Daniela Pisoiu

The ‘dark’ side of normative argumentation – The case of counterterrorism policy

After 9/11 state actors in different parts of the world and to various degrees decided to give security and counterterrorism measures priority over human rights and fundamental freedoms. In order to legitimize their policy choices, governmental actors used normative argumentation to redefine what is ‘appropriate’ to ensure security. We argue that, in the long run, this may lead to a setback dynamic hollowing out established human and civil rights norms. In this article, we develop a theoretical and analytical framework, oriented along the model of the life cycle of norms, in order to trace ‘bad’ norm dynamics in the field of counterterrorism. We conceptualize the norm erosion process, particularly focusing on arguments such as speech acts put forward by governmental norm challengers and their attempts to create new meaning and understanding. We also draw on convergence theory and argue that when a coalition of norm challengers develops, using the same or similar patterns of arguments, established international normative orders protecting human rights and civil liberties might be weakened over time and a more fundamental process of norm erosion may take place.

Subcultural Theory Applied to Jihadi and Right-Wing Radicalization in Germany

This article assesses the applicability of subcultural theories to individual cases of jihadi and Right-wing radicalization in Germany, with a focus on the individual initial situation and motivation for involvement. Within an overall qualitative research design, the article tests deviance/strain and Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) subcultural theories against four jihadi and three Right-wing extremist cases. The findings show little support for the strain-based status frustration hypothesis, but confirm the illegitimate opportunity structure thesis; modified versions of the CCCS’ resistance, bricolage, and homology concepts; as well as some of the postmodern approaches to agency and cultural cross-fertilization. The jihadi and Right-wing radicals examined here are assertive and purposive agents, strategically using the rich cultural arsenal available in the mainstream and/or other subcultures, while at the same time being themselves influenced by contemporary mainstream preferences of style. The article discusses the implications of these findings for radicalization research and specific subcultural approaches. It argues for a greater focus on both individual agency and the (sub-)cultural context for an improved understanding of individual involvement in political violence.

Coming to Believe “Truths” About Islamist Radicalization in Europe

This article addresses four assumptions behind many of the current theoretical and policy approaches to individual processes of Islamist radicalization in Europe: the association with terrorism and extremism; determinism; the extraordinary nature of radicals; and the reification of the grievance and collective identity discourse. It argues for an intentional and developmental, rather than structural and socio-economic feature-focused, approach to the explanation of the radicalization process, with the consideration of framing and socio-psychological mechanisms having an impact on individual decision-making processes, and for an overall, broader conceptual understanding of radicalism.

Pragmatic persuasion in counterterrorism

This article approaches a hitherto understudied topic in counterterrorism discourse, namely argumentative speech, as it relates to measures impacting on human rights. Frame analysis is applied for the first time in this area to statements and other types of ‘public speech’ communicated by the main US and EU executive institutions between September 2001 and September 2010. After detailing some methodological considerations, the article focuses on the pragmatic justification pattern and assesses its persuasion potential along a series of resonance criteria. It then argues for a more rigorous analysis of normative argumentation along a series of inductively derived analytical concepts and for a switch in focus from the liberty versus security trade-off and from the notion of exceptionalism towards that of pragmatism, given the increased odds of ‘success’ of this type of argumentation in the context of de facto normative change.

Dealing with uncertainty: the illusion of knowledge in the study of counterterrorism effectiveness

Efforts to combat terrorism have become a priority in the security agenda of most countries around the world, while the respective policies, tools and instruments have amounted to significant costs. In this article, we review the literature on counterterrorism (CT) effectiveness and draw a series of rather negative conclusions with regard to the reliability of our knowledge in this area. We find that the literature displays case and data selection biases, and the results produced are oftentimes contradictory, mostly due to the use of different indicators. We then propose a conceptualisation of CT effectiveness, which should help to resolve some of the issues outlined. The article concludes by outlining some future research directions that should improve our methodological grasp in the field.

The porous borders of extremism: Autonomous Nationalists at the crossroad with the extreme left

This article explores the ways in which the Autonomous Nationalists (ANs) have borrowed from extreme left discourse, style and repertoires of action, and in particular inquires into the ways in which such choices have been justified in online discourse. Based on a sample of AN websites throughout Germany, a mix of deductive and inductive content analysis revealed that central subcultural concepts were present, but not as arguments per se, or only to a very small extent in the data. The bulk of the arguments were rather phrased in strategic terms, and to a lesser extent as a matter of taste or enjoyment. This confirms at the discursive level earlier findings at the individual level with regard to the importance of agency and taste for individual life choices along the radicalization path toward right-wing extremism.

