Suchergebnisse

The sociology of terrorism has been understudied, even though considerable literatures on various forms of social conflict and violence have been produced over the years. The aim here is to note what has been learned about the social origins and dynamics of terrorism in order to suggest agendas for future research. Arguably the main foci of sociological studies of terrorism should be (a) the social construction of terrorism, (b) terrorism as political violence, (c) terrorism as communication, (d) organizing terrorism, (e) socializing terrorists, (f) social control of terrorism, and (g) theorizing terrorism. For each issue, I provide a brief summary of current knowledge, with bibliographic leads to more detailed information, as well as identify research issues.

Effective strategies for avoiding the projected "legitimation crisis" presuppose the clarification and resolution of issues regarding the definition, causation, and justification of political violence. It is proposed that terrorism be defined as an ideology or strategy justifying terror—defined as lethal or nonlethal violence intended to deter political opposition by maximizing fear, specifically by random targeting. On causation, it is argued that terrorism is to be explained as the product not of discrete causes but rather of systemic processes generated in functional and interactive relationships of inequality. Examples of relational dynamics encouraging groups to adopt terrorism are considered. Such dynamics encouraging groups to adopt terrorism are considered. Such dynamics are found to vary among as well as within authority structures. Terrorism is more likely to appear in totalitarian structures, but acts of terror are more frequent in democratic structures, which is largely attributable to the dissemination of terrorist ideologies, the displacement of political conflicts to freer settings, and the propensity of totalitarian governments to sponsor terror elsewhere. Terrorism and terror are associated with the breakdown of traditional authority structures and with efforts to create modern ones. Regarding issues of justification, it is concluded that terrorism and terror are unjustifiable on empirical grounds.

Avoiding the projected "legitimation crisis" presupposes the clarification of issues regarding the definition, causation, & justification of political violence. It is proposed that terrorism be defined as an ideology or strategy justifying terror -- defined as lethal or nonlethal violence intended to deter political opposition by maximizing fear, specifically by random targeting. On causation, it is suggested that terrorism be explained as the product of systemic processes generated by relationships of inequality. Examples of relational dynamics encouraging groups to adopt terrorism are considered. Such dynamics are found to vary both among & within authority structures. Although terrorism is more likely in totalitarian structures, acts of terror are more frequent in democratic structures, probably due to the dissemination of terrorist ideologies, the displacement of political conflict to freer settings, & the propensity of totalitarian governments to sponsor terror elsewhere. Terrorism & terror are associated with the breakdown of traditional authority structures & with efforts to create modern ones. It is concluded that terrorism & terror are unjustifiable on empirical grounds. HA.

AbstractDeviance in the policing of political activities may be either legal or behavioral. Both are generated to satisfy external demands without risking undeniable failure. Tactics of secrecy and scapegoating to avoid the perils of external scrutiny are supplemented by applying the principles of need to know and plausible deniability. The demand for results regardless of methods makes legal deviance inevitable and behavioral deviance very probable. Deviance in political policing is very unlikely to be inhibited significantly by legal reforms or public politics. Organizational changes are more likely to have some impact.

AbstractPartisan criminological analysis is characterized by dogmatic theories whose volidity is politically rather thon scientifically determined. Methods of inquiry ore used to demonstrate rather thon test theoretical propositions. Standard methodological tactics include assertion, anecdote, association, and analogy. In contrast, nonpartisan conflict analysis treats as entirely problematic the processes by which conceptions of deviance are socially constructed and become the official concerns of those who wield state power. What, how, why, and by whom behavioral or nonbehovioral attributes are labeled deviant is viewed as o function of the relative power of parties in conflict over the distribution of life chances.