It is descriptive.

We can define terrorism as “The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.”

The textbook definition doesn’t say anything about Islam.

'If we are to speak of terrorism as a useful term we are making the word something it is not.' Click To Tweet

In recent episodes of his podcast, The Gist, Mike Pesca discussed how we are often now arguing over whether or not to call an act of violence terrorism. Specifically whether or not to call an act of violence which seemed intended to create an emotional response through the suffering of victims with the intention of furthering a political or social agenda as terrorism.

In one in particular, episode 390, Pesca wonders if the term is “becoming useless.” This got me thinking about the word terrorism and its use. What we are trying to say when we use it and what it means when we refuse to use it along the lines of the dictionary, but instead along the lines of an unspoken cultural definition that is radically different.

So I wrote to the show. This is what I argued:

Hi Mike,

I love the show! As I was catching up yesterday, I found a couple of comments over a few shows interesting: you had some trouble with the question of using the term “terrorism” to describe a mass shooting. I could totally understand. I’m pretty well with you.

In your Spiel for episode 390, “The Name Blame Game,” you used a phrase that I found even more interesting. You said that the word terrorism was “becoming useless”. This got me thinking.

The word terrorism shouldn’t be useful

It is descriptive.

In the sense that it’s use is to share an understanding, what you termed “useful” is to me more like “narrowed”. Narrowed by our culture and context to mean a specific religion, type of action, and purpose. Narrowed to mean opponent in a struggle or enemy in a war.

If we are to speak of terrorism as a useful term and to intend some more specific meaning than its classic definition, which included acts of domestic terrorism, we are making the word something it is not. Something more specific than “a radicalized person” and less specific than “fights for ISIS.”

I’m actually not sure that distinction is actually useful. The word soup we are using to try to describe those remnant of al Qaeda, Taliban, and now ISIS fighters is no worse than the word soup of a definition we are using to only define terrorists as some radicalized Middle Eastern Muslims, something lampooned so well a decade ago by Team America.

The problem is not simply the narrow definition of terrorism, but the narrow definition of our conflict. Many of us rejected the “War on Terror” language 13 years ago precisely because it was a definitional word soup. We cannot declare war on an ideology and a universal phenomenon of actions perpetrated by not only radicalized Muslims, but also Christians and Atheists with divergent ideologies, purposes, and contexts. Terrorism isn’t specific: the motives of the terrorists, and what they communicate through terrorising people, however, are far more specific than we’re willing to admit.

Rather than take direct police action against the specific group of terrorists with its adherents (al Qaeda) we wanted to wage a war with a definable enemy that was very particular, but oddly vague at the same time. We needed a term that spoke to all radicalized Muslims, but only the ones we could decide were the right ones so that we could claim our fight was bigger than a police action, but also confined to the limits of a targeted strike against a subhuman threat.

We are now addicted to this narrative, and one that I find far more troubling than whether or not the word “terrorism” is useful. And we have been using the word in a way that distorts its meaning and jingoistically drums up support for a radicalized American response. One that, despite having such a useful term, is ultimately, so poorly defined.

And to my rant about the word terrorism, thanks for listening.

Peace,

Drew

 

I need to be more direct.

The word terrorism does not only mean that Middle Eastern Muslim attempts to hurt Westerners. That’s the cultural redefinition. It seems then that we only made use of the word terrorism when describing radicalized militants who aren’t Americans and resist using the term in its broader ways, much to the chagrin of many linguists. Because it is a useful placeholder for a different word – a word or phrase we don’t actually want to say – because of its ramifications.

To many, the word terrorism is only useful to us as a placeholder.

It is an empty word that sounds like it means something. It is the boogeyman and the rallying cry to perpetual ideological and literal warfare.

We’ve made it this way on purpose. We want to pretend that we are at war without actually being at war. We want to speak euphemistically about a generic enemy rather than actually name specific people as such. For when we do, we are stuck. And the Bush administration didn’t want to only defeat al Qaeda. They wanted to defeat anyone they could call a terrorist – foreign or domestic.

That’s why many are eager to make use of the word terrorism as it is defined.

Because terrorism is like Baskin Robbins: there isn’t only one flavor.

And why speaking to all of those other flavors of terrorism seems to make the word less useful.

Maybe that’s the point, then. Because it is only useful in naming the action: the devastation, the violence, the pain, the destruction. It doesn’t name who the enemy really is. It only highlights how many diverse ideologies can lead to dangerous outcomes; from ISIS to Operation Rescue. It names how important those intentions are to understanding the cause of terror. Why they specifically, have acted in this way.

This is truly the only way the word terrorism, when used properly, can be useful. That it might help us understand our differences and motivations. To understand the individual and specific differences and motivations.

It doesn’t simplify our understanding. It makes it more complicated. But more accurate. More true. And ultimately, the more useful.