The Shifting Perspectives of Terrorism

terrorism

Prior to his pursuit of the Joker in The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne is warned by his butler, Alfred, “Be careful, some men just want to watch the world burn.” We must internalize this advice beyond its cinematic purpose, because Alfred’s message can be connected to the much larger, widely misunderstood issue that is terrorism. While its nature, much like the Joker’s, is seemingly irrational, terrorism must be analyzed from the perspectives of both the attacked and the attacker in order to holistically understand it.

At their core, terrorism and terrorists are similar to attention hungry children. The title of “terrorist,” though, discusses the use of violence—by subnational groups, who hold fringed beliefs and feel unheard—to create fear and social unrest in order to be heard. Indeed, terrorism is difficult to define, but that is because the definition is in the eye of the beholder; that is, terrorism is a word that holds a different interpretation to different groups with different interests. It is deeply politically rooted and is charged with bias, so its meaning can therefore take on a variety of forms. The American Revolution is an example. Americans such as Sam Adams and George Washington committed acts of violence, such as ransacking British cargo and tarring British military officials, for political gains. From the British perspective, these men were terrorists of sorts whose actions had extensive repercussions beyond just the immediate targets. However, to Americans, these men were patriots who led an altruistic charge for the greater good. In a more modern day example, groups in the Middle East, such as Hamas, which we label as terrorist organizations, see themselves as “freedom fighters.” Terrorism is a term used by the attacked.

The word “terrorism” antagonizes, labels, and stereotypes the attacker from the perspective of the attacked. In dehumanizing the attacker this way, it becomes easier for the attacked to pursue the terrorists, making them the enemy of the world. In recent years, the constant media coverage of terrorism suggests that it is on the rise. This, however, only makes it clear that it is the influence of terrorism, rather than terrorism itself, that is growing because of the rapid expansion of globalized media. Globalization is giving terrorism a much stronger voice and presence at the international level. This is percisely the attention such organizations seek through the perpetuation of their violence.

Despite the previous analysis of terrorism, it is a harmful political tool of violence and it is important to understand how to moderate its presence on the global stage. In addition to curbing the violence that terrorism entails, the attacked must structure its response in a way that avoids nationalism and patriotic fervor in order to avoid further antagonizing terrorist threats. If this were accomplished, there would be no longer be a need for the word “terrorism,” but, of course, these goals are all much easier said than accomplished. The current trends of self-determination and the tendency to discount fringed beliefs lie at the foundation of human nature and will, therefore, be near impossible to alter.

Comments are closed.