In Western thought, terrorism is recognized as one of the most shocking and egregious acts committed against a nation-state. Although a disputed and broadly defined concept, agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Government of Canada define terrorism as violence motivated by “political, religious or ideological causes,” intended to provoke fear to further political agendas. According to the FBI, international terrorism involves “violent, criminal acts” influenced by, or in adherence with, foreign designated terrorist entities, whilst domestic terrorism stems from internal ideologies, including political, social, or racial motives. Despite these seemingly straightforward definitions, the concept of terrorism remains deeply contested among scholars. Many challenge the traditional idea of “terrorist acts” by pointing to instances of state violence that are accepted and promoted by various Western governments.
This article examines terrorism through the lens of philosopher Walter Benjamin, applying it according to Dr. Randall D. Law’s definition: “terrorism [as] a strategy that makes use of certain tactics; in other words, terrorism is a means to an end.” In Towards the Critique of Violence, German-Jewish philosopher Benjamin offers a crucial perspective on the use of violence, arguing that for many states, the rule of law is instituted and maintained through the “assumption of power, and to that extent an immediate manifestation of violence.” An examination of Benjamin’s work challenges the conventional distinction of state and non-state violence, whilst exposing how legal frameworks operate to support violent state actors. Therefore, applying his theory to modern nation-states such as Canada and the United States reveals a double standard: state violence is often legitimized, whilst similar actions by non-state actors are condemned as terrorism. This challenges the accepted definition of terrorism and provides a nuanced perspective which acknowledges the role of state violence in perpetuating fear and control.
Walter Benjamin – Towards the Critique of Violence
In his seminal work, Benjamin seeks to explore the intimate relationship between legal structures and violence. Notably, he discusses what he labels as the “pre-dominant” feature of mainstream Western legal theory: natural law. In Towards the Critique of Violence, Benjamin contends that violence can be perceived as a product of nature unless utilized for unjust ends. As such, natural violence is described as the use of violent means to achieve just ends, no more problematic “than a man [who] sees in his ‘right’ to move his body in the direction of a desired goal.” However, Benjamin declares that this understanding of violence must be rejected, as well as that of positive law – the set of laws enacted by the state through legislative bodies, permitting institutionalized forms of violence. Furthermore, Benjamin examines how law discerns violence as “in the hands of individuals” and explores injustice as that which poses a direct threat to the legal structure. Therefore, the concern for individual violence does not revolve around the use of violence itself, rather, it is specific to violence which serves specific, “illegal purposes.” In Towards the Critique of Violence, Benjamin argues that although certain forms of violence are permissible within a given legal framework, the system cannot sustain itself if violent acts are not cohesive with what is acceptable in the eyes of legal networks.
Therefore, Benjamin’s critique of violence is particularly relevant when examining how violent state actions are legitimized through legal and political frameworks. Instances such as the suppression of protests, military interventions, and extensive surveillance highlight the double standard in the characterization and justification of violence.
Case Studies
A crucial example of state-sponsored terror is the 1968 My Lai Massacre, committed by the United States (U.S.) military during the War in Vietnam. The Massacre resulted in the murder of up to 504 civilians, almost all women, children and elderly men. Additionally, many bodies were mutilated, and there are recorded instances of the gang-rape of Vietnamese women and children by American soldiers. According to Towards the Critique of Violence, it is legal and political frameworks such as both natural and positive law which allowed such brutality to be framed , subsequently framing it as a state’s strategy to preserve its power, regardless of the cost to human lives. HoweverTherefore, the My Lai Massacre can certainly be perceived as a deliberate attempt by the U.S. military to instill terror amongst the Vietnamese population, reinforcing control through brutal violence, and justifying it through institutionalized narrative protections. Today, the Massacre is largely classified as a war crime. However, it remains outside the qualifications of an act of terrorism, as it was committed by a seemingly democratic nation-state This reframing of the narrative allows the U.S. to preserve the legal status quo by exerting epistemic and ontological power – structuring what is recognized as terrorism and dismissed as legitimate warfare – thereby legitimizing its own violence while rendering similar acts committed by non-state actors as illegitimate.
The large-scale acts of violence committed by the United States in Vietnam can cause us to question smaller instances of state control and subjugation committed against Indigenous peoples in North America.In 2013, the Royal Canadian Mountain Police enacted violent measures – allowing for the use of riot gear, tear gas, and the arbitrary arrests of 40 people – against Mi’kmaq land defenders during the Elsipogtog First Nation Anti-Fracking Protests. According to Benjamin’s theory, these government-sanctioned actions can be framed as law-preserving violence which the state employs to maintain its own legal order and hierarchy. Keeping the unstable and dynamic concept of terrorism in mind, the RCMP’s continued violence against Indigenous communities could be compared to the act of evoking terror tactics, aiming to intimidate and coerce a specific group for political purposes, in this case, the Mi’kmaq peoples. Adhering to Benjamin’s analysis, when the state suppresses dissent through force, it mirrors the actions of non-state violence, but does it within a framework entrenched into law. Therefore, the RCMP’s actions may not have served the sole purpose of enforcing the law, rather perpetuated a form of legal state terror aimed at controlling Indigenous resistance.
Re-imagining “Terrorism”
According to Dr. Igor Primoratz, many democratic, neoliberal states have utilized strategies of terrorism on a “limited scale and for more specific purposes,” an idea that echoes Benjamin’s critique of law-preserving violence. As the RCMP’s continued raids on Indigenous communities as well as foreign atrocities committed by the United States government, remain rarely considered terrorism, similar acts committed by non-state actors are oftentimes classified as such.Dr. Tina G. Patel argues that an implicit and inherent racism lies at the heart of this categorization, one that goes beyond the designation of terrorism, and extends to counter-terrorism discourse. Patel asserts that this dialogue “serves […] the civilizing undertone of […] Western values and […] perpetuate anti-Muslim sentiment, constructing Muslims as “suspect” communities.” As Walter Benjamin asserts, there is “no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism.” Therefore, rather than accept the classifications of terrorism set forth by nation-state governments and the Western rule of law, it is important to question the actions of state bodies – both domestically and internationally – and engage with terrorism as a strategy and a set of tactics, rather than as a weighted moralizing term on the use of violence.
Edited by Eva Leblanc
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by William James Cunneen