Understanding Terrorism

Building on the Sociological Imagination

Bernard S Phillips

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN:
  9781594513749
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317249832
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Social Sciences

Two fundamental problems within the social sciences are the failure to integrate the existing segments of knowledge and a very limited ability to point out directions for solving social problems, given that lack of integrated knowledge.This volume illustrates the integrated work of seven sociologists to reverse this situation not only for the problem of terrorism but also for any substantive or applied problem. C. Wright Mills in The Sociological Imagination castigated the failure to integrate social science knowledge, and this volume carries forward his efforts to analyze human complexity.To understand and confront terrorism we require not only the integration of social science knowledge bearing on that problem, as illustrated by these authors. We also require the integration of that knowledge with the understanding of those on the front lines in order to connect the dots of specialized basic and applied knowledge, which this volume makes possible.

PART I

Introduction

This volume derives from our conviction that social scientists have largely failed to follow the ideals of the scientific method in their research efforts, granting both good intentions and hard work. Specialization among the social sciences and subspecialization within each of them have yielded bits and pieces of knowledge that do not address the complexity of human behavior. For example, presently there are some forty-four sections of the American Sociological Association whose members only rarely work to integrate all of that knowledge and apply the resulting understanding to any given human situation or problem. Worse, additional specialization within each section has carried such narrowness much further, as illustrated by the 397 review essays in the five-volume Encyclopedia of Sociology (Borgatta and Montgomery 2000), essays generally limited in cross references to other subspecialized areas.

The result of this unwillingness to confront human complexity by following scientific ideals is limited ability to understand threatening social problems like terrorism and provide the knowledge essential for making progress toward solving them. It is we social scientists who have not developed a platform of understanding that can become the basis for effective applied efforts—rather than the politicians who must work with available knowledge—who should take primary responsibility for what appear to be escalating social problems. Instead of hiding within our own narrow group of subspecialists, we must learn to reach out to a much wider range of knowledge and integrate it with what we already know. For in that direction lies not only more effective problem solving but also more profound understanding of human behavior.

Granting our critique of current procedures within the social sciences, this volume emphasizes alternative procedures that we believe follow the ideals of the scientific method and can be applied to the full range of problems defined by social scientists. Ours is not a new kind of scientific method but rather a return to the ideals of the old scientific method, such as an effort to take into account the full range of phenomena relevant to any given defined problem by bringing comprehensive evidence to bear on that problem. Our methodology builds on earlier work within sociology and the philosophy of science—especially C. Wright Mills’s The Sociological Imagination (1959). Mills’s definition of fundamental problems within modern society, his advice “to shuttle between levels of abstraction” of language, and his broad vision of “the sociological imagination” yield an approach to the scientific method that does indeed address human complexity.

Our recent work has been developing for some fifteen years. It is summarized in chapter 1, which also discusses the current nature of the Web and Part/Whole Approach. In this approach, our effort is to guide research practices so that they can be applied effectively to human behavior. Changes in our understanding of that approach over the past seven years—since the formation of the Sociological Imagination Group—have taken place in five areas. Although our overall direction has not changed, we have worked to understand the approach more fully and more systematically. Those five areas are (1) illustrations of how the approach might be used fruitfully throughout the social sciences, including both basic and applied problems; (2) a more systematic understanding of the nature of the approach; (3) a more balanced and clearer view of Mills’s advice “to shuttle between levels of abstraction” of language; (4) a more profound understanding of the role of language in relation to the scientific method; and (5) an initial perspective on the nature and impact of the social scientist’s worldview or metaphysical stance on the research process. However, all of these efforts are only a start in understanding how to develop a scientific method that can in fact yield the rapid cumulative development of our knowledge of human behavior and human problems.

A summary will, of course, not do justice to the work done over a number of years that is the basis for the methodological approach developed in this volume. For further background on the Web and Part/Whole Approach to the scientific method, the reader can examine the Sociological Imagination Group’s Web site: www.sociological-imagination.org. For example, there is the five-page “Evolution Manifesto,” which summarizes past work and future directions; chapter 1 of Phillips’s Beyond Sociology’s Tower of Babel (2001); Harold Kincaid’s chapter 5, “Explaining Inequality,” in a volume edited by Phillips, Kincaid, and Scheff, Toward a Sociological Imagination (2002); Scheff’s chapter 12, the conclusion from his monograph, Goffman Unbound! A New Paradigm for Social Science (2006); Phillips and Louis C. Johnston’s introduction from their monograph The Invisible Crisis of Contemporary Society (2007); David Knottnerus’s paper “Structural Ritualization Theory: Current Research and Future Developments,” presented at the Sociological Imagination Group’s 2005 Philadelphia conference on education; and a short current bio on Mills (Phillips 2005).

This volume is based almost completely on papers given at the fifth annual conference of the Sociological Imagination Group, “The Web Approach to Terrorism: Connecting the Dots,” which took place in San Francisco during the meetings of the American Sociological Association on August 14–16, 2004. None of us considered ourselves an expert on the subject of terrorism. Yet we all believed that our broad approach to the scientific method could yield insights into terrorism that specialists on terrorism had failed to uncover with their narrower methodological orientation. Also, we were convinced that a successful conference and volume could demonstrate the utility of the Web and Part/Whole Approach to the scientific method for addressing not just the problem of terrorism but—potentially—any other basic or applied problem within the social sciences.

