Terrorism and Policy Relevance

Critical Perspectives

James Fitzgerald, Nadya Ali, Megan Armstrong

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780367142209
• eBook ISBN: 9781351716574
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

This book explores the interrelationship between terrorism and policy relevance from a range of critical perspectives. In particular, it questions the politics of policy-relevance; that is, it interrogates how epistemological and practical pressures to produce "policy-relevant" research shapes prevalent understandings of (counter)terrorism, and vice-versa.

It also reflects on Critical Terrorism Studies' (CTS) relationship to policy-relevance. Should CTS eschew engagement with policy-relevance and maintain a position outside the orthodoxy, or are CTS scholars uniquely positioned to offer meaningful alternatives to contemporary counterterrorism practices? Read thus, the question of policy relevance is central to CTS' identity and represents an essential juncture as to how associated scholarship might develop into the future.

INTRODUCTION

Editors’ introduction: critical terrorism studies: reflections on policy-relevance and disciplinarity

James Fitzgerald^a, Nadya Ali^b Megan Armstrong^c

^aSchool of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland; ^bDepartment of Politics and International Relations, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom; ^cSchool of Geography, Politics, and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

The articles in this special issue are drawn from papers presented at a workshop entitled “10 Years of Critical Terrorism Studies” and a conference entitled “Critical Terrorism Studies and Policy Relevance: Beyond Critique”. The workshop and conference were organised by the Critical Studies on Terrorism Working Group of the British International Studies Association (BISA) and were held at the BISA Annual Conference in London on 15 June 2015 and the University of Leeds from 3 to 4 September 2015, respectively. The events aimed to explore the interrelationship between Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS) and policy-relevance, with particular regard to how it shapes and challenges the very disciplinarity of CTS. These events also aimed to explore the practicalities of engaging with/learning from practitioners, while questioning the normative and ethical consequences of choosing to engage or resist orthodox parameters of policy-making and/or creating alternative spaces for engagement. The articles in this issue reflect those aims.

Introduction: critical terrorism studies and the precariousness of policy-relevance

Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS) has always had a complex relationship with “policy-relevance”. On the one hand, scholarship that is “policy-relevant” is typically derived from orthodox social science – which prioritises causal explanations of social and political phenomena – making the absorption of reflexive perspectives into elite levels of policy-making markedly difficult (see Lau 2010; Anderson 2003). Similarly, the production of policy-relevant research is often associated with an unhealthy proximity to the state, making it difficult to maintain critical distance from the structures of power that help to reify terrorism as a very particular type of threat (while foreclosing alternative conceptions of terrorism and counterterrorism that challenge the status quo; see, for example, Raphael 2009). Read thus, policy-relevance lies at the heart of the very problem-solving logic of mainstream terrorism research that distinguishes CTS as an alternative field of study, and is central to its disciplinarity. If, as Jarvis argues, it is a “common ambition towards policy-relevant research…that [has opened] considerable space for the emergence of a critical terrorism agenda” (2009, 13) how, then, can CTS positively embrace policy-relevance without sacrificing constitutive tenets of its own identity?

On the other hand, one finds that aspirations towards policy-relevance have been explicitly written into the foundations of CTS. Making the case for CTS, Gunning argues that the field should seek to “maximize [its] inclusiveness and, importantly, its policy-relevance” (2007, 365), while Jackson, Breen-Smyth, and Gunning submit that “CTS scholars will need to think through the practicalities, ethics, and modalities of negotiating the delicate balance between normatively-oriented independent scholarship… and the demands of being ‘policy relevant’” (2009b, 235). This dilemma is clearly at play in Harmonie Toros’ discussion piece (this issue), in which she reflects on her engagements with “the experts CTS has warned me about” and argues that if CTS scholars are truly committed to the notion of dialogue, then it is necessary to talk to state actors (as well as terrorists), despite the clear discomfort that such experiences may bring. If a CTS understanding of emancipation is truly about “realising the unfulfilled potential of existing structures, freeing individuals from unnecessary structural constraints, and the democratisation of the public sphere” (Jackson, Breen-Smyth, and Gunning 2009b, 224), then one may well argue that Toros’ engagement with policy-makers serves as a practical template for effective emancipatory praxis.

Richard Jackson is less hopeful on this front, however. He argues that the realm of counterterrorism policy has become so deeply embedded into a milieu of global suffering, it is, today, the very antithesis of emancipation. As such, critical scholars’ engagements with elite policy-makers associated with counterterrorism will likely serve to further legitimise and perpetuate the system, rather than contribute to its potential downfall (Jackson, this issue). For Jackson, the energy of critical scholars would be better spent on developing and enacting a “resistance studies” framework for emancipatory action, which would “reorient our academic research and practice towards the powerless, the oppressed, the subaltern, the more numerous victims of counterterrorism and state terrorism – rather than towards the powerful, the influential, the state.” Read alongside Toros, Jackson’s call elicits a powerful dilemma when it comes to CTS and policy-relevance: engage, or circumvent (the irony of which cannot be lost on scholars of terrorism and political violence).

