What Is Social Construction Of Terrorism

Terrorism, has as of yesterday, just stuck New York with a bombing and Minnesota with a stabbing spree that injured more than 30 people combined. ISIS is claiming responsibility for both of these attacks although it is unclear at this time whether or not they were telling the truth. It does not matter to ISIS if they committed the attack or not as long as they get credit for it. They need to stay active to keep up their fear to influence their soldiers and future recruits so they can look powerful. This means that for America and its citizens they are under constant threat of random attack. Applying symbolic interactionism, it is clear that terrorism is a learned behavior. Groups of terrorists are coming together to spread their label and promote

Modern terrorism, as deduced from this literature, is acts to violence strategically used by secular groups spanning international borders with the aim of achieving a desired outcome. Further, it can be seen as organized activity whose genesis can be traced back to the 1880’s. From then to now there are identifiable traits and patterns observed from different (terrorist) groups which have allowed for the conceptualization of the term modern terrorism. This concept therefore, can be best explained in the context of being a wave or having a life cycle. That means it is a cycle of activity demarked by phases from inception and expands along the way then eventually it declines. The world, thus far, has experienced four waves of modern

States has ever seen: The Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 and the 9/11 attacks. The

Criminal activity and terrorist activity have a relationship that is closely related, with only minor differences separating the two. Terrorist activity are criminal acts that are motivated by a higher cause beyond the basic causes of crime. Terrorist attack are highly planned out, and the same can be said about criminal activity. Serial killers often plan out their acts just as much as terrorist organizations, however the same cannot be said for certain crimes like random assaults. (Newman & Clarke, 2008) The relationship between crime and terrorism is brought closer when terrorist organizations use common crime to fund their attacks. For example, a terrorist organization may resort to stealing chemical agents to make their dirty bombs. The

Jeffery Ian Ross (1999) differs from earlier research suggesting that both political and social factors can lead to a criminology of terrorism. Terrorism involves violence but criminal behavior is a result of

Terrorism was traditionally viewed as a term ascribed to others. Prior to the events of 9/11, it was applied to foreign conflicts that were read about and briefly covered by media outlets, thus viewed as an abstract concept and someone else’s problem. Some would argue that the events of 9/11 was the fourth act of terroristic activities on American soil. The first was perpetrated on Native Americans, second would be the horrors and hells of the North American slave trade and third is lynching.

“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Terrorism has had a profound affect on the world, as it has inspired fear and despair in the hearts of millions of people. Specifically in the United States, where in certain circumstances U.S. citizens will carry out acts of terror to further their own cause. Domestic terrorism has taken roots in many aspects of society through certain ideological groups, radicalization through media, and by acts of terror that cause immense civil unrest.

Social construction has proven to affect everybody’s life and creates stereotypes in society. Race and class have been the most outstanding social constructs in our society. According to sociologists, “human development is socially situated and knowledge is constructed through interaction with others” (McKinley, 2015). People were not born to distinguish others but it is the society who pass these ideas from generation to generation.

As stated in our textbook, terrorism is defined as, “The use or threat of violence to create terror in others, usually for political purposes” (Ember 299). Most often, when individuals hear the word, they think of September 11, 2001, the fateful day that changed our country. Since that day, it seems as if the word “terrorism” has become a common term used by newscasters, politicians, and everyday individuals alike. The concept and fear associated with “terrorism” has seemingly dominated the lives of Americans—and other individuals—since, implying that there was a time before 2001 where terrorism wasn’t as prevalent or didn’t exist. However, this certainly is not true because terrorism is not a new concept at all. As stated by our textbook,

Research into terrorism is another challenge in defining terrorism. According to James Rinehart, “those who write about terrorism, tend to possess a preconceived bias of a ‘problem-solution’ orientation in which he or she is simply attempting to justify a set of counterterrorist prescriptive” (4). This research is unreliable at best because as mentioned previously, preconceived biases and stereotypes tend to become involved. Furthermore, there is little research into the why of terrorism, and also very little research into the psychology of terrorists by actual psychologists. The scarcity of primary, first-hand research and due to the private nature of data that is out there, the challenge to defining

Terrorism can be defined different ways by different people. “Terrorism is violence- or the threat of violence used to achieve a political goal” (Terrorism 1), that was Opposing Viewpoint’s definition of terrorism. Opposing Viewpoints says that [Terrorism] “differs

For these reasons, historians of terrorism normally work with a wide definition, and social scientists do so much of the time. But philosophers may well prefer a narrow definition. They focus on the moral standing of terrorism and need a definition that is particularly helpful in moral discourse. Morally speaking, surely there is a difference—for some, a world of difference—between planting a bomb in a government building and killing a number of highly placed officials of (what one considers) an unjust and oppressive government, and planting a bomb in a tea shop and killing a random collection of common citizens, including children. While both acts raise serious moral issues, these issues are not identical, and running them together under the same heading of “terrorism” will likely hamper, rather than help,

Have you ever had a fear for your family, your town, your country, or your world. How about the fear to have everything taken from you, destroyed, and not caring if it has hurt you or not? What about your fear and pain is, and can be someone else’s happiness? The fear of you being terrorized? That is terrorism. Someone else bringing fear and terrorizing you. That is a terrorist’s goal. Terrorism is common and is very difficult to stop. The government promises protection for the people, and their home, but they can not give that protection if they can not stop terrorism. Terrorism needs to stop to protect the live of the people, and their country.