134
Aishling McMorrow
stemming from the absence of a definition of terrorism (Schmid 2004;
Kruglanski et al 2008).
Furthermore, while CTS has transformed how scholars foment their research and studies, it has also been heavily chastised for struggling to go
beyond critique and deconstruction of discourse(s). Despite an emancipatory agenda, that “critical theory is not concerned only with understanding and explaining the existing realities of world politics, it also
intends to criticise in order to transform them” (Devetak 2005: 145),
instances of such transformation remain scant and practical advice for
counter-terrorism seems to elude the discipline. This demonstrates a major failing in the repertoire of CTS as:
a critically conceived field cannot afford to be policy irrelevant while
remaining true to the ‘emancipatory’ agenda implicit in the term
‘critical’, nor can it be uncritically universalist without betraying its
‘critical’ commitment”
(Gunning 2007: 384).
The inherent conflict, therefore, between active critique and practical
utility exemplifies a major stumbling block for CTS. Indeed, this faltering emancipatory rhetoric can often be cited as a source of disillusionment for both orthodox and critical scholars.
However, perhaps one of the most damaging condemnations of CTS is
the tendency of the approach to make a ‘straw man’ out of over forty
years of learning on terrorism garnered from traditional approaches. Citing that orthodox understandings of terrorism are “solely interested in
telling comforting lies to those in power” (Horgan and Boyle 2008: 54)
can be conveyed as making a mockery of the intellectual work of traditional scholars. Although orthodox study has been largely exclusionary
of the presence of power structures, this factor alone is not enough to