132
Aishling McMorrow
terrorism that widens political options and also creates a more informed
sphere of learning. CTS, as a research agenda that strays from the limitations imposed by the politically loaded conception of terrorism, can
dismantle a number of misleading notions that surround terrorism. Of
particular importance is how CTS identifies the dissemination of state
bias in terrorism studies. Critical studies have chastised the dearth in
traditional literature of the complicity of states in terrorist behaviour.
The overarching orthodox consensus is that terroristic violence is “perpetuated by a subnational group or non-state entity” (Hoffman 1998:
43) with the study of instances of state terrorism hardly amounting to a
relevant argument (Laqueur 1999). CTS has come to play a major role in
highlighting the necessity to question the apparent state bias in terrorism
studies that attempts to absolve states of any complicity in terrorism. For
“when virtually the entire academic field collectively adopts state priorities and aims...it means that terrorism studies functions ideologically
as an intellectual arm of the state and is aligned with its broader hegemonic project” (Jackson 2009: 78). Just one example of how CTS has
deconstructed the reach of the state is through attempting to expose and
eradicate the phenomenon of embedded expertise (Burnett and Whyte
2005). This concept points to instances where leading terrorism research
is swayed by state power and funding. “We see terrorism knowledge
not as some ideologically neutral expertise on a natural phenomenon,
but 2&V