High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Journal
of
Contemporary History,
12
(1977),1-42
Interpretations
of
Terrorism:Fact, Fiction and Political Science
Walter Laqueur
Questions
about
what motivates
the
terrorist have been asked for a longtime and
the
answers have varied enormously. This
is
hardly surprising,for terrorism has appeared
in
many different guises and has variedgreatly in character from age
to
age and from country
to
country. Anyexplanation
that attempts
to
account for all
of
its many different manifestations
is
bound
to
be either exceedingly vague
or
altogether wrong.
It
has been said
that
highly idealistic and deeply motivated youngpeople have
opted
for terrorism when they faced unresolved grievancesand when there was no
other
way
of
registering protest and effectingchange. Dostoyevski and many others would hardly have agreed.
It
hasalso been said
that
terrorists are criminals, moral imbeciles, mentallyderanged people or sadists
(or
sado-masochists). Sweeping definitions
of
this kind are bound
to
provoke scepticism. Terrorist movements areusually
youth
movements
of
sorts, and
to
dwell
upon the
idealisticcharacter
of youth
movements
is
only stressing
the
obvious: they are
not
out
for personal gain and
they
always oppose
the
status quo. Butpolitical goals are
not
necessarily wholly altruistic; idealism and interestmay coincide. Nor are personal ambitions absent; terrorists have alsobeen driven by impatience and a kind
of
machismo (or, more recently,its female equivalent). Terrorism has occurred with increasing frequencyin societies
in
which peaceful change
is
possible. Grievances alwaysexist,
but
at
certain times and in certain places major grievances havebeen borne without protest, whereas elsewhere and
at
other timesrelatively minor grievances have resulted in violent reaction. Nor
is
the
choice
of
terrorism as a weapon altogether obvious,
for
frequently thereare
other
ways
of
resistance,
both
political and military.In short,
the
problem
of
terrorism
is
complicated, and what can besaid
without
fear
of
contradiction
about
a terrorist group in one country
1
2
Journal
of
Contemporary History
is
by no means true
of
another group at
other
times and in
other
societies. Love
of
liberty, as well as the ardent love
of
others, wereinvoked
by
sympathetic observers trying
to
explain
the
motives
of the
terrorists during
the
last third
of
the nineteenth century -
'the
last,desperate struggle
of
outraged and exasperated human nature
for
breathing-space and life.'l Emma Goldman
noted
that
the
anarchistterrorists were impelled
to
violence
not
by
the teachings
of
anarchism
but
by the tremendous pressure
of
conditions which made life unbearable
to
their sensitive natures. Compared
to
the wholesale violence
of
capital and government, political acts
of
violence were
but
a drop in
the
ocean: 'Highly strung like a violin string,
the
anarchists weep andmoan for life, so relentless, so cruel, so terribly inhuman. In a desperate
moment the
string breaks.
2
Other contemporary observers interpreted terrorism in a less complimentary light: it was altogether evil, a form
of
madness with perhapsan underlying physical disorder.
It
was
noted that
quite a few
of
theterrorists
of
the period suffered from epilepsy, tuberculosis and otherdiseases. Lombroso saw a connection between
bomb
throwing andpellagra and
other
vitamin deficiencies among
the
maize-eating people
of
southern Europe.
*
Others detected a link with
the
general nervousover-excitement
of
the
period which also manifested itself
by
anexaggerated individualism and
the
spread
of
decadent literature. Theconnection between terrorism and barometric pressure,
moon
phases,alcoholism and droughts was investigated, and cranial measurements
of
terrorists were very much in fashion.
3
It
is
not
true, however,
that
early interpretations of terrorism weremerely hysterical and
that
there were no genuine attempts
to
understand the deeper motives
of
terrorists. Many contemporary observers
took
a remarkably detached view: they said, inter alia,
that
the importance
of
anarchist terrorism should
not
be exaggerated,
that
repressionwas less
important than
prevention and
that
capital punishment was
not
called for.
4
Lombroso had doubts from the beginning
about
theefficacity
of
international cooperation against anarchist terrorism and
·Since
Lombroso, medical-criminological studies have shifted
to
the
neurophysiological basis
of
rage and aggression
as
well as
the
influence
of
heredity. Thisconcerns, in particular,
the
function
of
adrenalin secretion and
the
role
of
endocrinological disturbances,
thyroid
secretion, enzymatic deficiencies causingcerebral hypoglycemia
and the
relationship
between
abnormal showings inelectroencephalography
and
aggressive behaviour. Internal violence generatingfactors seem
to
exist
but
the
evidence
is
inconclusive and
their
relative importanceuncertain.
Laqueur,
Interpretations
of
Terrorism
3
also opposed capital punishment. He argued
that
punishment was noantidote
to
fanaticism. If, as he maintained, terrorism was an indirectform
of
suicide, capital punishment would only encourage
them
to
attain
the
end they desired.sZenker, one
of
the
earliest historians
of
anarchism, suggested
that
all exceptional ('emergency') legislationagainst anarchism should be avoided; it would be far more helpful if
the
state made an
effort
to
redress social inequalities.
But
Zenker was
too
close and objective an observer
to
be satisfied with facile explanations and solutions; he stated expressis verbis
that
anarchist terrorismcould
by
no means be explained
by
pauperism alone.
6
By
the
turn
of
the century anarchism had outgrown its terroristphase,
but
terrorist actions did
not
cease. Compared with
other
manifestations
of
political violence,
they
seemed
to
be
of
minor importanceand this
is
perhaps one
of
the
reasons why no serious
attempt
was made
to
study
the phenomenon. There. were other reasons
too,
such as itsfundamentally shocking and disturbing
character
which may haveinhibited serious study.
7
It
is
also
true
that
early
on
terrorism was perceived as a very complex phenomenon, varying from country
to
country
as
the
result
of
cultural traditions, social structures, political relationships and many
other
factors which made generalization very difficultindeed. One
of the
few attempts
to
give a definition and explanationwas Hardman's entry
in
the
Encyclopaedia
of
the
Social Sciences,
published in
the
1930s.
The author
defined terrorism as
the method
(or
the
theory behind the method) whereby an organized group
or
partysought
to
achieve its avowed aims chiefly through the systematic use
of
violence. Thus terrorism was different in substance
not
only fromgovernmental terror
but
also from mob violence and mass insurrection.Hardman regarded
the
publicity value
of
terrorist acts
as
a cardinal
point
and he noted
that
the
inspiration
of
terrorism could be left-wing
as
well
as
rightist and
that
terrorism had never attained real success as acomplete revolutionary tactic. There were
yet
other
observations
of
hiswhich, although they were perhaps correct
at
the
time, clearly show
the
changes
that
terrorism has undergone in recent times. Thus
the
doctrine
of
indiscriminate terror did
not
yet
exist in
the
1930s: 'Terrorist actsare directed against persons who
as
individuals, agents
or
representatives
ofauthority
interfere with
the
consummation
of
the
objectives
of
sucha group,8 Nor
is
it likely
that
any observer
of
the
terrorist movements
of
the 1960s and 1970s would still subscribe
to
the view
that
'the
terrorist does
not
threaten; death
or
destruction
is
part
of
his programme
of
action'
or
'violence and death are
not
intended
to
produce revenueor
to
terrorize
the
persons attacked.' Books
on
terrorism continued
to
Add a Comment