How new is the New Terrorism?
> This article aims to challenge the dominant view that the expressions of terrorism since the last
decade of the twentieth century are fundamentally new
New terrorism has been frequently used but questioned by few.
> ‘new’ can signify that phenomenon has not been witnessed before
> “new” can rightly be applied when it concerns seen-before phenomena but an unknown
perspective or interpretation is developed (earth is round)
While the label new has not been hotly debated in regard to terrorism, the concept of terrorism itself
has. Elements of terrorism were violence, political and fear or terror as researched by Schmid.
> the term should be judged from the perspective of the beholder (one man’s terrorist is another
man’s freedom fighter)
> new terrorism is supposed to have started in the 1990s and is often marked by 9/11
The study of terrorism
The academic interest in the subject only seriously took off in the early 1970s
> Social science: psychological explanations
- Relative Deprivation Theory (frustration about societal position and deprivation of chances
makes individuals turn to violence (in combination with ideology)) → lot of criticism
- Terrorists operate mostly in small groups but there is no evidence of terrorist personality
- Many attempts to make a terrorist profile and study effects of terrorism
> Political science: mostly aims of terrorist movements
- also focus on distinction between state and non-state actors
- Apart from divisions into left-wing and right-wing terrorism, nationalist, separatist,
irredentist, ethnic, and religious motivations have been offered as explanations for terrorism
- approach characterized by eclecticism
> Historical research: history of terrorism
- doubt about the usefulness of the study of terrorism’s history → led to a state of affairs in
which a thorough study of the history of modern terrorism is completely lacking
- there exist encyclopaedias, historical anthologies, map development of terrorism → all
studies lack critical analyses.
- Several problems with literature on terrorism:
1. little building on previous work in the field
2. strong temptation to predict the future
The research agenda
> attacks of 11 September 2001 rise to literature trying to understand → attacks qualified as ‘new’
> New terrorism supposedly new because:
- perpetrators act transnationally and operate in loosely organized networks
- they are inspired by religion and are seen as fanatics
- they seek weapons to attack as many people as possible
- their victims are not selected but their targeting is indiscriminate
> This article aims to challenge the dominant view that the expressions of terrorism since the last
decade of the twentieth century are fundamentally new
New terrorism has been frequently used but questioned by few.
> ‘new’ can signify that phenomenon has not been witnessed before
> “new” can rightly be applied when it concerns seen-before phenomena but an unknown
perspective or interpretation is developed (earth is round)
While the label new has not been hotly debated in regard to terrorism, the concept of terrorism itself
has. Elements of terrorism were violence, political and fear or terror as researched by Schmid.
> the term should be judged from the perspective of the beholder (one man’s terrorist is another
man’s freedom fighter)
> new terrorism is supposed to have started in the 1990s and is often marked by 9/11
The study of terrorism
The academic interest in the subject only seriously took off in the early 1970s
> Social science: psychological explanations
- Relative Deprivation Theory (frustration about societal position and deprivation of chances
makes individuals turn to violence (in combination with ideology)) → lot of criticism
- Terrorists operate mostly in small groups but there is no evidence of terrorist personality
- Many attempts to make a terrorist profile and study effects of terrorism
> Political science: mostly aims of terrorist movements
- also focus on distinction between state and non-state actors
- Apart from divisions into left-wing and right-wing terrorism, nationalist, separatist,
irredentist, ethnic, and religious motivations have been offered as explanations for terrorism
- approach characterized by eclecticism
> Historical research: history of terrorism
- doubt about the usefulness of the study of terrorism’s history → led to a state of affairs in
which a thorough study of the history of modern terrorism is completely lacking
- there exist encyclopaedias, historical anthologies, map development of terrorism → all
studies lack critical analyses.
- Several problems with literature on terrorism:
1. little building on previous work in the field
2. strong temptation to predict the future
The research agenda
> attacks of 11 September 2001 rise to literature trying to understand → attacks qualified as ‘new’
> New terrorism supposedly new because:
- perpetrators act transnationally and operate in loosely organized networks
- they are inspired by religion and are seen as fanatics
- they seek weapons to attack as many people as possible
- their victims are not selected but their targeting is indiscriminate