Perhaps it is naïve, however, to assume that the choice of whether to be policy-relevant (or not) really exists in such stark terms (or at least, as it has been presented to this point), as myriad other factors must also be considered. First, there is the potential cost of not producing (or being seen to produce) policy-relevant work. Here, one must countenance the prevailing research environment in which academics are falling under increasing pressure to demonstrate the societal impact of their work which in the social sciences, is heavily tied to demonstrating policy-relevance (see, for example, Kenny 2015). Studies such as that by Hicks (2012) suggest that the rise in performance-based research funding systems, while predicated on sparking dynamic research output, may actually constrain diversity and autonomy, thus producing an ever-more crystalised gold standard of legitimate scholarship.

The dilemma for critical scholars within the realm of international affairs is that when it comes to International Relations, Security Studies and Terrorism Studies, the blueprint for this gold standard already exists. Its basis lies in the policy-orientated origins of those fields, before their respective “critical turns” helped to accelerate a widening gap between theory and practice, and before the positivist orthodoxies so definitive of policy-relevant work could be programmatically challenged (see Hoffmann 1977; Anderson 2003; Buzan and Hansen 2009; Stampnitzky 2013). From this perspective, critical scholarship is not only misguided, but actively chips away at the potential for a more unified scientific field to attract substantial research funding. To provide an example of this dynamic at play, when one examines the current debate around the US’ Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology (FIRST) Act (HR 4186) – which seeks to apportion funding for the social sciences according to projects’ specific relevance to national security – one is struck by the almost total absence of space for critical approaches to make their claim to an annual funding pot of $7.4 billion (see Jaschik 2013; Stratford 2014a, 2014b). Scholars familiar with contemporary funding landscapes may well attest that this is but one example among many. The opportunity costs are staggering.

Second, critical scholars find themselves having to navigate increasingly constrictive spaces for the free articulation of potentially “radical” perspectives. At the time of writing, Turkey has detained (and released) 27 academics after they signed a petition calling for an end to Turkey’s “deliberate massacre and deportation of Kurdish people” (Weaver 2016). According to the Doğan news agency, all 1128 Turkish signatories of the petition are under investigation and if convicted, face between one and five years in prison over what the state has labelled “terror propaganda” (Weaver 2016). Other cases of state-led crackdowns on academic expression have also been reported in China (see Huang 2013) and Egypt (see Aboubakr 2014), to provide but two examples. Under the Counter-terrorism and Security Act (CTS) 2015, academics in the more (neo-?)liberal UK now find themselves under a statutory duty to patrol university spaces for the articulation of radical perspectives which could be linked to eventual violent extremism.

With public servants, such as prison officers, nurses and teachers falling under the same duty, the all-too-predictable consequences of this policy appear to be already impacting on the lives of the innocent. These include Mohammed Umar Farooq, who was falsely accused of being a terrorist having been spotted reading a textbook entitled Terrorism Studies in the Staffordshire University library (see Ramesh and Halliday 2015); and the un-named 14-year-old Muslim boy who was questioned about his affiliation with ISIS (by a child protection officer) after mentioning the term “ecoterrorist” during a class discussion centred on those who use violence to protect the planet (see Dodd 2015). The CTS Act surely represents the sum of many fears among critical terrorism scholars, who have spent years critiquing the government’s Prevent strategy only to see it reinforced and enacted into law (see, for example, Baker-Beall, Heath-Kelly, and Jarvis 2014; Heath-Kelly 2013; Martin 2014). Is this a de facto indictment of the ineffectiveness of critical scholarship with regard to counterterrorism policy-making at the highest level? In an environment increasingly constrictive of radical thought – both with regard to the making of policy and the effects of its enactment – how do such structural constraints affect scholars’ ability to effectively follow Toros’ template of engagement or, indeed, Jackson’s path of resistance?

Finally, the malleable nature of policy-relevance itself must also be considered. To take a broadly critical perspective, policy-relevance is sustained by complex dynamics of power; it is therefore susceptible to constant deconstruction and conceptual reconfiguration. Hence, although a basic template of “policy-relevance” already exists – and is typically sustained by embedded notions of proximity to the state and other powerful actors, as well as an orthodox social scientific onto-epistemology – critical scholarship is in a unique position to challenge these parameters and offer alternative conceptions of policy-relevance.

In the first of two interviews for this special issue, Maarten van de Donk of the EU-funded Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) concedes that it is often extremely difficult to ascertain the degree of influence that particular research can have at a policy level, even if it is explicitly tailored towards this purpose. In the proceeding interview, Alyas Karmani – a frontline practitioner who works with young people at risk of violent extremism – argues that the prevailing policy environment tends to overlook the unique bottom-up perspectives offered by those who operate at the coalface of “radicalisation”. Taken together, these interviews both suggest and confirm a marked disconnect between a demand and supply economy of policy-relevance. Hence, the inductive recommendations of Karmani – such as, that we need to (re-)evaluate the mental health of at-risk individuals who have engaged in violent extremism; and that “radical speakers” can actually serve as useful tools for the effective prevention of violent extremism – may seem distinctly at odds with what policy-makers are seeking. But perhaps that is the point: without the presentation of meaningful alternatives that push the boundaries of current counterterrorism practice(s), significant change cannot be realised. Read thus, the articulation of radical perspectives on policy-relevance may be precisely what is required, with CTS uniquely positioned to facilitate such narratives. This is precisely what this special issue sets out to achieve, and does so across three themes.

