Fill the details/instructions form and checkout for your essay - pro writers; top college graduates only in less than 5 mins, NO AI—Plagiarism-free!.
Posted: January 30th, 2022
Over the past twenty years, the essential nature of global politics has been changing profoundly and becoming even more complex. As the international system evolves it often renders traditional, materially-determined theoretical approaches to International Relations as ill-equipped to compellingly account for action. “Increasingly, ideational concerns play a vital role as mobilizing influences, causing actors to behave in an unprecedented manner”. Terrorism is a key phenomenon most typical of this complex trend towards the rise of the power of ideas. The terrorism we have seen in the past twenty years is ideologically-motivated and seemingly irrational meaning mainstream traditional theoretical understandings of anticipated action and reaction are no longer useful. In this essay, I will be analysing Constructivism as a theoretical lens for studying terrorism. First, I will establish the main themes of constructivism and then discuss how terrorism is constructed within the media and by states. I will use this to explain why I believe terrorism fits into the constructivist framework more so than other traditional IR theories. Then, with a particular focus on the terrorist organisation Al Qaeda and their activities I will show that terrorism only exists within our subjective understandings proved by its various definitions in contrasting communities. Ultimately then I will conclude that terrorism lends itself to constructivist understanding because it relies on our subjective reality.
Constructivists believe the
world is constituted socially through inter-subjective interaction. For a
constructivist, agents and structures are mutually constituted and factors such
as norms and identity are central to the establishment and dynamics of world
politics. The central constructivist argument is that “states act on the basis
of how they see themselves and others, and what types of behaviour they see as
natural or desirable”[1].
Alexander Wendt a core social constructivism scholar insists that International
Relations is ‘not a given, but constructed’[2].
Wendt placed importance in ‘the impact of ideas and identities, how they are
created, how they evolve and shape the way states respond to a situation’[3].
Wendt’s central thought ‘anarchy is what states make of it’[4] is
often used to identify constructivism. He believes that the anarchy that exists
in global politics is socially constructed by states based on their conceptions
of identity and how they create their own security dilemma. He argues that this
construction of anarchy is based on how states perceive ‘the self and the
other’ through shared cultural understandings which ‘arise out of
interactions’. Although he speaks mostly about state interactions
constructivist thought can also be used in the interactions between non-state
and state actors too. Terrorism lends itself to Wendt’s understanding of the
three cultures of anarchy which depend on how identities are defined because
terrorism is ‘what states make of it’.
In 2012 Alexander Spencer carried out a metaphorical analysis[5] on
terrorism which explains how terrorism lends itself to constructivist
understanding, through a study of the construction of the terrorist identity. The
article develops an approach which emphasizes the crucial role of metaphors in
the construction of reality. To illustrate this the article traces the
metaphorical construction of Al-Qaeda in the German press after the terrorist
attacks in New York and Washington in 2001, Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005.
At first terrorism was represented as a war and this guided states into
‘responding militarily’[6].
However, from 2004 onwards the primary metaphor shifted from war to crime and as
a result Al-Qaeda was constructed as a criminal organization rather than a
military organization. The influence of this construction of terrorism as a
crime is seen in the counter terrorism policies of the UK post-9/11 which
focused on immigration regulations[7].
This shift, the article argues has
transformed Al-Qaeda from an external threat to an internal threat, which
entails a shift in counter-terrorism practices from a military to a judicial
response. ‘The view that terrorism is crime leads [states] to favor legal
solutions’[8]. The article argues from a constructivist
point of view, that terrorism is a social construct. Although usually there is
a particular focus on the terrorist actor when it is presented to us in the
media but, the terrorist actor is a product of discourse therefore discourse is
a logical starting point for terrorism analysis. In particular we must look at
the discourse of the terrorists’ enemies as it is this which effect the
terrorist motivations, strategies, organisational structures and goals. Therefore,
constructivist studying discourse rather than the individual is likely to give
a more accurate view of actor’s motivations. An investigation into metaphorical
constructions of terrorism by Hulsse and Spencer in 2008 suggests that the
change in the way the media constructed terrorism might be due to us ‘getting
used to Al Qaeda terrorism’[9]. Terrorism
therefore lends itself to constructivist understanding as images of terror
exist in different levels of construction and the way in which the media
presents terrorism has a massive impact on how states respond to it.
