The World & I Online Magazine, ONline Archive and Educational Resource  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
Username:   Password:      Subscribe Now   Register   About Us | Contact Us | FAQs      
The World & I Archive Peoples of the World Book Reviews Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

The World & I Magazine
 
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
American Waves
Book Reviews
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Traveling the Globe
Writers and Writing

Terrorism in History: Its Politics and Mentality


Article # : 16588 

Section : MODERN THOUGHT
Issue Date : 11 / 1989  5,877 Words
Author : Wayne Allen
Wayne Allen is assistant professor of political science with specialization in political philosophy and legal theory at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

       It is paradoxical that political terrorism extends from the absence of politics. Indeed, terrorism, like its more organized (and accepted) counterpart, war, takes place when political means have broken down. Politics is the reconciliation of conflict, the movement toward some agreement between people or persons who have identified a commonality, some mutual interest. It is the beginning of the civilizing process. Political decay begins when conciliation breaks down. When this happens one possible consequence is terrorism by a people who lack the formal military capacity to uphold their interests. The reason terrorism is called political is because it remains an effort by a people to express their will against others. But even in aggregate, this will is prostrate before recognized bodies politic and stands outside normal political channels. Terrorism thus defies the civilizing process.
       
        Since the classical epoch of Western political thought, political ties among people have been based on some vision of the public good. Following Plato and Aristotle, political association often entailed some strain toward consensus about what constitutes the best possible regime for all. This was most notable in fifth-century B.C. Athens. The means used to reach this consensus were discourse, opinion-getting, and dialogue among the participants who composed the public realm.
       
        Of course this vision was not always shared, and single individuals often usurped the consensus-building process by superimposing one will on the aggregate. This was tyranny to the ancient Greeks, not because there was no vision, but because the public was excluded from forming it. The process of politics was circumvented; the dialogue of participation was replaced by ... (2000 of 35829 Characters)
Read Full Article

Copyright © 2004 The World & I Online. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy