Sociology of Terror: Contemporary Sense

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The notion of terror, in contemporary sense of this word, has been introduced by Aristotle to denote a special type of fear, experienced by people in ancient Greek theatres, while watching staged performance of tragedies. This was the fear of non-existence, apprehended through pain, chaos and destruction. Such definition of terror coincides with many contemporary outlooks on psychological essence of this emotional experience. For example, in his article “What’s your Definition of Terrorism?”, Ziauddin Sardar refers to terror as individual’s mental anxiety, capable of completely overtaking his or her rational psyche: “Terror is all about overwhelming fear and coercion” (Sardar 1996, p. 26). In 1792, French revolutionaries have realized that, in order for citizens to be able to unquestionably recognize the political authority of a Republican government, they would have to be instilled with terror.

In her article “Robespierre and the Terror”, Marisa Linton provides us with insight onto the fact that, it is namely since the time of French Revolution in late 18^th century that terror has been increasingly viewed as the most effective instrument of political governing: “For the first time in history terror became an official government policy, with the stated aim to use violence in order to achieve a higher political goal. Unlike the later meaning of ‘terrorists’ as people who use violence against a government, the terrorists of the French Revolution were the government” (Linton 2006, p. 27). However, it did not take too long for representatives of anti-governmental political movements, throughout the world, to realize that terror can be used to serve their agenda as well – this is how the classical notion of terrorism came into being, in the first place.

Nowadays, there are many varying definitions of terrorism, but the one found in Roberto Toscano’s article “More on Defining Terror”, appears to be the most comprehensive: “Terrorism is a warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable” (Toscano 2007, p. 111). It is well worthy noticing that this definition of terrorism emphasizes terrorists’ foremost agenda as such that has very little to do with their intention to kill as many civilians as possible, but with terrorists’ desire to create a strong publicity over the fact of their very existence.

What terrorists strive for is to turn countries in which they operate into a sort of political theatre, with ordinary citizens being expected to act as filled-with-fear spectators. We can say that, by blowing up buildings and hijacking planes, terrorists indulge into what Michael Humphrey in his article “From Terror to Trauma: Commissioning Truth for National Reconciliation” refers to as “affective politics”: “Affective politics based on terror or trauma moves people through fear and empathy… affective politics tends to resort to cyclical renewal through a new instance of terror or victimhood to ‘move’ people again in order to refocus and identify momentarily” (Humphrey 2000, p. 308). Thus, we can also define terrorism as the method of psychological manipulation. Terrorism’s main objective is to mentally affect as many people as possible, by exposing them to a sight of other people being killed. This is what differ terrorist acts from the acts of sabotage – whereas, saboteurs aim at destroying strategically important objects and eliminating a concrete enemy, terrorists’ foremost agenda is being concerned with population’s demoralization and intimidation. For them – victimization of people is an operative tool, murder is a method.

There are two types of fear, which are being experienced by people, throughout their lives – rational and irrational. Whereas, rational fear often helps individuals to adequately address life’s challenges, the irrational fear (phobia) renders them absolutely helpless in time when they face danger. In their article “Primed Lexical Decision Task in Fearful and Non-fearful Individuals”, Kimberly Christopherson and Richard Ferraro state: “It is assumed that individuals who have phobia process fear-related information differently from those who do not have a phobia, due to their inability rationalize such information” (Christopherson & Ferraro 2009, p. 267). Intimidated people, affected by phobias, always act in a way that causes them the most harm, without realizing it. Those high-ranking officials, who keep “international terrorists” on a payroll, are fully aware of this fact. In its turn, this explains the way in which terrorists have been affecting politics in Western countries, during the course of a recent decade – immediately, after a particular terrorist act takes place (such as the events of 9/11), it results on this country’s citizens being deprived of many of their constitutional rights and freedoms, in exchange for “security”.

And, the reason why citizens perceive this process as being beneficial, is because they think of terrorism as such that poses clear and immediate danger to their very lives. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that nowadays, not a day goes by without ordinary citizens in Western countries being exposed to the sights of terrorism-related violence on TV. This is exactly why people are being so terrified of a prospect of falling victim to a terrorist attack, despite the fact that such event’s likehood is being thousand times lesser then that of a prospect for these people to die in car accident.

