Social science of illegal intimidation is an area of humanism that looks to grasp psychological warfare as a social peculiarity. The field characterizes psychological warfare, concentrates on why it happens and assesses its effects on society. The social science of psychological oppression draws from the fields of political theory, history, financial matters and brain research. The humanism of psychological oppression contrasts from basic illegal intimidation studies, stressing the social circumstances that empower psychological oppression. It concentrates on how people as well as states answer such occasions
Concept of Sociology of Terrorism
According to the discipline of sociology of terrorism, terrorism is a “social construction.”[1] Interpreting events and identifying causes are necessary steps in defining terrorism. Public perceptions can be influenced and certain interests can be furthered by this definition process and the public presentation that results.[1] The field examines the reasons behind people’s willingness to commit mass violent crimes in order to bring about political change.[2]
According to the field, [3] this kind of violence is a social activity that depends on societal norms and values that are shared and in conflict, communication, and a certain degree of self-control.[4] It is believed that societies where radical norms and values had greater sway are where terrorists first appeared.[4] The sociological investigation of these problems is based on theoretical, methodological, and thematic disciplinary insights.(5)
History of Sociology of Terrorism
Pre-September 11 attacks
Following the September 11 attacks, scholars had a heightened interest in a number of sociological themes surrounding terrorism, including media coverage, organizational response, moral panic, and counterterrorism.[Reference required]
Weinberg, Pedahzur, and Hirsch-Hoefler (2004) conducted the most extensive study on the definition of terrorism. They looked at 73 definitions from 55 articles and came to the conclusion that terrorism is “a politically motivated tactic involving the threat or use of force or violence in which the pursuit of publicity plays a significant role.”(6) Weinberg et al. draw attention to the fact that definitions of terrorism frequently overlook its symbolic components. Sociology’s emphasis on symbols provides a unique perspective for evaluating horror.
Post-September 11 attacks
A number of sociologists have called for the creation of a subfield in sociology pertaining to terrorism since the September 11 attacks, including Mathieu Deflem of the University of South Carolina, S.E. Costanza of Central Connecticut State University, and John C. Kilburn Jr. of Texas A&M International University. The sociology of terrorism frequently discusses issues like military spending, counterterrorism, immigration, privacy concerns, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In these contexts, issues like power dynamics, the definition of terrorism, nationality, the media, and propaganda are discussed. A conjectural connection between religion and terrorism also gained popularity among social psychologists and sociologists.(7)
Methods of Study
Various emphasis areas have been offered by researchers to direct the sociological investigation of terrorism. Preventing and responding to acts of terrorism are central to many study on terrorism. Turk and Tosini emphasize how crucial it is to define terrorism.(8) According to Turk, the public’s perception of terrorism is influenced by the various definitions of the term.(8)
When a government decides to designate a group as a terrorist organization, it does so on purpose. The sociology of terrorism places a lot of emphasis on who defines terrorism and how they describe it.
Additionally, terrorism can be studied as a form of socialization and communication. The communication surrounding terrorism centers on terrorism as an indicator. Someone or a group is expressing their dissatisfaction with a social norm or a policy.(8) The socialization of terrorists is the subject of other studies.
Recent Research in the Field
Policing and Citizens
Following the September 11 attacks, policing and public reactions to terror were studied in early peer-reviewed literature.11] It also looked at how communities and first responders—police, rescue, etc.—interact. It was correctly anticipated by Ramirez, Hoopes, and Quinlan (2003) that following the September 11 attacks, police agencies would modify their purpose statements and police organizations would change their basic methods of profiling individuals[12].
There is good reason to think that pressure to address the terrorism issue will likely come to even the smallest local police departments.13]
Sociologists are very interested in human rights, and some legal and sociological researchers have considered the possible harmful effects of forceful (or militaristic) policing of terror concerns.
Moral Panic
In the discipline of sociology of terrorism, more recent research has been philosophical and analytical, concentrating on topics like moral panic and excessive spending following the September 11 attacks. In Symbolic Security, Moral Panic, and Public Sentiment: Toward a Sociology of Counterterrorism, Costanza and Kilburn (2005) made the case that symbolism is a crucial component in comprehending the war on terror.In [14]
They contend, drawing on a traditional symbolic interactionist viewpoint, that policy has been influenced more by popular opinion regarding the homeland security issue than by actual, tangible threats. Some contend that symbolism has resulted in an expensive and untestable policy of “hypervigilance” in agency decision-making.
Assessing Homeland Security Measures
Kilburn, Costanza, Borgeson, and Metchik (2011) note that there are a number of methodological roadblocks to accurately and scientifically evaluating the impact of homeland security measures, despite the quantitative leanings of contemporary sociology
.In [15] In conventional criminology, comparing the total financial expenses to clearance or arrest rates is the most empirically acceptable way to gauge the efficacy of any policing tactic (e.g., neighborhood watch, gun control, foot patrols, etc.). Measuring arrests would be an imprudent method of gauging the efficacy of legislation, given that terrorism is such an uncommon occurring phenomenon.
One of the methodological issues in the creation of the subfield of sociology of terrorism is the search for practical definitions for important terms used in the study of homeland security.In [16] Homeland security and terrorism are both relatively recent ideas.
