LENIN'S TOMB

 

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Questioning the unquestionable posted by Richard Seymour

What up, Pham?  

There's a critique of my earliest post about Charlie Hebdo at Pham Binh's blog.*  The only thing I want to engage with in his piece is this line:

"[H]e questioned the use of the term terrorism in what was unquestionably a terrorist attack."

Now, of course, if there is one thing I have learned as a writer, it is that one must never question the unquestionable.  To question the unquestionable is deeply irresponsible and liable to lead to incidents in Grosvenor Square.  Nevertheless, Binh's statement implies that he knows what 'terrorism' is and could give an uncontroversial, non-normative definition that any reasonable person could agree on.  If that is the case, he is unjustly languishing in the margins of bloggery, because this is a problem that no government, no academic, and no journalist or think-tank has solved.  'Terrorism' is first and foremost a legal category, and there is no legal interpretation, and no legal definition, that is not fraught with glaring inconsistencies, question-begging and special pleading.  And since law is the dominant form of the dominant ideology, this indeterminacy feeds into other ideological articulations, particularly the social sciences and journalism.

One of the most telling moments in the literature of the 'war on terror' was when the academic Alan Krueger concluded his book on What Makes a Terrorist by suggesting that it was a mistake to mention the word 'terrorism' at all.  This is because his book was actually a counterinsurgency manual, which - within the limits of the dominant ideology - attempted to provide a solid social scientific foundation for the 'war on terror'.  He had no interest in political violence wielded by such formations as the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia, or the Nicaraguan Contras, and he likewise was totally uninterested in any form of state behaviour that could be considered 'terrorism'.  In fact, his attempt to define his subject in such a way as to provide a set of narrow policy prescriptions linked to 'democracy promotion' meant that he descended into platitudes and incoherence.

Another salient moment from the same era was when Christopher Hitchens, who had previously disparaged the term, attempted to revive it by offering the singularly unsatisfactory definition: "the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint."  In later articles and interviews, he would try to apply this to the 'war on terror' terrain.  Reaching some depressing conclusions, he explained that the "root cause" of "Islamic terror" was "the ideology of Islamic terror", adding: "I do not say that all Muslims are terrorists, but I have noticed that an alarmingly high proportion of terrorists are Muslims."

It is no accident, as we used to say, that the ideologues of counterterrorism ended up spouting such puerile pish.  The problem is not just in the uses to which the language of 'terrorism' is put; it is inherent in the language itself.  The inherently normative, contested nature of the language can be illustrated as soon as we try to define 'terrorism'.

It includes political violence intended to spread fear among sections of the population.  Does it involve violence by states, or only sub-state forces?  Does it include violence targeted against troops, or only against civilians, or 'noncombatants'?  How is the category of 'civilian' or 'noncombatant' defined?  If terrorism includes attacks on troops, must they be off-duty?  If they can be on-duty, must they be off an active battlefield?  What constitutes an active battlefield in a global situation where wars are fought across borders at will (think drone strikes)?  How one answers these questions is obviously profoundly normative, and equally obviously will strongly determine what kinds of incidents and agencies are classed as 'terrorist'.

To take a well-known example.  The US government considers the suicide attack on the USS Cole in 2000 by the 'al Qaeda' network to be a straightforward case of 'terrorism'.  On the face of it - that is, on account of dominant assumptions that we rarely pause to examine - this seems "unquestionable".  Yet what was struck was an armed naval vessel whose sailors were military personnel who were on duty at the time.  The reasoning given for defining the attack as a terrorist action is that a "state of military hostilities" did not exist at the time.  The fact that 'al Qaeda' bombed the ship as it was harboured in Aden as part of a general offensive against the US military presence in the Middle East would suggest that military hostilities did exist.  But what is meant here is that the US, which has the power to determine and impose its own legal definitions of situations in which its military is deployed, did not consider there to be a state of military hostilities, and therefore classified the military action against its vessel to be an act of terrorism.

To take another well-known example.  The US government certainly does not consider the military assault on Fallujah to be an example of terrorism.  This is despite the fact that it involved the deployment of political violence explicitly intended to intimidate sections of the population, and targeted large numbers of civilians, many of whom were prevented from leaving the city before the assault began.  The rationale for this is that the action was carried out by lawful state agencies, the US military and its allies, carrying out a legal duty as mandated by UN resolutions and agreements with the Iraqi governments.  Those prevented from leaving, meanwhile, were "males of military age", and in most US actions that means "combatant".

There is no good reason to accept the US government's preferred set of definitions, other than that they have the politico-military power to ensure that theirs are the only effective ones, and the ideological power to ensure that theirs resonate with common sense assumptions.