Why is it that we are not being utterly terrified of cars? This is because Media magnates are not interested in instilling us with a fear towards cars, by the mean of showing us the victims of road accidents on TV 24/7. The reason why Henry Ford had reconsidered his anti-Semitic views, during the course of thirties, was because he had been approached by a group of Jewish Hollywood producers, who told him that they could make sure that car accident scenes in Hollywood movies would involve exclusively Ford automobiles.

Therefore, there can be no doubt that the significance of terrorist acts is being politically amplified by Medias. In her article “Terrorism as Breaking News: Attack on America”, Brigitte Nacos makes a perfectly good point, while stating: “Without publicity, terrorism would be like the proverbial tree that falls in the forest and the press is not there to report – it would be as if the incident never happened. The term “mass-mediated terrorism” signifies the centrality of media considerations in the calculus of political violence that is committed by non-state actors against civilians” (Nacos 2003, p. 23). The reason why Medias are being so committed to discussing the dangers of terrorism can be explained by Media magnates being in cahoots with governmental organizations that sponsor terrorists, namely secret services.

Why is it that America’s war on single individual Osama bin Laden has been lasting for eight years now, with no end in sight; whereas, it had only taken this country four years to defeat Germany and Japan, during the course of WW2? This is because American politicians appear to have the same agenda with terrorists – the more American citizens are being kept in constant fear of terrorists, the easier they can be governed and the less they are going to be capable of opposing government’s oppression. In 1989, bin Laden’s annual budget in CIA accounted for $280 millions. Therefore, the suggestions that this individual still remains on CIA’s payroll do not appear as being altogether deprived of rationale.

Nowadays, it is being assumed that the process of political governing in Western countries continues to be based on the principle of “checks and balances” – that is, government’s legislative, executive and judicial branches are believed to be operationally independent of each other. However, during the course of recent decades, these countries’ Medias had become not just the “fourth”, but the most important source of political power, simply because nowadays, no individual can seriously expect to be able to gain a political prominence without being favored by Media owners.

In his article “Media’s Impact on Educational Policies and Practices: Political Spectacle and Social Control”, Gary L. Anderson states: “As media become more and more ever present, whole societies become spectacular as citizens quite literally lose their sense of reality in a sea of images and language that is directed at them… The modern political spectacle, perpetuated through various media forms, exercises control by isolating and fragmenting, denying history, distorting reality, alienating, and monopolizing communication. Increasingly, we are both watching and being watched by media” (Anderson 2007, p. 109). In its turn, this created a precondition for the emergence of “conceptual” form of political governing, when citizens’ opinions have very little influence over the process of their countries’ socio-political policies being designed, due to these opinions’ illusive essence – people believe what they are being told on TV.

The concept of “conceptual governing” can be compared to the game of chess, when players are being periodically forced to sacrifice pieces, in order to attain a strategic advantage over their opponents. In chess language, such players’ moves are being discussed in terms of a “gambit”. If we closely analyze the most notorious terrorist acts that had taken place in U.S. and Russia, over the course of last decade, it will appear that these acts preceded the complete overhaul of political systems in these countries.

For example, the reason why Vladimir Putin was able to gain such popularity among ordinary Russians is because he succeeded in restoring constitutional order in rebellious republic of Chechnya. However, before he could proceed with such his agenda, he needed to be given a legally bounding precedent to do so. In September 1999, a series of powerful explosions in apartment buildings had rocked Russian cities of Moscow, Buynaksk and Volgodonsk. Putin immediately blamed Chechen terrorists for what had happened. In the same month, FSB (Russian secret service) agents had been caught bringing explosives into an apartment building in Russian city of Ryazan, with FSB’s officials being unable to find a better explanation to this fact then referring to these agents’ activities in terms of an “anti-terrorist exercise”.

In his book “Putin: Russia’s Choice”, Richard Sakwa subtly implies that “September bombings” had been orchestrated by Russia’s top-ranking officials: “FSB either deliberately or by omission was responsible for the bombings. The events, soon after the four actual bombings, in Ryazan where a ‘dummy’ bomb, explained as a test exercise by the FSB, was found in an apartment block primed and ready to explode, still requires full explanation” (Sakwa 2004, p. 266). Immediately, after explosions had claimed the lives of 300 people, Russia’s Medias launched an “anti-terrorist” campaign”, while aiming to emotionally disarm citizens, so that they would not resist the process of Putin assuming dictatorial powers.