Three sociological perspectives
Structural functionalis
The idea that different social structures and social processes exist in society to fulfill some significant (or essential) purpose to keep society functioning is known as functionalism. This sociological approach takes its name from the notion that identifying the functions that various facets of society play is the best method to examine society, and it is based on the work of sociologists such as Émile Durkheim.(17) A broad definition of social deviance is any “transgression of socially established norms.”
This might be as small as slamming a door in someone’s face or as big as committing a terrorist attack. Terrorism is therefore an aberrant activity.18] Functionalism views terrorism as a transient departure from social norms and as somewhat necessary to society. Terrorism is a type of crime.19]
Talcott Parsons’ theories have also influenced structural functionalism. This is the situation with N. Luhmanns, one of his pupils. For example, according to Emile Durkheim, modern society functions differently from earlier historically less differentiated societies (such as hunting and gathering, agriculture, horticulture, pastoral societies, etc.), which were frequently much smaller and more traditionally based or operated under mechanical forms of social solidarity.
In Luhmanns’ Social System theory, modern society is a textbook example of a functionality differentiated society with many distinct sub-systems. In one of his published works, Luhmann meticulously explains this process of system differentiation, highlighting these three distinct types of differentiation: (1) Segmentation (which is built on “equal-subsystems” .
By using Emile Durkheims’ seminal work The Division of Labor, functional analysis was also used in an older, classical context. It described modern societies as being founded on organic solidarity and attained status orientation, while the earliest and most simple societies were classified as being based on mechanical solidarity and attributed status orientation.
More conservative/fundamentalist subgroups, who favored an ascribed oriented society (religion, class, race, sex segregated) over an achieved status (individual, merit, performance) oriented society based on organic solidarity, frequently view this quick shift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity negatively. To put it briefly, examples include the rise of deadly terrorist organizations like Boko Haram and ISIS and instances of religious extremism.
Example: Terrorism as egoistic, altruistic or anomic suicidal homicides
Going back to Durkheims’ original study of suicide in France and applying the various types of suicide (Egoistic, Altruistic, and Anomic) to similar forms of suicidal terrorism types is one way to apply a functionalist or Durkheimian approach to explaining the social phenomenon of modern terrorism.21]
Sociologist Mahmoud Sadri applies these suicide types to suicidal homicides whether they are egoistic, altruistic, or anomic and their visible frequency in both western and non-western cultural domains. This is a more modern example of this theoretical application of Durheimian thinking.21] According to Mahmoud Sadri’s Chapter, egoistic suicidal homicides in western and non-western cultures frequently resemble suicide pacts or straightforward murder suicides.
As a result, terrorists, like other criminals, become what’s referred to as a reference point—a benchmark by which people are judged. When compared to terrorism, social standards and regulations become more evident and deemed essential. Society utilizes terrorism as a means of reiterating the significance of social norms in people’s lives and defending the status quo.
People therefore perceive terrorism as a danger to their well-being and the stability of society.19] According to functionalists, societal change is necessary to maintain a stable society. Socially sound societies are altered by method-types that are gradual, well-planned, and evolutionary. These social shifts are frequently preceded by a social shock and result from a strong yearning for change.
Conflict theory
According to conflict theory, “the basic, animating force of social change and society in general is conflict between competing interests.”23] Conflict theorists typically view civil law as a means of establishing and upholding a social structure that favors some at the expense of others, and they see power over conflict as the capacity of one group to repress the group they oppose.
Conflict theorists believe that violent behaviors expressed by terrorist organizations are the product of individual frustration, aggression, or demonstrating a readiness to fight. They also believe that terrorism is a response to injustice, which is likely created in terrorists’ minds due to misguidance, illiteracy, or unrealistic goals. Most terrorist attacks are carried out by individuals.
They used theological justifications to defend their conduct, seeing the Shi’a takeover of Iraq as a betrayal of Islamic values. Since its founding, Pakistan has officially utilized terror establishments. This demonstrates how terrorism cannot be only described as a result of disorganized organizations trying to assert their rights or obtain concessions from a state, when the state is the one financing and endorsing these groups’ participation in international terrorism action.
One way to achieve this was through suicide bombings against the Iraqi dictatorship and the countries that backed it, the United States and the United Kingdom. Yet, the number of suicide bombings only increased in specific political environments. The first requirement was that it had to do with the American and British militaries’ counterinsurgency.
Symbolic interactionism
“A micro-level theory in which shared meanings, originations, and assumptions form the basic motivations behind peoples’ actions” is the definition of symbolic interactionism.(26] According to symbolic interactionism, social interactions take place face-to-face. People behave based on meanings they interpret as self-constituting.
In [27] One of the main factors influencing an individual’s vision of reality is their group membership, which allows symbolic interactionism to explain crime, and hence terrorism.19]
In particular, social identity theory, identity theory, and personal identity theory are commonly used to examine terrorist identity construction as a socialization process.(28)
Labeling theory provides an explanation for deviation, which includes terrorism. “People subconsciously notice how others see or label them, and their reactions to those labels, over time, form the basis of their self-identity,” is the definition of labeling theory.29]