Our earlier conferences in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 were given over to exploring the nature of our methodology with no focus on any particular problem. We have come to see that methodology as a work in progress, where progress depends on our ability to demonstrate its effectiveness in achieving insight into specific defined problems, such as that of terrorism. We hope that this volume will encourage other social scientists to try out this methodology on their own problems. If it proves to be inadequate, then it should be revised or abandoned. However, based on our experiences over these past fifteen years, we have come to see this approach as pointing toward what Mills called “the promise of sociology.” We see it as yielding rapid cumulative development of the social sciences at a time in history when understanding of human behavior is urgently needed in the face of escalating and highly threatening problems.

It is in chapter 1 of this volume, “The Web and Part/Whole Approach to Terrorism,” that I describe—in an initial section—the origins of this approach to the scientific method and also bring this methodology up to date. And in a final section, “Applying the Web and Part/Whole Approach to Terrorism, I illustrate the approach by comparing it with recent procedures for analyzing terrorism published in a special issue of the journal Sociological Theory in March 2004. Although there is a considerable degree of overlap between the Web and Part/Whole Approach and traditional methodology within the social sciences, several sharp differences emerge. These differences appear to be sufficient to stand in the way of the cumulative development of our understanding of terrorism. It cannot be emphasized sufficiently that we see our approach not as an alternative to the scientific method but rather as a way of learning how to use the scientific method. For we are convinced that social scientists have as yet only been able to use portions of that method in their work.

Part I, “Understanding Terrorism,” makes no claim other than that it is an initial effort in this direction of such cumulative development. The diverse contributions presented here illustrate the complexity of the phenomenon of terrorism, just as the forty-four Sections of the American Sociological Association illustrate the complexity of human behavior. Yet these chapters are all held together by a common commitment to using the Web and Part/Whole Approach to the scientific method

J. I. (Hans) Bakker’s “Terrorist Organizations and Agency: A Comparative-Historical Approach” employs six illustrations taking place over the past century in different societies to probe the nature of nonstate terrorist organizations—by contrast with an exclusive focus on contemporary Islamic terrorism or on individual terrorists. Bernard Phillips’s “Terrorism as an ‘Ism’: Toward an Interactive versus a Stratified Metaphysics” links terrorism with other isms like racism, sexism, and classism, probing the metaphysical roots that underlie all such isms. Adam Rafalovich’s “Assessing the Fallout of the Terrorist Moment: Anomie and the Fractured American Weltanschauung” looks to the phenomena of anomie and weltanschauung or worldview—coupled with concrete examples of terrorism—to probe the origins of terrorism. Thomas Scheff’s “Runaway Nationalism: Alienation, Shame, and Anger” analyzes the social psychological basis for jingoism, seeing it as fundamental to an understanding of terrorism. Jonathan H. Turner’s “The Social Psychology of Terrorism” opens up to micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis along with a very wide range of literature in responding to the question “Why would individuals be willing to kill citizens of another society and, if necessary, themselves in the name of a cause?” Todd Powell-Williams’s “The Post–September 11 Rhetorical Constructions of Terrorism: Applying the Web and Part/Whole Approach to Make Sense of the ‘Senseless’” argues that administration rhetoric “played a central role in establishing the current perceptions of terrorism held by the U.S. public and policymakers,” illustrated by dehumanization of the enemy and the invocation of fear.

Part III, “Connecting the Dots,” consists of two chapters—by Sandro Segré and myself—aimed at integrating key ideas from the chapters in part II along with chapter 1 in part I. It is this kind of integration of wideranging knowledge around a particular problem that is almost invariably missing from the social science literature. And it is the lack of such integration that we see as a basis for the failure of social scientists to achieve rapid cumulative development of our understanding of human behavior in general and social problems in particular. Yet if biophysical scientists have been successful in achieving such integration and cumulative development by employing the scientific method to biophysical phenomena, there is good reason to believe that social scientists can learn to become equally successful even within the complex arena of human behavior. However, such success requires us to follow the ideals of the scientific method, and it is for exactly this purpose that we have developed the Web and Part/Whole Approach.

Has our approach in fact yielded insights into the forces producing terrorism, into a direction for the rapid cumulative development of our understanding of those forces, and into a path for the rapid cumulative development of our understanding of other social problems as well as human behavior in general? That will be for the reader to assess. Yet there is a larger potential readership outside the academic world that may have much to learn from this volume. This is the readership that C. Wright Mills appealed to in most of his books. If indeed the arguments and evidence presented here about the limitations of traditional social science methodology are correct, then this has broad implications for the rest of us. Just as the social scientist generally departs from the scientific ideal of addressing more and more of the full complexity of any given problem or situation, so do we all follow suit with a narrow view of phenomena. Just as the social scientist generally fails to see the limitations of his or her own ideas, so are we all guilty of such hubris. And just as the social scientist generally remains unaware of the fundamental assumptions, worldview, or metaphysical stance that shapes his or her limitations, so is that worldview also invisible to the rest of us.

