136
Aishling McMorrow
obliteration of one theory over another, but to recognise the merits of
each and take strong tenets from both to create a universalist approach.
“We do not believe that terrorism studies should be reduced to a war of
competing ideologies; the last thing we would want is for our dialogue
with CTS scholars to be reduced to a war of position” (Horgan and Boyle
2008: 55). Whilst this notion of choking out certain differing voices in
terrorism studies would be entirely detrimental, it is also essential that
CTS is not forced to occupy and remain in a sphere of ‘alternative theory’. An equal standing for both approaches would be conducive to an
environment that strives for the betterment of the study of terrorism and
garners the merits associated with both critical and traditional terrorism
studies.
Conclusion
The contributions from CTS can be heralded as the catalyst to a significant change in the field of terrorism studies. The dominance of the
traditional scholar has been shaken and yet while there are considerable anomalies to this approach, to shun the foundational knowledge of
terrorism that has so far been garnered would be irrational and foolish.
Subsequently, pluralism in this field would enhance the contributions of
both approaches and the healthy competition between CTS and traditional methods would allow the study of terrorism to flourish and break
free from the political manacles of prevailing discourse.
Bibliography
Aldis, A., and Herd, G. (2004) ‘Managing Soft Security Threats: Current
Progress and Future Prospects’ European Security 13:169-186.
Baldwin, D. A. (1997) ‘The Concept of Security’ Review of International Studies 23: 5-26.