Crenshaw (2011) Explaining Terrorism.
Citation: Crenshaw, Martha (2011) Explaining Terrorism: Causes, Processes and Consequences, London: Routledge.
Time Period Covered:
Theory, Research Question, Hypothesis:
Relationship to Other Research/Ideas Contested/Noted Gaps:
Concepts and Definitions:
Method:
Primary/Original Data:
Argument/Conclusion:
Limitations/Flaws:
Abstract:
Notes:
Crenshaw (2011:75-76): There is no clear relationship between an individual’s motivations for joining a group and that group’s stated ideology and goals: “The organization’s followers may not actually have joined the organization for the purpose of fulfilling ideological goals.” They may instead by motivated by interpersonal rewards, or have a mix of motivations. Identifies four non-ideological motivations: opportunity for action; need to belong; desire for social status; and material reward. [Each of these is discussed in depth, whereas ideological motivations are not.]
Crenshaw (2011:89): “Members of terrorist organizations act in terms of organized belief systems that structure their interpretations of the world and filter the information they receive.” Beliefs in turn affect actions. [Thus there is a clear role for ideology, but it is not referred to as such. Ideology thus appears to be used in a more narrow way to signify that put forward by the organisation.]
Crenshaw (2011:93): “The distribution of beliefs among members of a terrorist organization is likely to be uneven. Given the extent of role differentiation within terrorist organizations, it is reasonable to expect that the leadership may possess more complex and differentiated belief structures than do follows. The basis for the authority of leaders may lie precisely in the ability to articulate beliefs held implicitly by followers. Or authority may derive from the relevance of the leader’s background to the general belief system.” Also suggests the second generation may be less ideological than an organisation’s founders.
Crenshaw (2011:94-95): Beliefs are produced both by social learning and an individual’s psychological characteristics. Ideology can provide narratives, which inform that process of social learning.
Crenshaw (2011:98): “Further evidence for the claim that ideology is no stronger a motivation than cultural influences lies in the observation that although modern terrorists adopt ideological terminology, most are practioners not intellectuals or theorists.”
Crenshaw (2011:99): Suggests “terrorism is not a product directly of particular patterns of political thought or ideas. Instead, terrorists may first develop beliefs and then seek justification for them through the selection of fragments of compatible theories. […] Ideology is used to articulate these beliefs to an outside audience who might otherwise dismiss the terrorist conception of the world as illusory.”
Crenshaw (2011:99): “To terrorists, ideology may be secondary or even superficial but it represents an important reinforcement of extremist beliefs, making them easier to sustain in the face of an unpleasant reality. Rather than an uncritical borrowing of theories, terrorist beliefs may represent a selection of what is psychologically and politically useful.”