A philosophy professor attempts to define the concept behind the word that dominates the media and stokes our fears.

by Michael McKenna

On September 12, 2002, one day and one year after September 11, 2001, I attended a colloquium session amongst my colleagues at Ithaca College. That session was devoted to how our College community has changed since that day, and how it now envisions its future in that day's aftermath. In the closing moments of a rich discussion I asked if anyone had a workable definition of terrorism. No one did, including me.

There were a few sincere and plausible efforts at a deflationary treatment of the term, and also an important challenge to any value to be found in defining it. One deflationary suggestion was that terrorism is a term that those in power apply to others who forcibly resist them. Word has it that this view is nicely summarized in an X-men comic book: Terrorism is just what the big army calls the little army. Lest I mislead, I don't intend the association derisively. It's a view Noam Chomsky gives serious consideration. In the end, perhaps this is correct. Another deflationary suggestion was that terrorism's application is no more than a manner of picking out people who have darker colored skin or look as if they are "foreigners." In short, it amounts to no more than a racial or ethnic epithet. There is certainly enough evidence to lend credence to this view. As regards the value of defining the term, one suggestion was that it does not matter how we define it; what matters is how we respond to it. In effect, the issue here is political, not intellectual.

continue  

---

Michael McKenna is an associate professor of philosophy and chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religion. He has written widely on philosophy topics for a variety of publications. He is also a book review editor for the Journal of Ethics. He delivered a version of this essay at a faculty colloquium during the 2002-3 school year.