The uncensored images of people torn to pieces were being featured in Russian TV prime-time news, without the regard to emotional well-being of small children and women. The countless “experts on terrorism” would never cease discussing the horrors of “religiously motivated terror” on TV, while suggesting that in order for Russian citizens to be able enjoy security; they would have to sacrifice their freedom. However, after having sacrificed freedom, Russian did not attain much of a “security” – the terrorist acts continue to take place in this country on monthly and even weekly basis. In its turn, this provides us with the insight on why there was no terrorism in former Soviet Union – this was due to the fact that Soviet Medias were forbidden from covering terrorism-related news.

In 1980, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said that “publicity is the oxygen of terrorism”. The events of 9/11 fully substantiate such her suggestion. Just as it was the case with “September bombings” in Russia, which had primarily benefited Vladimir Putin, the “attack on America” had primarily benefited George Bush and his cronies in high offices, because it provided them with the excuse to demand from American citizens to “temporally” yield their constitutional rights and freedoms.

Why did George Bush strive to deprive Americans of their freedoms? The answer to this question can be found in newsreels about Bush’s visits to Israel, during the course of which he never ceased banging his head against the “wall of sorrow” in Jerusalem and pledging his unwavering allegiance to Israeli cause, as if he was not a President of the greatest country on Earth but Israeli “mole” in

America’s highest office. As time goes by, more and more Americans begin to wonder what is the actual benefit of America allying itself with the state where policy of racial apartheid is being given and official status, which continues to occupy Palestine despite UN numerous resolutions, and which boasts on the strength of its resolution to use 200 nuclear warheads on just about any country it perceives as being “anti-Semitic”.

However, the events of 9/11 have provided America’s Medias, controlled by “chosen people”, with seemingly legitimate excuse to indulge in “exposing the dangers of international terrorism” as such that have solely to do with Islamic fundamentalism, despite the fact that it is namely Israel, which can be referred to as terrorism-supporting country, in full sense of this word.

As we have shown earlier, it is simply impossible to discuss terrorism outside of the context of how Medias cover terrorist acts. Yet, many self-appointed “experts on tolerance” actively strive to prevent people from realizing it. For example, in his study “Television Exposure Not Predictive of Terrorism Fear”, Alan Rubin had proven himself being ignorant enough to conclude that Medias’ coverage of 9/11 attacks did not contribute to ensuing panic among Americans, immediately in the aftermath of these attacks: “We sought to examine whether television, with its extensive coverage of terrorism, contributed to a culture of fear. We found that the young adults in our sample did not exhibit a high degree of faith in others. However, these young adults, contrary to what we expected, were not fearful and generally felt safe, despite the almost around-the-clock coverage of terrorist acts and the war on terrorism” (Rubin 2003, p.140). It is quite impossible to tell whether the “sample of young adults”, mentioned in Rubin’s study, consisted of hook-nosed “sophisticates” just like author himself, but there is very little doubt that only utterly naïve or intentionally malicious individual could have come up with suggestions like this, simply because the link between how American Medias cover terrorism-related events and the sheer intensity of terrorism-related paranoia among Americans is too clear not to be noticed.

Nowadays, if an odd individual accidentally forgets his briefcase in a public place, it is being viewed as something that poses a major threat to America’s national security. It is namely due to controlled Medias’ “objectiveness” that the majority of Americans seriously believe that the reason why attacks of 9/11 had taken place, was because Islamic fundamentalists simply cannot stand a sight of American women wearing short skirts. It is namely the Medias owned by representatives of “chosen people” (CNN, CBS, Fox News), which were able to momentarily identify Osama bin Laden as the evil mastermind behind the attacks, despite the fact that even today, there is no credible evidence as to his guilt in existence. Therefore, we will dare to refer to Rubin “study’s” findings as being utterly fallacious, while hoping that this will not result in us being accused of “anti-Semitism”.

Ancient Romans used to be well aware of the simple fact that, in order for just about anyone to realize the actual essence of a particular social or political phenomenon, he or she would simply have to ask itself a question quo bono? (who benefits?). As we have shown earlier, it is namely the representatives of Russia’s and America’s political elites, who benefited from “September bombings” and “Attacks of 9/11” the most. Therefore, it was them who stood behind sub-humans that had perpetrated both terrorist acts – the basic laws of historical dialectics leave no doubt about it. The fact that in both cases, Medias have substantially contributed to ensuing terrorism-related public hysteria in Russia and America, dispel the myth of these Medias’ independence. Nowadays, Western Medias is the essential component of “criminal triad”, which also involves secret service organizations and the actual perpetrators of criminal acts – triad’s ultimate agenda is the establishment of a “new world order”.