Terrorism perhaps best lends itself to
constructivist understanding due to the failure of other IR theories to
understand the constructivist orientation of Al Qaeda and this has lead them to
come up with a state centric analysis of terrorism. A constructivist approach, thanks to its
multidisciplinary understanding can give more plausible insights about the role
of norms, ideas, time and context in shaping the relation between states and
terrorism as non-state actor. Realism has very little to contribute to the
discussion of Al Qaeda as a transnational actor post 9/11. This is because at realisms core is the
belief that international affairs is a struggle for power among self-interested
states. Foreign policy writer Jack Snyder argues because of this approach “it
is difficult for the state-centric theory to explain why the world’s only
superpower announced a war against Al Qaeda, a non-state terrorist organization”[10].
International relations writer Burak KÜRKÇÜ[11] that the assumptions of liberalism
on democratic institutions with liberal values and neoliberal understanding of
peaceful change with the help of institutions also fails to adequately
acknowledge terrorist groups or explain terrorist activity. An undivided
opinion on the identification of “state” on one hand, fractured understanding
of defining terrorism on the other hand makes it quite difficult to establish a
stable ground with traditional theories.
One the other hand,
constructivists do not have a picture of the world to be challenged by 9/11
because they believe the universe exists within the ideas of the people
involved in it. ‘Though constructivism offers no picture of what the world is
like, it pushes enquiry into the processes by which humans construct
understandings’[12]. From
a constructivist point of view 9/11 took place because of a constructed
identity which is antipathy for ‘the west’ and also an organizations desire to
construct a new identity, one of a pan-Islamic movement. Lynch uses the basic
tenets of constructivism which we discussed as ‘ideas, identities and norms’[13]
to show how Al-Qaeda’s strategy post-9/11 lends itself to constructivist
understanding. According to Lynch “Al-Qaeda’s strategy seeks to promote an
Islamic ‘identity’, define the ‘interests’ of all Muslims as necessarily in confrontation
with the West, and shape the ‘normative environment in which Muslim politics
are contested”[14]. Sayf
al-Adel, an al-Qaeda strategist argued in a March 2005 interview that the
“attack of 9/11 had succeeded in its primary goal of enticing the United states
into direct interventions in the Arab region”[15].
This clearly shows why constructivists consider a transnational group with ideological
influence to be an eligible actor on the political stage. Terrorist groups like
Al-Qaeda lend themselves to constructivist understanding because unlike the
other IR theories constructivists see structures and actors as mutually
constituted. This is because it is not always that the structure determines
states interests and actions but sometimes agents can influence the nature and
the effects of a structure.
David Schild uses the case
study of Al Qaeda in his dissertation piece to argue that we can use
constructivism to understand the activities of Al Qaeda and this highlights the
“value and appropriateness”[16]
of constructivist enquiry. Through this analysis of Al-Qaeda, David Schild
gains insight into how contemporary terrorism functions. A key part of his
constructivist analysis is the examination of the agent-structure relationship
as “it is concerned with the patterned manner in which norms (ideational
structures) and the identities, interests and resultant actions of agents
interact”[17].
In the case of Al Qaeda then, when you examine how ideational concerns
influence action and vice versa then tentative generalizations can be made
regarding the functioning of the terrorist organization and in turn of
terrorism in general. Similar to how constructivists have no picture of the
world, Al-Qaeda has no territorial picture of its own, therefore it allows state
actors to construct it for themselves. Lynch argued this point saying “Al
Qaeda’s constructivism derives both from structural factors- absence of a
territorial base, a globalized field of contention shaped by the new media and
information technologies- and Islamist ideas themselves”[18].
Therefore the functioning of Al Qaeda fits into Wendt’s thought process
discussed at the beginning of this essay that “social threats are constructed,
not natural”[19]. Terrorism lends itself to constructivist
understanding because it shows reality is socially constructed through
interaction. Relationships under constructivism are products of historical
processes and interaction. Author K.M Fierke[20]
argues that the identities of actors such as these terrorist organizations have
been shaped over time by cultural, political, material and social
circumstances.