And this brings me back to my point that the label of 'terrorism' signifies a particular genre of story-telling.  Given the dominant normative assumptions that guide the interpretation of 'terrorism', it makes perfect sense for someone like Hitchens to claim that most, or a disproportionate number of terrorists are Muslims.  Given the way terrorism is defined in the dominant ideology, this just happens to be unambiguously true.  Hitchens was only saying what was really implicit in the dominant ideology without the usual hypocrisy and evasion.

When we define an action as 'terrorist' in this circumstance, we are setting up a narrative that purports to explain what has happened.  And 'new atheists' such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins also, with refreshing directness, tell us exactly what the explanation is: these things happen because of an atavistic impulse coded in the Muslim religion which is unreconstructed and thus worse than other religions.  Societies which have become civilised have put manners on religions and the religious.  However, the believers in Islam routinely accept as mainstream assumptions which civilisation finds rebarbative, which makes them hugely dangerous.  Now Bill Maher has been good enough to apply this, again without any liberal handwringing, to the current situation by saying that what the killers of Charlie Hebdo journalists have done reflects a mainstream belief among Muslims that violence is regrettable but, when you insult the prophet, all bets are off.  The label of 'terrorism' in such circumstances leads us straight into the very dead-end of racist, state repression and imperialist violence that guarantees the recurrence of such events in the future.

This is what I meant when I questioned the "unquestionable".


*For the sake of background, Binh used to be an ISO member and an editor at North Star, before moving to the right and extolling US military intervention and urging alliance with the neo-Nazis in Ukraine.  When he commented on this blog, he was usually smart, pissy, occasionally right on the money, sometimes maverick.  He's still fairly pissy, even if he micturates for reaction these days.  Neither the tone nor the content of his piece is any surprise whatsoever.

11:55:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | del.icio.us | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it Tweet| Share| Flattr this

Search via Google

Info

Richard Seymour

Richard Seymour's Wiki

Richard Seymour: information and contact

Richard Seymour's agent

RSS

Twitter

Tumblr

Pinterest

Academia

Storify

Donate

corbyn_9781784785314-max_221-32100507bd25b752de8c389f93cd0bb4

Against Austerity cover

Subscription options

Flattr this

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Lenin's Tomb
Email:

Lenosphere

Archives

September 2001

June 2003

July 2003

August 2003

September 2003

October 2003

November 2003

December 2003

January 2004

February 2004

March 2004

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

July 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

December 2015

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

Dossiers

Hurricane Katrina Dossier

Suicide Bombing Dossier

Iraqi Resistance Dossier

Haiti Dossier

Christopher Hitchens Dossier

Organic Intellectuals

Michael Rosen

Left Flank

Necessary Agitation

China Miéville

Je Est Un Autre

Verso

Doug Henwood

Michael Lavalette

Entschindet und Vergeht

The Mustard Seed

Solomon's Minefield

3arabawy

Sursock

Left Now

Le Poireau Rouge

Complex System of Pipes

Le Colonel Chabert [see archives]

K-Punk

Faithful to the Line

Jews Sans Frontieres

Institute for Conjunctural Research

The Proles

Infinite Thought

Critical Montages

A Gauche

Histologion

Wat Tyler

Ken McLeod

Unrepentant Marxist

John Molyneux

Rastî

Obsolete

Bureau of Counterpropaganda

Prisoner of Starvation

Kotaji

Through The Scary Door

Historical Materialism

1820

General, Your Tank is a Powerful Vehicle

Fruits of our Labour

Left I on the News

Organized Rage

Another Green World

Climate and Capitalism

The View From Steeltown

Long Sunday

Anti-dialectics

Empire Watch [archives]

Killing Time [archives]

Ob Fusc [archives]

Apostate Windbag [archives]

Alphonse [archives]

Dead Men Left [dead, man left]

Bat [archives]

Bionic Octopus [archives]

Keeping the Rabble in Line [archives]

Cliffism [archives]

Antiwar

Antiwar.com

Antiwar.blog

Osama Saeed

Dahr Jamail

Angry Arab

Desert Peace

Abu Aardvark

Juan Cole

Baghdad Burning

Collective Lounge

Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation

Unfair Witness [archive]

Iraq Occupation & Resistance Report [archive]

Socialism

Socialist Workers Party

Socialist Aotearoa

Globalise Resistance

Red Pepper

Marxists

New Left Review

Socialist Review

Socialist Worker

World Socialist Website

Left Turn

Noam Chomsky

South Africa Keep Left

Monthly Review

Morning Star

Radical Philosophy

Blogger
blog comments powered by Disqus