Grasping the Unreasonable

In trying to make some sense of what happened at the Boston Marathon last week, I have been struggling to understand terrorism. So I turned to the etymology of the word.

The word "terrorist" actually comes from the French word terrorisme  which comes from the Latin for great fear, dread, terror. The Latin verb terrere means "to frighten". (2) The French Revolution gave us the first modern use of the word:

 " The period 1793–94 is referred to as La Terreur (Reign of Terror). Maximilien Robespierre, a leader in the French revolution proclaimed in 1794 that "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible." (3)
The Committee of Public Safety agents that enforced the policies of "The Terror" were referred to as "Terrorists"   (4) The word "terrorism" was first recorded in English-language dictionaries in 1798 as meaning 'systematic use of terror as a policy'." (5) 

Undoubtedly terrorism as an act has existed much before the French Revolution but received it's contemporary name at that time. The Reign of Terror, by the way, demonstrates a truth of modern terrorism, namely, that terrorists invariably see themselves as instruments of righteousness. They convince themselves that the crime is really justified by the ends they seek. "Terrorists are generally people who feel alienated from society and have a grievance or regard themselves as victims of an injustice."(6) They also believe that the people being terrorized are NOT innocents but rather guilty instruments of evil. What we see as terrorism, they see as justice. This is a perverted view of reality on their part, of course, but it is what allows them to live with themselves and to carry out their "mission."

I next tried to find one single good definition for what terrorism is. It turns out that there is little consensus about this.  Not known for its comprehensive nature, Wikipedia's article  "Definitions of Terrorism" mentions about 50 different points of view. (1) Undoubtedly there are hundreds, if not thousands, more.

One of the many definitions that caught my attention is from the United States Patriot Act:

 "The USA PATRIOT Act defines domestic terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S." (7)

This definition interests me because of how broad it seems to be. Violence or the threat of it does not necessarily have to be present in order for an act to be considered terrorism. While it must be an act that is "dangerous to human life," there is a large amount of leeway. Danger to human life could, for example, include acts against technology as opposed to direct violence. Also it must APPEAR to be intended. The United States government could, presumably, call something a terrorist act if they even THINK it is intentional. This differs from almost every other definition many of which include some commonalities:  1) A threat of and/or act of violence 2) against innocent people 3) in pursuit of  political and or religious aims 4) designed to create fear and terror.  Many of the definitions of terrorism contain all or most of these characteristics but do not seem to specify the APPEARANCE of intent nor the broadening of acts of or threat of violence to include danger to human beings. The Patriot Act appears to be so vague as to allow for things to be defined as terrorism that might not be considered in most other definitions.

One of the reasons it is almost almost impossible to pinpoint a single description of terrorism is because there are as many forms of terrorism as there are acts of terror.

 " Excepting the most ruthless dictatorships, terrorist organizations have emerged in virtually every kind of society: democratic and authoritarian, developed and developing, ethnically or racially diverse and homogeneous societies. The diversity of social and cultural environments of terrorism has, so far anyway, defeated efforts to explain terrorism by pointing to class, racial, or other social inequalities; economic exploitation or decline; political oppression; demographic imbalances; or other social structural factors." (8)

Each of these terrible acts are as unique as the historical moment and setting in which they take place. It is difficult to define something which changes in each and every incarnation. Nevertheless, we seem to be able to recognize it when it occurs, whether it is the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or the Boston Marathon bombing of this past week. 

Looking at many of the common elements of terrorism (see above) I began to wonder about bullying and if it is related to terrorism. There seems to be some similarities.
To threaten or imply violence in a way designed to create fear makes me wonder at what point is terrorism a form of bullying? Or maybe it is the most extreme version. Bullying is:

"Repeated, persistent and aggressive behaviour intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to another person's body, emotions, self-esteem or reputation." (9)

In both terrorism and bullying, the intent is to cause harm in order to induce fear. Granted, bullying is most often directed at an individual but it can also be bullying by a group of another group. The difference lies in the intent and the severity and the number of people affected. Terrorism is usually engaged in for political or religious reasons while this is not necessarily true of bullies (though it may be). Terrorism is designed to inflict the most pain on the most innocent people and to create the most terror. Essentially, it seems that terrorists are extreme bullies and it makes me wonder if terrorists were bullies first.  Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky put it well when he characterized terrorism as "...the dirtiest weapon of the weak against the strong". (10). On an individual level, this might also apply to bullying. Both terrorists and bullies operate from the position of weakness - to intimidate those who are perceived threats to them.  That it doesn't appear this way to the bullied is one of the facets of the unreasonableness of the behavior.

By its very nature, terrorism involves unreasonable acts and, as such, eludes understanding. Is it impossible to get our minds around? Terrorism has been around as long as humanity and as yet has not been resolved.  How can we comprehend terrorism? Perhaps we can't and never will. Maybe we shouldn't try.

ENDNOTES

1.    "Definitions of Terrorism", Wikipedia.org  http://bit.ly/109U2ZC , accessed 22 April 2013.

2.     Burgess, Mark. A Brief History of Terrorism, Center for Defense Information.Quoted in     Wikipedia, "Definitions of Terrorism.

3.    Ibid.

4.   "Early History of Terrorism, http:// Terrorism-Research.com, quoted in Wikipedia " Def. of Terr"

5   Harper, Douglas. "Terrorism", Dictionary.com Online Etymology Dictionary.:accessed:        August 10, 2007 in Wikipedia: Definitions.

6.   Hudson, Rex A. ed. by Marilyn Majeska, "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why. (Federal Research Division, Library of Congress: Washington, D.C., 1999)  Accessed 23 April 2013 www.loc.gov/…d/pdf-files/Soc_Psych_of_Terrorism.pdf .

7.   http://www.nctc.gov/witsbanner/docs/2010_report_on_terrorism.pd Quoted from: Wikipedia, Definitions, accessed 22April 2013.

8.  Turk, Austin T. "Terrorism" in Encyclopedia.com  http://bit.ly/dLlnY2 : Accessed 23 April 2013.

9.    From Duhaime.org, Legal Dictionary, http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary
 /B/Bullying.aspx : 22 April 2013.)

10.    Zagraevsky, Dr. Sergey, "365 Reflections on a Human  and Humanity," http://zagraevsky.com/365_engl.htm in Wikipedia, "Definitions of Terrorism"