Who has the power to construct the meaning of "terrorism"?

This post aims to address the globalisation of the Western construction of “terrorism”. How do we define the term, or rather, who defines the term?

Terrorism has been used problematically since the events of 9/11 and how it is to be defined is not clear (McCulloch 2008: 206). The word has been described as a vacuum to which those in power (usually the State), is able to fill with their preferred meaning (Wright & King-Jones 2011). The discourse behind the George W. Bush administration’s “war on terror” consistently positioned itself in a fight of good vs. evil, on a ‘crusade’ for democracy and freedom (McCulloch 2008: 207). The war on terror has power in its ability to provoke emotion and patriotism, and even more strength in its ability to escape clear definition. McCulloch outlines this idea: 

“...The post-9/11 turmoil, which turned terrorism into whatever we happen to call ‘terrorism’. Indeed, Norris, Kern and Just (2003a, p. 6) argue that the concept is so ‘con­tested, value-laden and open to multiple meanings’ as to be at least in part ‘in the eye of the beholder’” (McCulloch 2008: 206).

Therefore, the term ‘war on terror’ is flexible in its use, a concept which can move with relative ease, according to how it is invoked and by whom. One characteristic which is widely held however, is the “abhorrent moral character” of terrorism (Dunn, Moore and Nosek 2005 in McCulloch 2008: 208).

The Bush administration created “The Bush Doctrine” which required pre-emptive defensive action in foreign “enemy” nations. The international community’s allowance and even support of the US government’s invasion of nations determined as the “axis of evil” set the scene for the acceptance of Aotearoa’s own pre-emptive “defensive” action to immobilise the so-called Urewera terrorists before innocent civilians were harmed. The disturbing irony of both the US government’s and the New Zealand police’s actions, is that many innocent civilians were harmed and the proof that there was an imminent threat posed has dwindled to hearsay and guesswork. Not only is there a clear link here between the discourse of terrorism internationally and domestically in Aotearoa, there is a similar narrative in actions by the respective states, and similar outcomes. This, regardless of the facts that presented the Urewera situation as unique and dissimilar to the 9/11 events (McCulloch 2008: 205)

Bibliography

CartoonStock. War on Iraq cartoon 1 - search ID whin74. Accessed October 14, 2012 at: http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/w/war_on_iraq.asp
 

Keenan, J. 2006. Conspiracy theories and ‘terrorists’: How the ‘war on terror’ is placing new responsibilities on anthropology. Anthropology Today Vol#22 (#6): 4-9.

McCulloch, A. 2008. ‘Maori Terror Threat’: The dangers of the post-9/11 narrative. Pacific Journalism Review Vol#14 (#2): 205-217.

Tangatawhenua.com. Uploaded February 15, 2012. Accessed October 12, 2012 at: http://news.tangatawhenua.com/archives/16044