Terrorism lends itself to constructivism
because the term ‘terrorist’ itself is so ambiguous and dependent on the person
using the term. “Terrorism is not a ‘given’ in the real world; it is instead an
interpretation of events and their presumed causes”[21]
the definition of terrorism is therefore based on how it is being interpreted
and constructed by individuals or states. We are reminded of this from the
well-known phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.
Consequently, terrorism only exists within our subjective understandings and
the definition varies “depending upon the context, available cultural resources
and combinations of people involved”[22].
For social constructivist, the construction of terrorism as a ‘social threat’
can be seen in the intensity of a counter terrorism policy. Terrorism lends
itself to constructivism because it is a social fact “which requires human
institutions for its existence”[23].
Terrorism lends itself to
constructivist understanding because it is a socio-political concept whose
definition varies in contrasting communities. At the same time, it has adapted
to the changes in its surroundings which has facilitated the capabilities of
terrorists to utilize resources, solicit funding, and develop new strategies.
Since terrorism is defined differently across various institutions, agencies
and countries many conclude that there is not a single acceptable definition
for terrorism that exists, after all one countries interests are different to
that of another. As a result, an event can be considered a terrorist incident
by some but a very similar act may be considered as justifiable by the same
people, it often depends on who the perpetrator is and where the event happens.
In the end, the labelling of a terrorist incident or group depends entirely on
the often-skewed outlook of the individual or organization defining the event.
An example of this is in the Palestine and Israel conflict, the Palestinian
Liberalization Organization (PLO) was seen as a terrorist organization despite
the fact it was considered by many Palestinian civilians as a body which
represented them and they considered Israel as a terrorist state. However, the
perception of the PLO as a terrorist group changed after the Madrid conference
in 1991 when they agreed to recognize the right of Israel’s existence. The
conceptualization of the terrorist is not dependent on the threat that is
personified by the individual, but as we can see in this instance the label of
the terrorist is constructed through the language and interpretation of events
which engage the public’s attention and support. [24]
When attempting to make
sense of the social world, constructivists view certain aspects of reality as a
construct rather than it being created. Constructivists view knowledge as views
and beliefs which people have reasonable confidence in. Enlightenment thinker William
Thomas produced the Thomas theorem whereby “if a person perceives a situation
as real, it is real in its consequences”. Meaning, behaviour is dependent on a
subjective interpretation of reality. Terrorism lends itself to this thinking
because it is not a given in society but instead an analysis of events and
their presumed motives that can have serious impacts on how identities are
constructed, and how these identities shape events and responses to these
events.
Overall, I believe terrorism lends itself to
constructivist understanding because, as I have explored in this essay, it does
not exist outside of our subjective reality but instead relies on human
engagement for legitimacy and existence. Although a social fact, this does not
mean it is any less real and often it is recognized and agreed upon by
political organizations and institutions. After analysing how constructivists
view the world and in turn, the war on terror it clarifies how terrorism fits
into the constructivist framework. By moving away from a state-centric outlook,
constructivists claim the west react to terrorism based on how they socially
construct the concept of a terrorist. Following the attack of 9/11 we can
understand why terrorism lends itself more so to constructivism than it does to
any traditional IR theories as there was a need for non-material insight into
the seemingly irrational actions of this new transnational group. By giving us
an understanding of how agents can influence another agents action and how
these actions interact and evolve, constructivism offers an insight into
phenomena considered anomalous by mainstream theory. Constructivist perspective
allows us to unpack the views of a terrorist group in order to begin
understanding how its members shared sense of propriety engenders observed behaviour
over time and explains why such behaviour runs contrary to that which is
anticipated by the traditional theories. By considering the changing nature of
self-interest with its non- material determinants, the role of identity in
defining actors and the problems in cooperation and coordination faced by
traditional theories, “constructivism seems a better-developed theoretical lens
in terms of explaining global terrorism and its impact on changing state behaviour”[25]. Terrorism lends itself to
constructivist understanding because it is a social problem that cannot exist
independent of the ideas of the people involved in it.
