+

Critical Terrorism Studies after 9/11Lee Jarvis, University of East Anglial.jarvis@uea.ac.uk

Paper presented at the 10 Years of Critical Terrorism Studies BISA Workshop, 16 June 2015

+A prehistory of critical terrorism studies (CTS)

At least two relevant precursors: Cold War literature, including:

Work in political economy on state terrorism Anthropological accounts of violent campaigns

Post-9/11: Studies of counter-terrorism language:

E.g. Collins & Glover (2002); Silberstein (2002)

CTS post-9/11: Greater direct engagement with the field of terrorism research Yet, theoretical, methodological and political diversity:

A good thing, in my view

+Five contributions of CTS

Critiquing established assumptions of terrorism research: Static and restrictive conception of terrorism Methodological limitations

Especially a lack of primary empirical research Underpinning politics of terrorism research Purposes of terrorism research:

Policy relevant and problem-solving (e.g. Gunning 2007)

Excavations of (counter-)terrorism discourse: Identity claims therein (e.g. Jackson 2005) Continuity and change across states (e.g. Bentley & Holland 2013) Gendered nature (e.g. Sylvester & Parashar 2009) Significance of claims about time and history (e.g. Fisher 2015) Intertextualities, including with popular culture (e.g. Croft 2006) Reproduction of ‘dominant discourses

In the ‘global South’ (e.g. Bartolucci 2010) And in ‘everyday’ life (e.g. O’Loughlin & Gillespie 2013)

+Five contributions of CTS

Significance of ‘state terrorism’: E.g. Blakeley 2009; Jackson et al 2010

Critical scrutiny of counter-terrorism practice: ‘Suspect communities’ (e.g. Breen Smyth 2009; Ali 2015) Counter-radicalisation policies (e.g. Heath-Kelly, 2013; Ragazzi 2015) Drone strikes (e.g. Aslam 2011)

An alternative framework for studying terrorism: ‘CTS has a particular approach and orientation that marks it out from

much of the orthodox terrorism studies literature in terms of its ontological position, its epistemology, its methodological orientation, its research ethics and praxis, its normative commitment, particularly in regards to emancipation, its reflexivity, and its expanded research foci and priorities’ (Jackson et al 2009b: 227)

+Criticisms and limitations Straw person:

Existence of a ‘mainstream’ terrorism studies is itself questionable

Theoretical and methodological critiques: Often already recognised and addressed

Distracted by name-calling and point-scoring: Unnecessary and counter-productive

Is CTS a distinctive approach or a broad ‘orientation’? Former often connected to Frankfurt School Critical Theory Parallel with Critical Security Studies/critical security studies debates

Understanding and importance of discourse within CTS: Discursive reductionism; Inconsistencies

+ Concluding thoughts Impact of critical terrorism research is already significant

Especially in only 10 years or so

Possible future trends: Growth of multi-disciplinary research Reduced significance of CTS/OTS distinction Far more work from - and on - regions outside of the global North

CTS is likely to differ considerably from its earliest imaginations: A desirable outcome of any living research programme What CTS ‘is’, will be – and should be – up for continuous debate

+Thanks for listening!

Presentation draws on forthcoming chapter in: Richard Jackson (ed.) (2016) Routledge Handbook of Critical

Terrorism Studies. Abingdon: Routledge