Labelling ideological opponents ‘Terrorists’ is dangerous

Using ‘terrorist’ as an epithet aimed at ideological opponents can have serious consequences. The term carries weight, and the lack of consensus on its definition makes it a dangerous rhetorical weapon.

The use of ‘terrorist’ as a political epithet can have real world consequences; as such it is imperative that we cease our cavalier use of the term. I am not advocating for us to limit our speech to protect feelings. Instead, I will highlight how misuse of legislative and political terminology is problematic in the contemporary socio-political climate. Consequently, whether you are a veteran academic exploring the nebulous definition of terrorism, a conspiracy theorist casting aspersions at President Obama for having the middle name Hussein, or a progressive slacktivist publishing sensationalist clickbait on the Gamergate controversy, you should reconsider the position ‘terrorist’ holds in your vernacular. The difficulty surrounding the use of terms like terrorism has only been highlighted by the media’s coverage of hacktivism, the Paris attacks in November and the Oregon militia.

Despite being commonplace in the contemporary vocabulary, ‘terrorist’ is a poorly defined term at best. Moreover, some academics flat out refuse to use it. While the Oxford Dictionary defines terrorism as “the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”, the definition offers little substance. Who or what authorises legitimizes the use of violence? Is it the state? Why then do we often describe instances of state-sponsored violence terrorism? What about the non-violent protests? Equally insubstantial is the idea of ‘intimidation’. What does that mean? Many commentators would agree that terrorism involves some form of psychological trauma inflicted on a human audience through violence, but not on much else. Suffice to say, academia has committed countless journal pages to the pursuit of a universal definition, and so too have the legislators.

While considering the phenomenon of terrorism, most actors will use an operational definition. For argument’s sake, this author’s would use something like ‘Terrorism is used by non-state actors and in the service of state interests, primarily in the context of violent resistance. It is characterised by the use or threat of politically-motivated, organized, and premeditated symbolic violence, by groups who aim to affect psychological targets to influence their behaviour, primarily to cause political change. Attacks go beyond damaging an enemy’s material resources,’ which is based loosely on the work of Crenshaw (1981), Drake (1998), and Smith (2010). However, most operational definitions used by legislators and governmental organizations span pages. Even the earliest concise definition of terrorism from the League of Nations’ Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1937) is bloated, spanning multiple articles over many pages.

There is a complete absence of consensus on the meaning of terrorist. Consequently, it is quite problematic to refer to someone you merely disagree with as a terrorist. Furthermore, the use of ‘terrorist’ as an epithet can become quite redundant depending on your argument. Due to the ambiguity of the term, many freedom fighting and equality movements can viably be defined as ‘terrorist’. Social movements like the Suffragettes and inspirational figures such as Nelson Mandela have been labelled terrorists, and the term fits them more snuggly than many would be comfortable to admit, despite their contributions to society. We cannot agree on what the term means, although we enjoy defaming our opponents with it. It is the classic problem of moralizing a term. Bruce Hoffman puts it nicely, “On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.”

Much of terrorism is not actually about the violence, or the target, so much as it is about how the target is ‘justified’ through a process of demonization and dehumanisation. The goal is to elicit some form of political change through affecting the psyche of a human audience. Hopefully, you are overwhelmed by the pessimism of my outlook or disgusted by the problematic assertion that early feminists might have warranted the terrorist label. This should not be a comfortable discussion. Terrorism is not a path an organization or group treads lightly. Therefore, when hacks and pundits deign to weigh in on this or that issue, on which their ignorance is profound, haemorrhaging a mix of sophistry and epithets, it is thoroughly disgusting that they land on ‘terrorist’ to describe their opponents. Being the sage that she is, one of my professors provided me with a great quote when discussing my dissertation (I paraphrase); “I do not use ‘terrorist’ often. It is a meaningless term. When you describe an act as ‘terrorist’, you have ceased objective analysis because, in this day and age, you have already passed a moral judgement before your critical argument has begun.” Disagreeing with that is hard.

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” says the old cliché. The term terrorist has for a long time, been a synonym for bad or evil while we see warfare as just or good. To label an act ‘terrorist’ is to pass moral judgement on it, which voids any hope of you providing an objective analysis of the topic you are addressing. It is much the same with political punditry or online ‘culture wars’, where debating has fallen to the lows of fallacy and sophistry, where we exchange expletives and make no headway in arguments.

If we are to remain civil in our political debates, and more broadly in society, if we are to fix our huge partisan divides in government; it is important that we do not degrade the terminology we have for discussion of serious expressions of political discontent like terrorism, by using them flippantly. If someone is an asshole, call them an asshole. If someone is harassing you, call them a harasser. However, if someone is criticising you or speaking to a different politics, don’t just throw buzzwords like ‘misogynist’, ‘islamophobe’ or ‘terrorist’ at them. Those terms carry significant weight, and you diminish their effectiveness with overuse. Instead, address opponents’ critique, debate, have a row on Twitter, then and only then if you still feel their expression constitutes a threat or hate-speech, contact the authorities. Name calling is childish, but using technical language to invalidate an opponent can be harmful.