恐怖主义的结构意义

Caron E. Gentry
{"title":"恐怖主义的结构意义","authors":"Caron E. Gentry","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474424806.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter argues that one of the central debates within Terrorism Studies will never be resolved: that of an agreed upon, objective definition. Several Terrorism Studies scholars believe that Terrorism Studies would be better off if it arrived at an objective definition for terrorism. Yet, this chapter demonstrates that how terrorism is largely understood is dependent upon various social structures, including gender, race, and heteronormativity. Thus, a thicker understanding of terrorism would acknowledge that it is an essentially contested concept or as an ‘utterance’. An agreed upon definition would present only a thin understanding, erasing the social structures that shape our understanding. Therefore, the chapter relies upon the concept of ‘aphasia,’ or calculated forgettings, from Critical Race theory. This concept holds that Western thought and society has purposefully forgotten how race and racialisation work to deny people of colour many things, including rationality, intelligence, and agency. Gender and heteronormativity operate in a similar way. Such operations infect all areas of life—the purpose of this chapter is to look at terrorism.","PeriodicalId":193177,"journal":{"name":"Disordered Violence","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Structural Signification of Terrorism\",\"authors\":\"Caron E. Gentry\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474424806.003.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter argues that one of the central debates within Terrorism Studies will never be resolved: that of an agreed upon, objective definition. Several Terrorism Studies scholars believe that Terrorism Studies would be better off if it arrived at an objective definition for terrorism. Yet, this chapter demonstrates that how terrorism is largely understood is dependent upon various social structures, including gender, race, and heteronormativity. Thus, a thicker understanding of terrorism would acknowledge that it is an essentially contested concept or as an ‘utterance’. An agreed upon definition would present only a thin understanding, erasing the social structures that shape our understanding. Therefore, the chapter relies upon the concept of ‘aphasia,’ or calculated forgettings, from Critical Race theory. This concept holds that Western thought and society has purposefully forgotten how race and racialisation work to deny people of colour many things, including rationality, intelligence, and agency. Gender and heteronormativity operate in a similar way. Such operations infect all areas of life—the purpose of this chapter is to look at terrorism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":193177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disordered Violence\",\"volume\":\"104 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disordered Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474424806.003.0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disordered Violence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474424806.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章认为,恐怖主义研究中的一个核心争论永远不会得到解决:即一个商定的、客观的定义。一些研究恐怖主义的学者认为,如果恐怖主义研究能对恐怖主义有一个客观的定义,那将会更好。然而,本章表明,如何理解恐怖主义在很大程度上取决于不同的社会结构,包括性别、种族和异性恋。因此,对恐怖主义更深入的理解将承认它本质上是一个有争议的概念,或者是一种“话语”。商定的定义只会呈现出一种肤浅的理解,抹去了塑造我们理解的社会结构。因此,本章依赖于批判种族理论中的“失语症”概念,或故意遗忘。这个概念认为,西方思想和社会故意忘记了种族和种族化是如何否认有色人种的许多东西的,包括理性、智慧和能动性。性别和异性恋规范以类似的方式运作。这样的行动影响了生活的各个领域——本章的目的是研究恐怖主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Structural Signification of Terrorism
This chapter argues that one of the central debates within Terrorism Studies will never be resolved: that of an agreed upon, objective definition. Several Terrorism Studies scholars believe that Terrorism Studies would be better off if it arrived at an objective definition for terrorism. Yet, this chapter demonstrates that how terrorism is largely understood is dependent upon various social structures, including gender, race, and heteronormativity. Thus, a thicker understanding of terrorism would acknowledge that it is an essentially contested concept or as an ‘utterance’. An agreed upon definition would present only a thin understanding, erasing the social structures that shape our understanding. Therefore, the chapter relies upon the concept of ‘aphasia,’ or calculated forgettings, from Critical Race theory. This concept holds that Western thought and society has purposefully forgotten how race and racialisation work to deny people of colour many things, including rationality, intelligence, and agency. Gender and heteronormativity operate in a similar way. Such operations infect all areas of life—the purpose of this chapter is to look at terrorism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Structural Signification of Terrorism Intersecting Terrorism Studies Conclusion: Disordered Violence What Does Not Get Counted: Misogynistic Terrorism Ir/rationality: Radicalisation, ‘Black Extremism’ and Prevent Tragedies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1