Policy-relevance and disciplinarity

As discussed above, a key part of this special issue involves a debate between Richard Jackson and Harmonie Toros, both of whom have been instrumental in establishing the CTS project. At the heart of this discussion is whether CTS scholars, with their normative commitments to ideas like critique, emancipation and human security should engage with the state on matters of security policy. This conversation unfolds within the political context of the War on Terror where abuses by the state in the Global South and Global North have been well documented (Blakeley 2009; Poynting and Whyte 2012). Furthermore, CTS has also produced trenchant critiques of the role of academics in reproducing state discourses on political violence and legitimising the expansion of ever-growing counterterrorism regimes in Western states and in foreign theatres of conflict (Jackson, Breen-Smyth, and Gunning 2009a). As stated previously, while Jackson and Toros share in these critiques of state violence and academics in reifying it, they diverge on how CTS can and should respond. This difference can be explained by their competing conceptions of what constitutes praxis, which forms a definitive theme for this special issue.

For Jackson, the time for attempting to work with the state to tackle issues of political violence has passed, if indeed it ever existed. The “deeply anti-emancipatory, anti-human, and regressive” abuses of the War on Terror are too great for critically minded scholars to overlook. In this respect, being “critical” demands an adherence to the type of praxis which upholds values of emancipation and creating change through principled opposition. In other words, it excludes working with state actors and lending them expertise and credibility. He argues working with the state to make small localised improvements within an overarching system of oppression is counter-productive as this will only serve further legitimise further coercion. In contrast, Toros claims that praxis should not be equated with a reductive understanding of policy-relevance where academics abandon their criticality in favour of professional advancement. Instead, her view is that CTS should work with the state in the pursuit of emancipation because they are not unitary actors but contain both “emancipatory and counter-emancipatory agendas”. Moreover, the heterogeneity of state actors, some of whom may have emancipatory agendas can be exploited to bring about wider political change. For Toros, engaging with violent political actors, be they state or non-state, is essential to having a dialogue that can transform their practices and encourage peaceful settlements.

Thus, Jackson argues for an “epistemic reorientation” of the discipline through which state violence can be met with a brutal and consistent critique. He claims, CTS scholars cannot “speak truth to power” as states are fully aware of what they do but that researchers should focus on resisting these structures. This approach would enable those in the field to consider “how our research could be useful to social movements, human rights groups, protestors, oppressed groups, and humanity at large.” Political change therefore emanates from the bottom-up. Conversely, Toros advances an ethos of “discomfort” where working alongside state actors, though complicated and potentially problematic, is nonetheless essential in working towards emancipation. Where does this leave CTS scholarship? Other contributions in this special issue seek to address some of these very questions. What kinds of actors should CTS scholars be engaging with and to what political end? What is currently missing from CTS research? What other areas of political, public and social life contain possibilities of dialogue or resistance precluded by the tendency to focus on state actions and policy? The conversation between Jackson and Toros establishes a useful polemic in which to situate such inquiries.

Victims, practitioners, policies

In this theme, the interview with Maarten van de Donk of the EU-funded Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) – an EU-wide umbrella network of practitioners engaged to prevent and counter radicalisation to violent extremism – provides insight into the contemporary landscape of preventive policy-making in Europe. As a policy-practitioner, van de Donk focuses on the positive capacity of knowledge-exchange networks to enhance policy-makers’ understanding(s) of radicalisation, suggesting an environment whereby – as also intimated by Karmani – policy-makers are becoming more attuned to the need for a change in approach (although whether this manifests itself in concrete political action remains to be seen). Van de Donk provides an “insider’s” perspective on a number of important t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• 1 Editors’ introduction: critical terrorism studies: reflections on policy-relevance and disciplinarity
• 2 Critical terrorism studies, victimisation, and policy relevance: compromising politics or challenging hegemony?
• 3 Terror from behind the keyboard: conceptualising faceless detractors and guarantors of security in cyberspace
• 4 “Read it in the papers, seen it on TV…”: the 1981 Libyan hit squad scare as a case of simulated terrorism in the United States
• 5 Ask the audience: television, security and Homeland
• 6 Interrogating representations of “militants” and “terrorists” in the United States’ Militant Imagery Project and the Counterterrorism Calendar
• 7 To be or not to be policy relevant? Power, emancipation and resistance in CTS research
• 8 Dialogue, praxis and the state: a response to Richard Jackson
• 9 Counter-radicalisation policy across Europe: an interview with Maarten van de Donk (Radicalisation Awareness Network)
• 10 Frontline perspectives on preventing violent extremism: an interview with Alyas Karmani (STREET UK)
• Index