Sociology of Terrorism - Abstracts and Full Texts

Sociology of Terrorism - Abstracts and Full Texts

THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM:
WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY?

PURIFICATION AND POWER:
THE PSYCHO-POLITICAL ROOTS OF RELIGIOUS TERRORISM
Richard E. Rubenstein
Invited Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, June 2002, Chicago, Illinois. ABSTRACT
In the wake of terrorist attacks, the victims of terrorist violence tend to portray their adversaries’ activities as purely expressive – that is, as a form of emotional “acting out” devoid of political rationality. Alternatively, they may portray the attackers as acting instrumentally, but within the framework of a political or religious ideology that is utterly alien and divorced from reality. In either case, terrorism is characterized as an incomprehensible destructive activity that implicates the victim only as victim. Moving beyond the “expressive/ instrumental” dichotomy, much modern religious terrorism (like much secular terrorism) can best be understood as the response of groups and individuals to a situation in which (a) they are dominated by expansionist global or regional powers; (b) the opportunities for violent or nonviolent mass resistance are limited; and (c) their oppression is perceived as desecration, demanding purifying action.

Terrorism and Freedom: An Outside View
Luis Rubio, General Director, Center for Research for Development (CIDAC), Mexico City ssrc.org/sept11/essays/rubio.htm
Nothing is more telling about the recent terrorist attacks in the United States than the nature of their targets. The Twin Towers in New York City represented the future, modernity, America’s optimistic outlook of the world and, more recently, of globalization. The terrorist attacks constitute a direct hit against those values, which is the main reason why the whole Western world immediately rallied in support. But that’s not the whole story. Many people around the world outside the traditionally defined Western nations showed profound consternation, but others clearly did not. Many citizens of Third World nations did not jump out in solidarity with America and most of those governments, even when outwardly supportive, were less than wholeheartedly committed to their words.

Terrorism: cloning the enemy
Vincenzo Ruggiero - School of Social Science, Middlesex University, Queensway Enfield, Middlesex EN3 4SF, London, UK
Available online 5 August 2003. - International Journal of the Sociology of Law.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
Article Outline
1. Introduction
2. Epileptics and neophiles
3. Definitional relativism
4. Controversial characteristics
5. Plethoric causes
6. Relational dynamics
7. Animus belli
8. Conclusion
References

How We Can Defeat Terrorism by Reacting to It More Rationally
Suppose we had reacted to 9/11 as we did to last September's auto deaths. That wouldn't have lessened the destroyed property, lost lives and livelihoods, and personal bereavement of family and associates of the WTC victims. But no billions would have been needed to prop up airlines. Local charities wouldn't have suffered as donations were redirected to New York City. Congress might have enacted prescription drug benefits, as it was poised to do before 9/11. Battalions of National Guardsmen needn't have left their jobs to provide a visible "presence" in airports. The nation might not have slipped into recession, with resulting losses to businesses, workers, and consumers alike. And the FBI might still be focusing on rampant white-collar crime (think Enron) rather than on terrorism. While some modest measures (e.g., strengthening cockpit doors) were easy to implement, may have inhibited some "copycat" crimes, and may even lessen future terrorism, we believe that much of the expensive effort is ineffective, too costly to sustain, or wholly irrelevant. - csicop.org/si/2002-09/9-11.html

State Terrorism and Counterterrorism (PDF)
Paper Number 2002/3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) Melbourne
Canberra Department of Philosophy - GPO Box A260
philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/cappe/working_papers/Primorat.pdf

Defend Politics Against Terrorism
Peter Alexander Meyers, Chercheur Associé of the Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale (EHESS, Paris); Maître de Conférences at the Université de Lille. - ssrc.org/sept11/essays/meyers.htm
Each season of popular discussion has its special topics. “Certainty” is again in fashion. The way has been paved by more than a generation of contest about “relativism,” “social construction,” and “multiculturalism.” We are barely through with the Sokal Affair. Now, following the attacks of September 11, our screens, pages, and airwaves are again filled with demands for unimpeachable knowledge, and overheated by those who pretend to offer it. “It’s time now to tell the truth” writes Thomas Friedman in the New York Times. “Has there ever been a time when the distinction between good and evil was more clear?” writes Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. One need not accept the nonsense offered to understand the impulse to seek certainty.1 Certainty is not an abstract concern. It is closely related to the desire for security. In times of particular insecurity, people reassess their knowledge in light of their projects and purposes.

