During the late 1970s and mid 1980s the subject of terrorism received much attention by the Western scientific community. Many complain that the field of terrorism is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, sterile or/and closed ended debates, and the like. This work reviews and critically discusses the overall literature on terrorism through a conscious departure from current assumptions, methods and approaches, and an uncompromising exposure of these practices. The author believes that the study of terrorism in the West is largely a reflection of the civicist character of Western mainstream scholarship. This work shows that the mainstream Western study of terrorism is best described by a civicist paradigm. It is argued that the character of the Western study of terrorism tends to be selective, ahistorical, unscientific and apologetic in character. Under these circumstances, the effort of Western mainstream political scientists who study terrorism resembles neither politics nor science. Rather, it reflects a litany of apologies for ruling class interests. The Western study of terrorism by being civicist, is therefore inappropriate. The main implication of this argument is that we shall not understand terrorism as a practice or as an ideology, if we continue to treat it as a question of civics and not as a question of politics. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 51-12, Section: A, page: 4267. / Major Professor: Frederick Gareau. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1990.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_78379 |
| Contributors | Krassacopoulos, Mihalis N., Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text |
| Format | 195 p. |
| Rights | On campus use only. |
| Relation | Dissertation Abstracts International |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds