Citation

Butko TJ. Polit. Stud. Rev. 2009; 7(2): 185-194.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, Political Studies Association, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1478-9299.2009.00178.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The general assumption is that there is one objective and universally applicable conceptualization of ‘terrorism’. This position is especially prominent in the United States and other Western countries after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Yet, despite such a view, it is possible to distinguish four specific perspectives or paradigms on terrorism: standard/mainstream, radical, relativist and constructivist. While the standard/mainstream approach remains dominant among academics, intelligence analysts and policy makers, the other positions have exhibited their own adherents. In the end, it will be argued that the constructivist perspective is the most accurate. Since ‘terrorism’ remains too contentious and disputed a term to achieve universal consensus, the constructivist approach has been the most effective in stressing the decisive role that parochial state and national interests perform in any conceptualization of ‘terrorism’, especially the strategic and security concerns of the dominant or hegemonic power(s) within the international system.