Identifying terrorism: definitions, characteristics, and classifications

Terrorism

The Schwartz, Dunkel & Waterman (2009) identity theory model of terrorism has merits. However, it also presents problems that can hinder understanding of the terrorism phenomenon. The primary problem with Schwartz, Dunkel & Waterman's (2009) assessment of terrorism as a function of personal, social, and cultural identity variables is that the variables used to predict terrorism also exist in a non-terrorist framework. Collectivist societies often promote strong in-group/out-group binaries, and those binaries foment a "foreclosed and authoritarian" sense of personal identity. These cultural and social variables are not necessarily rare in the world, but terrorism is rare -- which seems to disprove the generalizability of the theory (Schwartz, Dunkel & Waterman, 2009, p. 537).

A second problem with the Schwartz, Dunkel, & Waterman (2009) argument is that the authors define terrorism too narrowly. Schwartz, Dunkel & Waterman (2009) offer a two-part definition of terrorism that is crafted to meet the criteria of their argument, thereby creating an unfortunate logical fallacy that shatters the internal validity of the report.

The first part of the author's definition of terrorism is that terrorism constitutes acts "carried out by native insurgent groups as part of a religious and/or ethnic conflict within a nation," (p. 538). The second part of the definition is that terrorism may be "carried out by international groups seeking to influence the outcome of such conflicts or to wage their own terror campaigns for the purpose of influencing geopolitical conditions more broadly," (Schwartz, Dunkel & Waterman, 2009, p. 538). The latter part of the definition neatly permits Al Qaeda to fit the scheme. The former part of the definition allows the authors to analyze the Chechens, the Basques, and the Tamils within the context of terrorism. What the authors miss is the opportunity to also discuss the potent forms of domestic terrorism that bypass either of these two definitions. In the United States, especially, domestic terrorism transcends ethnic cleavages. The authors do not make any attempt to show how the personal, social, and cultural identity model can explain that type of terrorism.

2. Of the types of identity that Schwartz, Dunkel & Waterman (2009) discuss, the most important to the exploitation of weaknesses in terrorist organizations is a social identity variable. Specifically, the authors find that "the belief hat there either is an ongoing or imminent threat to the survival of the ingroup or to the political rights of its members, or a history of persecution at the hands of the outgroup," (p. 546). Interestingly, this very same variable can be applied to Israel and not to Hamas, given that Israel's national security policy is built on the belief of ongoing threat to the country's survival. A closer analysis of Israel from the other side of the lens would show, however, that Israelis do not develop the other conditions (such as personal identity factors) that would qualify as terrorism.