130
Aishling McMorrow
this theory helps to dismantle them will be outlined. However, while
this article lauds the bestowments of CTS, the fallacy of omitting the
criticisms that exist in relation to the application of CTS will not be committed. Finally the article will conclude by calling for a more pluralistic
approach to the study of terrorism that embraces the merits of both CTS
and orthodox scholarship.
Epistemological Commitments
One of the most basic differentiating factors between critical and traditional studies can be traced to their epistemological backgrounds. The
foundations of CTS were born from postpositivism and draw heavily on
this ideology to mould their argument and research. (Jackson et al 2011).
CTS is thus inherently concerned with the presence of discourse(s) and
the pervasion of certain rhetoric around terrorism that influences the literature emanating from this field. As rooted in postpositivist epistemology, CTS doubts the possibility of value-neutral fact or a conception of
reality that is free from bias. It is argued that theory always emerges to
serve someone and for some purpose (Cox 1981) and the main predication of CTS delineates that the study of terrorism is no exception.
Directly linking to these core postpositivist commitments, CTS affords
great prominence to the identification and deconstruction of discourse(s)
within the study of terrorism. What a discourse represents is:
a system of statements in which each individual statement makes
sense [and] produces interpretive possibilities by making it virtually impossible to think outside of it. A discourse provides discursive
spaces, i.e., concepts, categories, metaphors, models, and analogies
by which meanings are created
(Doty 1993: 302).
The revelation of discourse(s) and the acknowledgment of the influence