A Theory of Categorical Terrorism

When revolutionaries or insurgents, broadly defined, indiscriminately attack civilians, they generally attack “complicitous civilians,” i.e., those categories of noncombatants which the revolutionaries see as benefiting from, supporting and/or having a substantial capacity to influence the states that the revolutionaries are attempting to displace or overthrow. Such “categorical” terrorism will be most extensive when revolutionaries view these states (or complicitous civilians themselves) as perpetrators of extensive, indiscriminate violence against the revolutionaries and their constituents. However, if significant numbers of complicitous civilians are seen by rebel groups as potential supporters (or as capable of being influenced by nonviolent appeals or protests), then they will not be indiscriminately attacked. Whether specific categories of civilians will be perceived as potential allies by revolutionaries depends mainly on the prior history of political interaction and cooperation between these civilians and the revolutionaries. Categorical terrorism is most likely where there has been little such interaction or cooperation, resulting in weak political alliances between the revolutionaries and complicitous civilians – for example, where the revolutionaries and complicitous civilians speak different languages, practice different religions, claim the same land, and/or are territorially segregated. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have spurred many social scientists to explore the dynamics of terrorism, most for the first time. Before 9/11, terrorism research was the exclusive preserve, with very few exceptions, of small networks of political scientists and non-academic “security experts,” relatively few of whom were interested in social-science theory. Descriptive case studies abound, replete with ad hoc, case-specific explanations of terrorism. Curiously, most scholars of rebellion and revolution have had virtually nothing of significance to say about terrorism. More generally, the strategic choices of social movements – of which terrorism is one – have received much less scholarly attention than the causes and consequences of such movements. In this article, I begin with a definition of terrorism and revolutionary terrorism; I then discuss several extant theories of terrorism, noting their insights and shortcomings; and I outline my own theory of “categorical” terrorism, a type of terrorism that has been employed by insurgents with increasing frequency in recent years. Although my theory requires more rigorous empirical testing than I can provide here, I believe that it helps to explain – better than extant approaches – why some revolutionary movements, but not others, employ or try to employ a strategy characterized by the use of violence against anonymous civilians or noncombatants who share a particular collective identity. It is terrorism in this sense which today alternately fascinates, repels and inspires women and men across large parts of the globe.