Terrorism and Cosmopolitanism
Daniele Archibugi, Technological Director, Italian National Research Council
ssrc.org/sept11/essays/archibugi.htm
The fall of the Berlin Wall was a symbolic event that raised hopes for a more united world, founded on the values of international legality and democracy. The idea was put forward that, at last, human rights would be respected planet-wide and that violent conflict would gradually disappear. In just over a decade, many such hopes have been swept away by Realpolitik. In the same decade, we have witnessed the birth of a new generation of civil wars, the resumption of traditional-type wars between states and the birth of humanitarian interventionism under the banner of self-interested charity.

Trading Sites - Destroyed, Revealed, Restored
Daniel Beunza, Stern School of Business, New York University and Center on Organizational Innovation, Columbia University, and David Stark, Russell Sage Foundation, Center on Organizational Innovation, Columbia University and Santa Fe Institute
ssrc.org/sept11/essays/beunza.htm
Abstract: How did companies at the Trade Center respond to the destruction brought about by the attack on September 11th? In this paper we look through the concrete and glass facade of the twin towers into the socio-technical networks of people, machines, and ideas that constituted the trading rooms. We follow the traders of an investment bank adjacent to the Trade Center in their escape away from Ground Zero to a makeshift trading room in New Jersey. We accompany them in their efforts at restoring trading operations, which revealed a socio-technical network of relations, connections, bandwidth politics, and time-critical data normally hidden from view. We support these findings with interview materials from a focus group with heads of technology of major Trade Center companies. Successful recovery, we found, was a combination of planning and spontaneity, of redundancy and self-organization, typical of firms with non-bureaucratic and non-hierarchical forms. With these findings in hand, we visit the debate on the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan, and propose for the district at large the same recipe that worked for the firms: rather than pursue top-down detailed urban planning based on the world of finance that we know today, we propose instead to emphasize lateral ties and promote organizational diversity as a basis for innovation.

Anti-Americanisms, Thick Description, and Collective Action
Jeffrey N. Wasserstrom, Professor of History, University of Indiana
ssrc.org/sept11/essays/wasserstrom.htm
Recent events have shown all too clearly that one form of anti-Americanism, the virulent and apocalyptic version that inspired the terrorists responsible for September 11, can lead to horrors of enormous magnitude. It would be foolish to assume, though, that every time an individual shouts an anti-American slogan or takes part in an anti-American protest he or she is expressing support for these vile acts, or feels the same brand of hatred for everything associated with the U.S. that led to them. Throughout the 1900s, after all, many groups espoused some form of anti-Americanism, yet did not engage in or condone violence of any sort. And within the subset of violent anti-American actions of the past, one finds many examples of demonstrations in which no people were harmed, let alone killed, though a building was defaced or a purely symbolic act of violence was committed, such as the burning of a flag. In addition, many participants in anti-American protests of the last century were motivated by something more specific than a wholesale disdain for all aspects of the culture of the U.S. and contempt for all of its residents. Some objected to particular U.S. economic policies, yet loved Hollywood films. Some were disturbed by what they saw as the McDonaldization of global culture, yet were uninterested in diplomatic issues. Still others were angered by the presence of American troops in their country, but not bothered that U.S. fast food chains had arrived. And so on. History shows, then, that we should not think of a single unified anti-Americanism but rather think in terms of widely varying anti-Americanisms. These are decidedly plural, differing from place to place as well as from group to group within a given place, and susceptible to change over time. And they vary greatly as well in their levels of intensity. Since the vast literature of the social sciences is filled with works that provide tools to help us distinguish between things that seem similar at first glance, we should be able to find some guidance when trying to come to terms with this variation.

Comparison Is Key - New learning is a victory for the human spirit. So is empathy. By Mary Catherine Bateson - The moments when individuals experience a change in perception are moments of opportunity, most especially if we can remember the thoughts and feelings that preceded the shift, and understand the nature of their continuing validity. Comparison is key. When Kennedy was assassinated, most people remembered thinking of him living as a great president, even if only days before they had been ambivalent. Couples that divorce sometimes describe their marriages as having been uniformly unhappy, but usually there was a time in the past that was happy, a time that might be worth remembering. It is useful to have the experience of seeing the same person, situation, or idea in more than one way, since both may be true, or neither. Sometimes yet a third vision may be more useful. - wholeearthmag.com/ArticleBin/446.html

A Human Rights Approach to Sept. 11
Kathryn Sikkink, Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota
ssrc.org/sept11/essays/sikkink.htm
As we try to come to grips with the tragedy of September 11, as individuals and as social scientists, a human rights approach can provide some guidance. A human rights approach always begins with, and has as its essence a concern with individual victims of rights abuses. We turn first to the victims of the September 11 attack and their families and friends. The enormity of the loss of life, and the premeditated nature of the attacks on September 11th justifies calling them a crime against humanity. Murder, when "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population" is a crime against humanity.1 The victims of this crime are entitled not only to our deepest sympathy, but also to justice, either in the our courts or in an international tribunal.