In his article “The Mass Media, Crime and Terrorism”, David Altheide provides us with the insight onto the fact Medias do not simply “cover” terrorism, but promote it rather blatantly: “The mass media promotes terrorism by stressing fear and an uncertain future. Major changes in US foreign and domestic policy essentially went unreported and unchallenged by the dominant news organizations. Notwithstanding the long relationship between fear and crime in the United States, the role of the mass media in promoting fear has become more pronounced since the United States ‘discovered’ international terrorism on 11 September 2001. Political decision-makers quickly adjusted propaganda passages, to emphasize domestic support for the new US role in leading the world” (Altheide 2006, p. 990). By doing it, Medias create additional preconditions for the process of American society’s marginalization to proceed unopposed.

Today’s America is nothing but the modern equivalent of Roman Empire in time of its decline. The racially and spiritually corrupted Roman citizens could not care less about anything but “bread and entertainment”, while being especially drawn to watching bloody spectacles of gladiator fights in Coliseum. In order for Roman Emperors to be able to gain popularity among citizens, they had to provide marginalized crowds of degenerates with increasingly bloodier and graphic “entertainment”. In the same manner, today’s Medias in Western countries provide ground for people’s animalistic urges to thrive upon, by presenting them with graphic sights of terrorist attacks, with journalists savoring the explicit details of what their bosses consider “news”.

Nowadays, in order for a particular Media product (such as movie) to attain popularity among the intended audience, it must necessarily be graphically-violent. What is especially despicable about Medias’ role in contributing to the decline of morals in Western societies is that Media owners are being fully aware of the fact that their money-generating activities undermine the national integrity of countries where they live. Yet, they continue on with such their activities, due to the fact that they have succeeded in convincing naïve citizens that even a slight criticism of Medias’ parasitic operational mode, automatically accounts for the “crime of hate speech”.

Thus, the foremost conclusion of this paper can be formulated as follows: it is not only that Medias actively promote terrorism as the only effective way of dealing with “governmental oppression”, but they strive to keep it hidden from the citizens that it is namely their own governments, which sponsor terrorists, so that people would be more likely to accept neo-Liberal ideological dictatorship as the legitimate form of political governing (as it already had happened in countries of EU, where citizens can be sentenced for 5-7 years in jail for simply suggesting that Jews were not only the people who had suffered during the course of WW2); thus, creating preconditions for the eventual establishment of “new world order”, under the leadership of “experts on tolerance”, in which Plutocrats will be able to freely move speculative capitals from one corner of the globe to another, without regard for countries’ national laws and regulations, while providing overly critical folks with a “security” of a prison cell. Therefore, Media owners who send journalists on the errand of discovering “shocking truth” about “international terrorism” should be dealt with as the actual terrorists.

Bibliography

Altheide, D. (2006). The mass media, crime and terrorism. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 4 (5), November, pp. 982-997.

Anderson, G. (2007). Media’s impact on educational policies and practices: Political spectacle and social control. Peabody Journal of Education. 82 (1), pp. 103-120.

Christopherson, K. & Ferraro, R. (2009). Primed lexical decision task in fearful and non-fearful individuals. The Journal of Psychology, 143 (3), pp. 267-278.

Humphrey, M. (2002). From terror to trauma: Commissioning truth for national reconciliation. Social Identities. 6 (1), pp. 299-309.

Linton, M. (2006). Robespierre and the terror. History Today, 56 (8), pp. 23-29.

Nacos, B. (2003). Terrorism as breaking news: Attack on America. Political Science Quarterly, 118 (1), Spring, pp. 23-52.

Rubin, A. (2003). Television exposure not predictive of terrorism fear. Newspaper Research Journal, 24 (1), pp. 128-145.

Sakwa, R. (2004). Putin: Russia’s choice. London, New York Taylor & Francis. Routledge.

Sardar, Z. (1996) What’s your definition of terrorism? New Statesman, 136 (3), p. 23.

Toscano, R. (2007). More on defining terror. World Policy Journal, 24 (3), pp. 111-112.

Click Here To Order Now!

Sociology of Terror: Contemporary Sense

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)