About Article

I have aproblem with the critical terrorism studies agenda. Using the term “terrorism” risks reinforcing the orthodox terrorism policy and studies agendas. I whole-heartedly welcome the critical aspect of the critical terrorism studies agenda but have never been comfortable with the T word, even if prefaced with “critical”. How can we expect to be taken seriously when undertaking fieldwork in Lebanon, Northern Ireland or the Basque Country if we use the term? The term is such an empty signifier, that it is useless. And if it is useless, then let’s ditch it. So, this reviewer approaches the three works under review with a good deal of caution. Frankly, the orthodox terrorism studies community has often had more than a whiff of Walter Mitty about it and has attracted more than its share of loons, spooks and people happy to be associated with repressive regimes. The whole enterprise smells of a seven day-old fish. There seems to be no shortage of self-styled terrorism “experts” who appear on the 24-hour news channels, ready to pronounce any action whatsoever as having “all the hallmarks of an Al-Qaeda attack”. The same “experts” seem strangely silent when states override civil liberties. Even the very weakness of the so-called “terrorists” is seen as a threat and given the dastardly label “asymmetric”. Somehow, a dystopian worldview has become a professional creed in which no threat is too far-fetched and one suspects a good deal of trouser-rubbing is going on under the table as the “experts” fantasise about the evil machinations of the enemies of civilisation.