Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS) has become an increasingly prominent and important part of contemporary debates on political violence. In my view, its contribution is substantial, not least in encouraging us to think more carefully about the nature of terrorism and the purpose of terrorism scholarship. CTS’s achievements include (among other things) documenting how ‘terrorism’ is constructed in various official and ‘everyday’ discursive sites; charting a genealogy of contemporary understandings of terrorism; and forcing attention to traditionally neglected forms of terrorist violence ( often perpetrated by states); Demonstrates that mainstream understandings of terrorism are inherently political, not least because of its gendered and racialized constructions; Encourages a more careful analysis of the threat posed by non-state terrorism, which is often transparent Present to the public through the language of exceptionalism; and conduct sustained criticism of various counter-terrorism practices and acts of violence. Furthermore, much of the earliest work in the field utilized discursive techniques to analyze terrorist rhetoric by privileged actors, whereas both the analytical focus and methodological toolkit of CTS have expanded significantly over the past 20 years, as evidenced by recent important collections a little.
In a new article published in the magazine critical study of terrorism – I’ve tried to take stock of some of the key ways in which CTS has evolved over the past twenty years or so. I do this for two reasons. First, I would like to highlight the diversity that exists in this field and demonstrate or argue that CTS is a broader entity than is sometimes assumed. Although the contributors to this work are all interested in treating (counter-)terrorism critically, they do not (necessarily) share a common understanding of terrorism itself or indeed of what it means to be critical! I argue that CTS encompasses a diverse and growing body of political commitments, conceptual frameworks, methodological tools, and more. And, while diversity has its drawbacks, this heterogeneity is one of the reasons why CTS continues to maintain its relevance in the face of friendly (and sometimes far less friendly!) criticism.
My second broad motivation is to connect diversity in CTS to the important broader context of the “real world” of academia and global politics, and to reflect on the stakes of different visions for the future of CTS. Of particular importance here is an emerging body of broadly sympathetic work that draws real attention to CTS’s own biases, omissions and exclusions, which are often linked to issues of race and colonialism. These efforts raise profound questions about the future viability of CTS—some authors even advocate for its abolition as a broader field of terrorism studies.
In short, my own view is that critical terrorism studies develops around three identifiable phases or ‘waves’. Each wave has its own ambitions, focus, and context, and each wave also tends to draw from different theoretical and normative inspirations. The first wave of CTS emerged after the 9/11 attacks and focused on laying the foundations for new, openly critical approaches to the study of terrorism. As a result, this—— agenda setting – The work focuses on the tasks of critiquing so-called “traditional” terrorism studies, mapping the core conceptual commitments of CTS, and articulating its normative vision. Despite some internal disagreements, particularly over the meaning of “criticism,” in hindsight the first wave of CTS was relatively coherent and did an important job of cleaning up subsequent scholarship in the field.
Second wave of critical terrorism studies builds on earlier work Elaborate The meaning and role of CTS. As the global war on terrorism deepens and new forms of (anti-)terrorism emerge, this wave mobilizes a wide range of energy and brings counterterrorism strategy into new empirical, theoretical and methodological directions. Part of this initiative is a concerted effort to introduce CTS to new students and scholars through textbooks, edited volumes, and special issues. It also incorporates new analysis of hitherto neglected contexts and examples, as well as establishing new interdisciplinary connections with other disciplines or programmes. Important debates in this wave include those surrounding the usefulness of the term “state terrorism” and the extent to which CTS should seek policy relevance. The result of this work – overall – is a truly dynamic, diverse, ambitious work with a real focus on its nuances.
The third wave of critical terrorism studies encompasses more recent scholarship that is generally sympathetic to the ambitions of earlier waves but is also concerned with revealing the limitations and reticences of CTS. Support much of this work – through its efforts problematize – Believe that CTS has not yet fully addressed its own racialization, sexualization, and other roots and inheritance. Because of this, CTS does run the risk of reproducing the forms of violence that earlier waves sought to arrest. So the stakes here are deeply political – perhaps existential – for CTS and it is interesting that this third wave of work returns us to the politics of critique that was so important to the first wave of CTS important.
My understanding of CTS as it evolves in these waves—agenda-setting, articulation, problematization—is certainly somewhat artificial, both because it (necessarily) ignores important work in the field, and because it imposes disparate authors and scholarship boundary consistency. It does, however, help us grapple with the different approaches and ambitions of critical terrorism studies, and the emergence of these studies in particular historical moments. Looking ahead, then, events occurring within and outside academia over the next 20 years may be critical to the future of CTS. Will a third wave of work result in CTS needlessly or politically compromising its future relevance too much? Will broader scholarly developments introduce new technologies, tools, or theories that can be applied to critical terrorism studies? Will the rise or fall of “terrorism” in global politics affect its status within the academy? Will we see a fourth wave of CTS emerge? Of course, at present we can only answer these questions through speculation. My personal hope, however, is that CTS’s past evolution by embracing diversity and internal divisions has given it the tools and appetite to remain resilient and relevant for some time to come.
This article draws on Lee Jarvis’s new article, “Three Waves of Critical Terrorism Studies: Agenda-Setting, Articulation, Problematization,” which was first published critical study of terrorism May 23, 2024.
Further reading on electronic international relations
