Laurent Crépeau
Terrorism, at its core,
is a human undertaking. Individuals commit actions with the intent of changing
the world around them in order to make it better. It is intrinsically linked
with ideology and it intertwines with several other concepts including social
psychology. In one way or another, it is a response to a variety of social,
political, cultural, ideological and material conditions in the world. Social
research on terrorism has given some interesting results in the past. Although
the process itself is riddled with difficulties, its results put in light various
aspects of the dynamics of terrorist groups throughout time and both from a
macro and micro level.
Modern terror is fairly
recent. David Rapoport, a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the
University of California, Los Angeles considered by some to have taught “the
first course on terrorism” in the United States, argues that in the 135 years
since the rise of modern terrorism, while groups have acted towards a variety
of purposes, general currents can be denoted from looking at group objectives[1].
Rapoport classifies these currents as the four “waves of modern terrorism”. The
first three waves lasted around a generation before disappearing.
Hypothetically, this would be because the visions that inspired parents lost
their attractiveness to their children. Rapoport also suggests that the wave
pattern that can be observed from history indicates that terror is something
that closely mirrors modern culture.
The “Anarchist Wave”
The “Anarchist wave” started
in the 1880s and constituted the birth of modern terrorism. Ideologically, it
came from a long line of philosophical reasoning that started in the
Enlightenment with thinkers such as Rousseau and Godwin and was subsequently
developed by Proudhon, Bakunin, and Stirner among others. Central to doctrines
of terrorism is the idea and goal of revolution. Revolution was critical to
start the first wave. First, in its projected endpoints, it serves as source of
political legitimacy (this legitimacy often times was based on the idea
achieving national self-determination). Secondly, it seemed like the heir of
the political revolutions of England, America and France as well perhaps as
continuing in the spirit of the Revolutions of 1848 (otherwise known as the “Spring
of Nations” or “People’s Spring”).
Rapoport argues that two
main factors allowed the first wave to happen (as well as all subsequent waves).
First was the widespread use of new technologies in communication and
transportation. With the telegraph and daily mass newspapers, word of events
from around the world travel much faster, making it so that in took around one
day to two days only for news to spread throughout Europe. In addition to this,
railroads flourished during the last quarter of the nineteenth century and
greatly facilitated the spread of Anarchist ideas through sympathizers who
travelled extensively. Large-scale immigration also resulted from this, thus
facilitating the creation of an anarchist diaspora throughout Europe.
Second was the
importance of doctrine and culture. Anarchism was a movement that emerged in a
world where traditional revolutionaries diffused their ideas with pamphlets and
leaflets and garnered support through their readership. Many anarchist thinkers
saw this method as inefficient to breaking the social conventions that
prevented humanity from being emancipated, however. They believed society had
inherent ways of preserving its status quo and that as such, these conventions
would be broken only with the use of drastic measures. It was supposed that
“dramatic action repeated again and again invariably would polarize the
society, and the revolution would follow” (Rapoport 50). This explains the
importance that “propaganda by the deed” achieved among militants. In addition
to being a bold form of protest that would command respect and profoundly shock
popular conscience, it acquired an awe-inspiring aura among Anarchist
sympathizers due to the fact that it constituted the ultimate sign of
commitment and willingness to put oneself at harm for the good of the cause.
Assassination became
very widespread subsequently. The 1890s became referred to as the “Golden Age
of Assassination” with well-prepared assassination campaigns against prominent,
high-ranking individuals, including notably, Czar Alexander II. With new means
of transportation and communication, “propaganda by the deed” was exported
outside of Russia and used by other militants, notably in Poland and Armenia.
Before moving on to the
next part, a short notice is in order on Serguei Nechayev’s Catechism of a Revolutionary. This 1869 work is significant in
that it is the first work to examine strategies to cause terror. An interesting
trait found in all waves of terrorism is the desire to develop better ways to
commit terrorist acts (i.e. finding more efficient, more resonant actions and
ways to proceed by looking at other terrorist acts committed beforehand). In
this regard, the Catechism of the
Revolutionary is the first of a whole line of manuals that appeared over
time and put forth improved tactics to engage in terrorism.
Rapoport asserts that
the “Anarchist Wave” was “the first global or truly international terrorist
experience in history” (Rapoport 47). It started in the 1880s and ended around
1920. While the movement eventually died out, the ideologies it put forth
influenced the rest of the 20th century.
Continued in Part Two
[1] Most of the content in the body
of this piece is taken from Rapoport, David C. “The Four Waves of Modern
Terrorism.” Attacking Terrorism.
Audrey Kurth Cronin and James M. Ludes, eds. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press, 2004. Print.
Continued in Part Two