[1] Bourne, Mike, Understanding Security, (2014) pg 51
[2] Wendt, Alexander, Anarchy is what States make of it: The
Social Construction of Power Politics, (1992), p391-425
[3] Ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] Spencer, Alexander, The Social Construction of Terrorism: Media,
Metaphors and Policy Implications, Journal of International Relations and
Development 15, no. 3 (2012): 393-419
[6] Simon, Jeffrey D., Misperceiving the Terrorist Threat, (RAND, 1987)
[7] How does Terrorism lend
itself to Constructivist Understanding, E-International Relations, http://www.e-ir.info/2012/09/18/how-does-terrorism-lend-itself-to-constructivist-understanding/
[Accessed Mar. 2018]
[8] Sederberg, Peter C., Conciliation as Counter-Terrorist Strategy, (1995)
[9] Rainer, Hulsse and Spencer,
Alexander, The Metaphor of Terror:
Terrorism Studies and the Constructivist Turn, Security Dialogue. 39 (6),
(2008) p571–592.
[10] Snyder, Jack, One World, Rival Theories, (Foreign Policy, 2009) Available at http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/26/one-world-rival-theories/ , [Accessed 15 Mar. 2018]
[11] KÜRKÇÜ, Burak, “How to Study Terrorism:
Comparison of Constructivism with Traditional IR Theories”, (ESAGEV, 2018), pg.
3
[12] Buzan, Barry, Implications
of September 11 for the study of international relations, (2002) in: Buckley,
Mary and Fawn, Rick, (eds.) Global Responses to Terrorism: 9/11,
Afghanistan and Beyond. (Routledge, 2002) pp. 296-309.
[13] Lynch, Marc, Al-Qaeda’s
Constructivist Turn. Terrorism, Homeland Security, Strategy, Praeger
Security International,(2006)
Available: http://www.marclynch.com/2006/01/17/al-qaedas-constructivist-turn/
[Accessed 10Mar. 2018]
[14] ibid
.
[15] ibid.
[16] Schild,
David, Constructivism as a Basis for
Understanding Transnational Terrorism: The Case of Al Qaeda, (2011)
[17] Ibid.
pg. 111
[18] Lynch, Marc, Al-Qaeda’s
Constructivist Turn. Terrorism, Homeland Security, Strategy, Praeger Security
International, (2006) Available:
http://www.marclynch.com/2006/01/17/al-qaedas-constructivist-turn/ [Accessed 10Mar 2018]
[19]
Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International
Politics, (Cambridge University Press, 1999)
[20] Fierke, K.M, The ‘War on Terrorism:
A Critical Perspective, Irish Journal of International Affairs, vol 16,
(2005) pp. 51-64.
[21] Yehuda, Ben. N., Political
Assassinations by Jews, (New York Press, 1993)
[22]
Stump, Jacob, The Artful Side of the Terrorism Discourse: A Response to Hulsse and
Spencer, Security
Dialogue Vol 40, Issue 6 (2009), pg661
[23]
Searle, John, The Social Construction of
Reality, (New York: Free Press, 1995)
[24] Terrorism as a Social
Construct?.
(2018) Available at:
[Accessed 15 Mar. 2018].
[25]
KÜRKÇÜ, Burak, “How to Study Terrorism:
Comparison of Constructivism with Traditional IR Theories”, (ESAGEV, 2018), pg.
20
Every student wants the best grades and that’s our Focus
Our team consists of outstanding writers who have specialized knowledge in specific subject areas and professionals experienced in academic research writing. They hold at least a graduate degree—230 with Masters and MSN qualifications, experts carefully selected and trained to ensure the best quality of our work. .
We’re dedicated to bringing on board top-notch writers who can provide excellent work at prices that make sense for college students; affordable papers. Our goal? To give you the best bang for your buck without ever compromising on the quality of our essay writing services—or the content of your paper. #Don’t forget to use the DISCOUNT code in the COUPONS section of the order form before you pay!.
The service guarantees that our final work is 100% original, rearched and human written expertly. We are committed to delivering plagiarism-free and AI-free work to each university/college student's 'write my paper' request. To uphold this promise, we check every draft for any possible instances of duplication, wrong citation, grammar errors and artificiality before we send it to you. Thus, you can always rely on us to write genuine and high-standard content for your essay assignments.
When you trust to place an order with Homework Ace Tutors, here is what happens: