Suchergebnisse

The Wave (or, alternatively, the Four Waves) theory authored by Professor David Rapoport is among most widely cited theories giving «whys» and «hows» on complex problem of the root causes and transformation of terrorism. According to this theory, since the 1880s «modern terrorism» has moved through four consequent stages (waves) all of them being of global scale and each one being informed by the influence of a certain political and/or ideological impulse: anarchist wave; anti-colonial wave; «New Left» wave; and religious wave. All waves, Rapoport argues, last approximately forty years; all of them display internal homogeneity of political or ideological principles, strategy and tactics. According to Rapoport, even those terrorist organizations that emerge in the context alien to a dominating impulse are at least partially transformed by it (e. g., turning to tactical methods that appear with the arrival of a new wave of terrorist violence).Rapoport's theory may seem to be thorough and well-grounded theoretical construction, and it is understandable why it has gained wide recognition in academic circles. However, as one discovers after a critical in-depth analysis, this initial favorable impression is mistaken for the most part. To start with, highly objectionable is the very idea of universal political impulses (by definition external to the absolute majority of local political conflicts) being capable of somehow «overriding» solid inner logic and dynamics even of those local conflicts that do not belong to a current wave. Introducing the idea of a wave-forming world impulse and ignoring the key role of local political factors in the genesis and/or transformation of terrorist organizations Rapoport, one might say, lapses into something that can be called «political mysticism». Rapoport also does not give any convincing evidence of direct connection between particular political (ideological) impulses and specific terrorist tactics which further undermines his assertions of terrorist violence taking form of clear-cut uniform waves.The author has already published an article (from which some of aforementioned positions were borrowed) containing general critical observations on basic tenets of the Four Waves theory. The goal of the present article is to «narrow the focus» and test the Rapoportean theory against the particular case of so called homegrown jihadism (i. e. Islamic terrorism perpetrated mostly on the European soil by those Muslims who either were born in Europe or have been living there for a long time). Rapoport proposed his theory early in the 2000s, before European jihadism became clearly visible and highly dangerous phenomenon, and homegrown jihadists are never mentioned in Rapoportean writings. While it leaves the door open for the doubts about prognostic potential of the Four Waves theory, it is not this author's main intention to criticize Rapoport for his failing to see a new danger coming. As it is demonstrated in the article, testing Rapoport's suggestions against the case of homegrown jihadism first of all points at the already established fundamental weakness of the Four Waves theory. This weakness is in its inability to convincingly explain why and how different historic types of terrorism emerge and what forces behind particular cases of terrorist violence are. Even if Rapoport's theory included European jihadists, it still would be impossible to trace the genealogical link (except the trivial everything-is-connected-to-everything domino effect) between homegrown jihad (which by definition falls within the framework of the fourth, or religious, wave of terrorism) and those events Rapoport cites as the impulse driving this wave. In other words, it is one more example of «political mysticism» to argue that extremist ideas and terrorist actions of the 21st century Muslim youths in Britain or Netherlands could be sufficiently explained by connecting them to the events of the Iranian revolution or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (both dating back to1979). What else, except such «mysticism», could explain how that 1979 impulse retained its power to inform somebody's actions after 35 years and completely outside the original historical and geographical context? Yet, if we were to accept Rapoport's arguments, we should have favor these very explanations while ignoring such factors as political marginalization of the significant share of European Muslims and the growth of xenophobia on the part of non-Muslim Europeans, cultural alienation of young European Muslims and – to name some foreign impulses – not chronologically and psychologically distant events of the late 1970s but the U. S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s, the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war. ; На материале т. н. европейского «доморощенного джихадизма» в статье подвергается критике известная волновая теория трансформации терроризма, выдвинутая Д. Рапопортом. Автор исходит из того, что в том случае, если волновая теория работает, она должна убедительно объяснять феномен европейского джихадизма, представляющего собой, согласно логике Рапопорта, часть четвертой – религиозной – волны терроризма (последнего на данный момент всплеска террористического насилия). Однако проведенный анализ показывает, что волновая теория не способна этого сделать, что она лишена методологической глубины и является в лучшем случае схематичным – причем нередко искаженным – описанием сложных процессов генезиса и трансформации терроризма. ; На матеріалі т. зв. європейського «доморощеного джихадизму» у статті критикується відома хвильова теорія трансформації тероризму, висунута Д. Рапопортом. Автор виходить із того, що в тому разі, якщо хвильова теорія працює, вона повинна переконливо пояснювати феномен європейського джихадизму, який являє собою, згідно з логікою Рапопорта, частину четвертої – релігійної – хвилі тероризму (наразі останнього сплеску терористичного насильства). Однак проведений аналіз показує, що вона не здатна цього зробити, що їй бракує методологічної глибини і що вона в кращому випадку є схематичним – до того ж нерідко спотвореним – описом складних процесів ґенези та трансформації тероризму.