When 'terror' doesn't mean 'terrorism'

The public conversation loses something when terror – a human emotion – becomes an all-purpose synonym for terrorism, a political or ideological tactic.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/TCSM
A running shoe with a sign that says 'No more killing people...Peace' hangs on a police barricade in remembrance of those killed and injured in the Boston Marathon bombing at a makeshift memorial on Boylston Street, on April 22, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Here we are again, on the rebound from another act of senseless violence and sifting through our taxonomy of terror. The Boston Marathon bombings were an act of terror – but were they an act of terrorism?

In the days since the twin blasts hit Boylston Street – Boston's front parlor – the response from both officialdom and the public has been marked, in the main, by restraint and resilience. As President Obama said, quoting Scripture in his powerfully moving speech in Boston, people have shown not "a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline."

To restate the obvious, just for the record: There is much that we don't know yet, and much that we may not ever know.

The White House waded carefully into these swift and turbulent waters, holding off on using the "T" word in initial public statements. But that evolved. And after the second suspect's capture Mr. Obama promised, "We will investigate any associations that these terrorists may have had."

Note that he didn't name names, and that the word "terrorists" appeared only once in his statement, and in a dependent clause at that. His main point was a promise to keep investigating. But the work of "terrorists" is, by definition, "terrorism."

The words we use to talk about these events, even in our heads, matter. And it's worth keeping certain distinctions and nuances straight.

The public conversation loses something when terror becomes an all-purpose synonym for terrorism, a political or ideological tactic.

It may be an understandable substitution: After all, terrorism has those two "r's" that so often get elided so that the word comes out "terrism." And six letters fit more easily than nine on a page.

But terror is a human emotion. Terrorism is a political or ideological tactic. Terror comes ultimately from Latin, and is rooted in the idea of shaking with fear. Terrorism came into English from French in the final years of the 18th century. Originally it referred to "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France," as the Online Etymology Dictionary explains. Note: "State-sponsored" terrorism was the original kind. The word was soon extended to refer to "systematic use of terror as a policy."

Etymologies aren't definitions, though, and so here's a definition from WordNet: "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear."

Terrorism is characteristic of asymmetrical warfare: guerrillas taking on a national government, for instance. With minimal resources, they are forced, from their perspective, to go after soft targets. Terrorists strike once to make clear they can strike again – and the tactics are used in pursuit of some sort of goal, however hateful. When guerrillas bomb a subway station, for instance, a small bomb that causes only minimal damage nonetheless signals that the authorities no longer have complete control of that element of civic order. And all stations on that subway become targets.

What's missing at this writing from the narrative of the Tsarnaev brothers is some kind of goal. What were the bombings meant to accomplish?

If a bomb goes off in a city, but no one hears a message, can it count as terrorism? And is it really terrorism if the people refuse to be terrorized?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to When 'terror' doesn't mean 'terrorism'
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today