Khan, R (2025) Terrorism - The irredeemability of a concept. Arnold-Bergstraesser-Institut.

Preview

Text Khan-10-Mar-2025-Terrorism-The-irredeemability-of-a-concept-PostColH.pdf - Published Version Download (383kB) | Preview

Abstract

‘Terrorism’ is a concept that is notoriously difficult to define, and terrorism researchers have spilled much ink in debating the most accurate definition for it. However, as I show in this entry, it is more important to acknowledge this concept’s irredeemability, rather than its many competing and conflicting or contradicting definitions. Terrorism is a racially infused, pejorative concept with negative racial and colonial associations and connotations. Therefore, regardless of how (inclusively) ‘terrorism’ is ultimately defined, it can never function as an analytically useful or objective descriptor or classification of political violence. It is first and foremost a moral category, which functions to strip off (political) legitimacy from those to whom it is applied. It is also a category with colonial origins and an enduring colonial and racial function, justifying harmful, discriminatory and at times genocidal, practices under the framework of ‘counter-terrorism’. What is the solution, then? I contend in this entry that the aim should be nothing short of abolition of the concept. The goal of abolitionist activism and praxis is to do away with hegemonic structures and frameworks that continue to enable colonial rule in one form or another. While the focus of contemporary abolitionist thinkers and activists has predominantly been on the prison system, their goal also extends to all the institutions, concepts and logics that are attached to colonial legacies, and which continue to enable racial capitalism, global punishment, and colonial logic. ‘Terrorism’ is one concept that enables such colonial forms of control, carcerality and global punishment. In this entry I show how the concept of ‘terrorism’ is racialised, irrespective of the actual race of its perpetrators, and is therefore irredeemable. It cannot be recovered, reformed or re-invented in a more inclusive, less racialised way, for example through well-meaning efforts to include actors that are usually left out of terrorism discourses (such as white supremacists, far-right actors, or states themselves). I further show how the concept has colonial origins, being used historically as a colonial category to suppress anti-colonial resistance in many contexts. Finally, I show how responses to ‘terrorism’, under the framework of ‘counter-terrorism’, continue to function for colonial purposes and disproportionately target racialised and minoritised people around the world. Thus, ultimately I argue that abolishing the counter-terrorism apparatus, which is responsible for ongoing neo-colonial rule and racial violence and is closely linked to carcerality and the prison system, first requires the abolition of the concept that enabled counter-terrorism regimes in the first place: ‘terrorism’.

Item Type:	Other
Subjects:	H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General) J Political Science > JZ International relations
Divisions:	Humanities and Social Science
Publisher:	Arnold-Bergstraesser-Institut
SWORD Depositor:	A Symplectic
Date Deposited:	11 Mar 2025 15:46
Last Modified:	11 Mar 2025 15:46
URI:	https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/25846

View Item