmented societies.[20]
Another earlier classical use of functional analysis can also be found when applying Emile Durkheims' classic book on The Division of Labor. In it, the earliest and simplified societies were characterized as being based on mechanical solidarity and ascribed status orientation – whereas, modern societies were based on organic solidarity and achieved status orientation. This rapid transition from mechanical solidarity towards organic solidarity is often seen as something negative among more traditional/ fundamentalist sub-groups who preferred an ascribed oriented (religion, class, race, sex segregated) over an achieved status (individual, merit, performance,) oriented society based on organic solidarity. In short, examples might be forms of religious fundamentalism and the emergence of violent terrorist groups e.g., Boko Haram, ISIS, which are examples of anti-modern counter-movements being unable to fit in this functionally differentiated society which brings about more social complexity, secularization, and individualization. For example, the terrorist group located in Nigeria known as Boko Haram believes girls should not be permitted to go to school and should be forced into a fixed ascribed status rather than an open/achieved status oriented society where all have the same opportunity to school and achieve success regardless of their gender.
Example: Terrorism as egoistic, altruistic or anomic suicidal homicides
An example of utilizing a
Hence, terrorists, like other criminals, become what is known as a reference point; individuals use a reference point as a standard for evaluation. The norms and rules of society become clearer, and are seen as necessary, in comparison to terrorism. In order to protect the status quo, society uses terrorism as a way to reassert the importance of social norms in the lives of individuals. Thus individuals see terrorism as a threat to the social equilibrium and their life in a functioning society.[19] Functionalists believe that social change is required to keep a healthy society. Slow, well-planned, and evolutionary method-types change a healthy society socially. These social changes often come about from a drastic need for change and are preceded by a social shock. Terrorism might be seen as bringing about a social shock that moves society towards a change in direction that enables it to find new ways in which to protect itself however this tenant is faulty since by its very name, terrorism inspires more fear and retrogression, than progressive development or stability.
Conflict theory
Conflict theory is “the idea that conflict between competing interests is the basic, animating force of social change and society in general."[23] A conflict theorist generally sees that the control of conflict equals the ability of one group to suppress the group that they are opposing, and that civil law is a technique of defining and maintaining a social order that benefits some at the expense of others.
Conflict theorists view terrorism as a reaction to injustice, which is probably created in the minds of terrorists due to misguidance, illiteracy, or unrealistic goals, and that violent behaviors expressed by terrorist organizations are the result of individual frustration, aggression or showing a readiness to fight. The majority of terrorist acts are committed by people that are religious. In 83% of the suicide attackers worldwide, between 1980 and 2003, 43% were identifiably religious.[24][25]
Terrorists use violence because they believe that if they did not use violence they would lose a power struggle, which lead many conflict theorists to view it as a weapon of the weak. In
Symbolic interactionism
Symbolic interactionism is “a
Deviance, which terrorism falls under, can be explained by
Social learning theory plays a part in the socialization of terroristic behaviors. Learning theory states that a person becomes deviant because of an abundance of definitions that favor deviant behavior versus definitions that are unfavorable to such behaviors. This theory is broken down into four learning mechanisms: differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation.
The first learning mechanism is differential association, which refers to "direct association and interaction with others who engage in certain kinds of behaviors or express norms, values, and attitudes supportive of such behavior, as well as indirect association and identification with more distant reference groups." The groups that an individual are differentially associated with provides the context in which the social learning is operated. The greater the priority, intensity, duration, and frequency of the differential association the greater the effect on behavior. Hence, the theory in relation to terrorism is that the stronger someone's connection is towards a terrorist organization the better chance that person has of also exhibiting terroristic behaviors.
The second learning mechanism is definitions. Definitions refer to an "individual's own value and belief system about what is and is not acceptable behavior." These values are learned and reinforced through differential association. There are two types of definitions, general definition and specific definition. General definitions include broad beliefs about conformity that are influenced through conventional means and are often influenced by religious or moral values. Specific definitions are seen as those that align an individual with particular acts of crime. The greater the number of definitions the more likely a person will engage in criminal behavior. So the more definitions an individual has that favor terroristic behavior the greater chance that person has of committing a terroristic acts.
The third learning mechanism is
The fourth and final learning mechanism is imitation. "Imitation is the notion that individuals engage in behaviors that they have previously witnessed others doing." The characters being observed, the behaviors that are being witnessed, and the consequences for those behaviors determine how much an individual imitates a behavior. All of these things need to fall into place in order for an individual to imitate a terrorist.[32]
See also
- Sociology of conflict
- Sociology of peace, war, and social conflict
- Critical Terrorism Studies
- Staircase model
References
- ^ ISBN 978-1-58603-754-3.
- ISBN 978-1-59942-938-0.
- ISBN 978-0-7658-0799-1.
- ^ ISBN 9780415572651.
- ISBN 9780415563604.
- ^ Weinberg, Pedahzur and Hirsch-Hoefler 2004
- ^ Cinoglu, Huseyin (2010). "Sociological Understanding of the Relationship Between Terrorism and Religion". International Journal of Human Sciences. 7 (2): 199, 209.
- ^ ISSN 0360-0572.
- S2CID 219645455.
- ^ S2CID 148769688.
- ^ Fischer 2002
- ^ Ramirez, Hoopes and Quinlan 2003
- ^ DeLone 2007
- ^ Costanza and Kilburn 2005
- ^ Kilburn, Costanza, Borgeson and Metchik 2011
- ^ Weinberg et al 1994
- ^ Conley, Dalton (2013). You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist (3 ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 29.
- ^ Conley, Dalton (2013). You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist (3 ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 189.
- ^ a b c d e Cinoglu, H.; Ozeren, S. "Classical Schools of Sociology and Terrorism" (PDF).
- JSTOR 3340510.
- ISBN 0-684-83632-7.
- ^ ISBN 9781435608603.
- ^ Conley, Dalton (2013). You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist (3 ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 30.
- ^ a b c Hartmann, Douglas; Uggen, Christopher (2012). The Contexts Reader (2 ed.). New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
- ^ a b c Brym, Robert (2007). Six Lessons of Suicide Bombers. pp. 22–30.
- ^ Conley, Dalton (2013). You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist (3 ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 31.
- ^ Conley, Dalton (2013). You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist (3 ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 32.
- ^ Cinoglu, Huseyin; Arikan, Yusuf (2012). "Self, identity and identity formation: From the perspectives of three major theories". Uluslararası İnsani Bilimler Dergisi. 9 (2): 1114, 1131.
- ^ Conley, Dalton (2013). You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist (3 ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 206.
- ^ Conley, Dalton (2013). You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist (3 ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 209.
- ^ Conley, Dalton (2013). You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking Like a Sociologist (3 ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 2011.
- S2CID 143691795.