Editors’ introduction: the “dark” side of normative argumentation in counterterrorism – an emerging research field

The post-9/11 threat environment has created the opportunity for numerous counterterrorism measures to assert themselves to the detriment of established human rights and civil liberties. In this process, governmental actors have frequently used normative argumentation as a discursive and rhetorical tool to legitimise the introduction or use of contested policy measures, or even the breach of taboos. In public statements, these actors have presented and framed terrorism as an “existential threat” and trivialised or recontextualised counterterrorism practices in order to justify such measures. They have used rhetorical strategies varying from denial, to justification and actual attempts to re-define the content and sphere of application of these basic norms. The use of such argumentative strategies is not without consequences. The more intense state actors argue in favour of human rights restrictions, the more these domestically and globally established norms come under pressure and lose their behaviour-guiding function. What used to be an exception may turn into normality; what used to be “bad” may turn into “good”. Our normative expectations may change over time – and state agents are the main drivers in this process of norm erosion. So far, this “dark” side of normative argumentation has not been adequately and systematically accounted for in academic research. Little has been written in the broader constructivist IR-literature on whether, how and why dominant global normative scripts change or erode. What is needed to hollow out established human rights norms and create acceptance for contested practices? How do “dark” discourses evolve? How are these new ideas strategically used? What role do powerful actors such as state representatives play in these processes? And what effects on social norms and political practices can we observe, or think of in the longer run? Counterterrorism policy is a paradigmatic field for investigating and answering these questions, not only because the empirics are compelling, but also due to a broad range of works in terrorism studies that adopt critical stances to the counterterrorism policy of the last decade. And there is also very good regional expertise when it comes to assessing and analysing normative change in specific local contexts. More than ten years after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, and in the context of policy responses to the “new” threat of international terrorism, it seems appropriate to draw a résumé of these

Subcultures, violent radicalization and terrorism

Terrorism and political violence are notorious for their interdisciplinarity, from politics and sociology, to psychology or theology. The peak of any particular disciplinary perspective usually coincides with empirical developments which require the use of additional theoretical and methodological tools to the already existing ones. An obvious case in point is the increasing visibility and impact of Islamist terrorism which, apart from leading to an overall swell in scholarship on terrorism, has also widened the scholarly debate to include academics that focus on the Middle East and Islam, as well as religion and culture more broadly. In light not only of recent empirical developments, but arguably also of relevance to previous forms and episodes of political violence, a new theoretical and methodological level of analysis is necessary for the study of contemporary manifestations of terrorism and political violence, namely the (sub-)cultural one. Beyond the cognitive, the behavioral and the discursive lenses of analysis, there is a need for an increased attention to the ‘meaningful’ and the ‘sensory’. The contributions of this special issue present novel approaches to the study of radicalization and political violence as applied to Islamism, right-wing extremism and leftwing extremism. They address a series of aspects which are fundamental to the understanding of contemporary forms of political violence: how individuals and groups construct identities, and the role such individual and collective identities might play in the interactions with the mainstream and other participants in the violent political arena; violence as representation and performance, its (sub-)cultural sources and intersections with nonpolitical violent subcultures; subcultural products such as music, clothing and symbols, and how they might both manipulate and be manipulated for the purposes of political action; subcultural lifestyles and their intersections with the political and the religious; overlaps and confrontations between different forms of radicalism; the relationship between radical movements and their target audiences; as well as the more fundamental question of marginality and deviance as applied to ‘extremism’ in relation to the mainstream. By means of a rich selection of case studies throughout Europe, the authors engage and challenge theories and concepts stemming from social movements and subcultural literatures and make innovative and provoking propositions with regard to the sources, manifestations and effects of contemporary forms of political violence. This special issue emerged from a round table entitled Subcultures, violent radicalization and terrorism, which took place in the framework of the seventh Society for Terrorism Research (STR) International Conference Ongoing and Emerging Debates in Terrorism Research, London, England, 27–28 June 2013. To the original four contributions, two more were added and one replaced. The editor wishes