More specifically, in a world where social problems appear to be increasing, we cannot afford to wait for social scientists to integrate the bits and pieces of their knowledge and give us a much better basis for confronting those problems. Just as we learn to cross a busy street without thorough analyses of the behavior of every driver, so must we learn to address social and personal problems with limited understanding of their nature. But even with the present limitations of social science knowledge, we may greatly improve our understanding by not being taken in by this specialized bit of knowledge or that one, following the Web and Part/Whole Approach to the scientific method. Instead, that approach can enable us to integrate those bits of knowledge. Thus, we all can learn to open up to a widening range of phenomena in addressing the problems that confront us, just as the social scientist can learn to do the same.

But let there be no mistake. Proceeding very far in this direction appears to require us to challenge our fundamental assumptions or worldview, just as the social scientist must do the same. This might well demand changes that are so enormous as to parallel the change from preindustrial to modern society. And we may have no choice but either to move toward such changes or suffer the fate of civilizations of the past. In the words of Mills, we can all learn to develop a “sociological imagination.” He saw that imagination as “the capacity to shift … from the political to the psychological; from examination of a single family to comparative assessments of the national budgets of the world; from the theological school to the military establishment.” Learning to develop that imagination will require us to learn to use the most powerful problem-solving tool, based on the power of language, which we humans have developed: the scientific method. It is a method that gives us no guarantees. It is also a method that is a work in progress. But it is by far the best tool we have for confronting the incredible complexity of human behavior.

Yet far more than a long-term understanding of the complexity of human behavior is at stake at this time in history. The tragedy of 9/11 is paralleled by a far more subtle tragedy, one that would appear to be far less deadly yet may prove to be far more deadly in the long run: the tragedy of the failure of the social sciences to fulfill the promise of the Enlightenment era to place us on a path toward understanding human behavior. The problem of terrorism is one of many fundamental and intertwined problems that threaten modern society. As stated earlier, it is we social scientists—and not anyone else—who should take primary responsibility for the current failures to address effectively the massive social problems confronting all of us. Our failure to take on that responsibility is well illustrated by our hiding within specialized areas of the social sciences and avoiding efforts to build bridges connecting the bits and pieces of our knowledge. That failure is also well illustrated by our general lack of efforts to communicate with the public at large.

At the risk of being stereotyped as yet another messenger of doom and gloom, I am convinced that the fate of modern society is largely in our hands. Will we choose to continue conducting business as usual? Following Plato’s allegory of the cave, will we prisoners in the cave watching the shadows on the wall in front of us continue to have “praise and honours from each other, and prizes for the man who saw most clearly the shadows that passed before” us? Will we continue with our games of trivial pursuit? Will we continue to fiddle while Rome is burning, waiting for the bombs to fall? Or will we somehow learn to take on our responsibilities as individuals with the best opportunities to understand what is happening in the world? Will we choose the incredibly difficult task of opening up to the possibility that we are largely ignorant of the complexities of human behavior and human problems? Will we proceed, as a result, to learn how to apply the scientific method to human behavior more effectively than ever before?

References

Borgatta, Edgar F., and Rhonda J. V. Montgomery, eds. Encyclopedia of Sociology. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 2000.

Kincaid, Harold. “Explaining Inequality.” In Toward a Sociological Imagination: Bridging Specialized Fields, ed. Bernard Phillips, Harold Kincaid, and Thomas J. Scheff. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002.

Mills, C. Wright. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Phillips, Bernard. Beyond Sociology’s Tower of Babel: Reconstructing the Scientific Method. New York: Aldine Transaction, 2001.

———. “Mills, C(harles) Wright (1916–1962),” Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, Bristol: Thoemmes, 2005.

Phillips, Bernard, Harold Kincaid, and Thomas J. Scheff, eds. Toward a Sociological Imagination: Bridging Specialized Fields. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002.

Phillips, Bernard, and Louis C. Johnston. The Invisible Crisis of Contemporary Society: Reconstructing Sociology’s Fundamental Assumptions. Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm, 2007.

Scheff, Thomas J. Goffman Unbound! A New Paradigm for Social Science. Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2006.

CHAPTER 1

The Web and Part/Whole Approach to Terrorism

Bernard Phillips

In this introductory chapter, I shall begin with a description of what has come to be called “the Web and Part/Whole Approach” to the scientific method. All of the authors within these pages begin with the premise that this approach can help the social scientist to follow the ideals of the scientific method in the analysis of terrorism or any other topic within the social sciences. This approach has been developing over some fifteen years, although its antecedents go far back in history, including analyses of physical phenomena during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Following this description of the Web and Part/Whole Approach to the scientific method, I will apply it to the phenomenon of terrorism. My focus will be on comparing it with the approach taken by the authors of four papers in a recent symposium on terrorism that appeared in the journal Sociological Theory. My purpose is by n...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• PART I INTRODUCTION
• PART II UNDERSTANDING TERRORISM
• PART III CONNECTING THE DOTS
• About the Editor