March 19, 2008

The Tabloid Terrorist in the Metaphorical Making

(draft, please do not quote)

Paper prepared for the 49th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association (ISA), San Francisco, March 26-29, 2008

Terrorism studies is obsessed with primary sources. Despite (or because) of the difficulties and dangers involved, access to first hand information is considered to be the gold-standard of terrorism research. And, although calling for greater reflexivity, even the latest wave of critical terrorism research shares this obsession. From a constructivist perspective, however, the high esteem for inside-research hardly makes sense. If Al Qaeda is a social construction, an outside-approach is the appropriate way of studying Al Qaeda. The present article develops such a constructivist approach to terrorism studies. It argues that terrorism is constituted in discourse, especially through metaphors. To illustrate this approach the metaphorical construction of Al Qaeda in the German popular press in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington (2001), Madrid (2004) and London (2005) is analysed. Terrorism was first constituted as war, but from 2004 onwards, the principal metaphor shifted from war to crime, constructing Al Qaeda as a criminal instead of a military organisation. This shift has transformed Al Qaeda from an external to an internal threat, which entailed a shift in counter-terrorism practices from a military to a judicial response.

Rainer Hlsse Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Mnchen rainer.huelsse@lmu.de

Alexander Spencer Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Mnchen alexander.spencer@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)

1. Introduction
Terrorism Studies is obsessed with primary sources: First hand information is thought to be the best, if not the only access to truth about Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Yet, such first hand information is difficult and dangerous to come by and consequently, scholars mostly rely on secondary sources. As a result the subject fails to live up to its own quality standards. Though everyone agrees that primary sources should be analysed, hardly anyone does so. This, we claim, comes close to a declaration of bankruptcy. Therefore, it is high time to re-think the foundations of terrorism studies and most importantly its obsession with primary sources. We argue that this obsession should be left behind and that terrorism studies should make the analysis of the social construction of terrorism its major topic instead. While large parts of the social sciences, including International Relations (IR), have come under the influence of constructivism, terrorism research remains one of the last strongholds of objectivism. This is unfortunate, because constructivism has the potential of overcoming the impasse of terrorism research: if we accept that terrorism is a social construction which is not, as many falsely believe, to claim that 9/11 happened only in our minds the entire obsession with doing research inside Al Qaeda falls by the wayside. Instead of aiming at objective accounts of Al Qaeda, terrorism research would investigate the social construction of Al Qaeda, i.e. do research outside Al Qaeda. At the centre of such an approach is the analysis of the discursive processes through which a particular interpretation of Al Qaeda has been shaped and become a commonly held view of what Al Qaeda is like. The great advantage of such an approach is that it relies on primary sources which are easily and safely accessible: texts. It is the goal of this article to spell out a constructivist approach to terrorism studies. While similar ideas have been introduced by others, none of them has of now debunked the obsession with primary sources. However, in our understanding, this is one of the crucial implications of a constructivist perspective on terrorism, where the social construction of Al Qaeda, rather than Al Qaeda itself, is of interest. In the following, we seek to show how such a constructivist approach to terrorism works in practice by examining the German popular media discourse on terrorism since 9/11. We indicate some of the results such research can produce and how it impacts on our understanding of (counter-)terrorism. Thus we hope to

3 contribute to a constructivist turn in terrorism research, which could re-connect the field to the discipline of IR. This, we believe, would be beneficial for both sides: terrorism research would get its urgently needed theoretical update, and IR an equally urgent empirical update. Curiously, terrorism and especially Al Qaeda have only been marginal topics in IR and its subfield of Security Studies. Take Security Dialogue, for example: Surprisingly few articles published since 9/11 deal with terrorism and the few that do so focus on counter-terrorism (e.g. Heng 2002; Ulfstein 2003; Hglund 2003; Heupel 2007; Erickson 2007). Perhaps a constructivist approach to terrorism would find its way into IR-journals more easily and thus end the artificial separation between terrorism and security studies as two distinct fields. The following section two reviews the field of terrorism research. We demonstrate the fields obsession with primary sources, but also point to promising new developments, namely the latest calls for a critical turn in terrorism research. While we agree with many of the suggestions made there, we show that critical terrorism studies has not overcome the primary source obsession found in the traditional approaches. Section three shows what needs to be done: We argue in favour of a discourse approach to terrorism, and suggest metaphor analysis as a particularly promising method for finding out about the discursive mechanisms of realityconstruction. Section four illustrates our approach empirically: We analyse the metaphors applied to Al Qaeda in the German tabloid Bild Zeitung, showing that they have changed considerably between 9/11 and the London bombings in 2005. Metaphors of terrorism shifted from war to crime, a change that has important implications for counter-terrorism policies. The final section summarises our main argument and calls for methodological pluralism in terrorism studies.

2. Inside Al Qaeda: The Obsession with Primary Sources

Above, we have proposed that terrorism research is obsessed with getting direct information on Al Qaeda. The present section seeks to substantiate this claim by demonstrating that indeed, this is a central issue in the terrorism literature. While we concentrate on conventional terrorism research in the first part of this section, we turn to its critics in the second part, showing that they, too, are haunted by the idea of looking directly into Al Qaedas eye.

4 Conventional Terrorism Studies Terrorism research bears a strong resemblance to cultural anthropology: Both seek to find out about a group of people which seem to function according to a logic that escapes Western minds, is difficult to access and possibly even dangerous to investigate. In anthropology these problems have produced two kinds of academics: The first kind consists of adventurous scholars who live for months or even years amongst their informants, thus being able to learn about their research objects from their first-hand experience. The second kind keeps a safe distance to its research objects, relies on secondary information rather than going native, observing from afar instead of participating. For a long time, there was a clear hierarchy between the two types of anthropological research: The first group was found to be the real anthropologists while the latter was dismissed as Veranda-anthropologists (Malinowski). This is no different in terrorism research: Al Qaeda is our stranger, appearing uncivilised, in fact barbarian to us. Because these cannibals do not want scholars to do field research among them and because this does not sound like an attractive and safe way of collecting data anyway, only a few scholars have dared and managed to do research inside Al Qaeda. These are the heroes of terrorism studies. Most of us, however, have stayed on their verandas, or should we rather say libraries, and contended ourselves with re-interpreting the few first hand sources available. Who are the heroes of terrorism studies, the ones who have produced accounts of Al Qaeda based on their own experience? This is not easy to answer, because many claim to have firsthand information, but only very few have revealed their sources. Hence it us up to the readers to believe what is reported from the field as the information cannot be verified. However, there are a few names in the terrorism research community that stand for inside-information, foremost Rohan Gunaratna (2001; 2003; 2004) and Bruce Hoffmann (2003; 2004). The privilege of inside-information has also been claimed by a vast number of other scholars who have done interviews with Al Qaeda-members or associates (Bergen 2001; Fielding/Fouda 2003; Mushabarash 2006), or even infiltrated the organisation (Siafoni 2004).1 Surely, this is not to say that everyone else writing about Al Qaeda bases his or her information only on hearsay. In fact, perhaps the most striking feature of terrorism research is
1

A number of other scholars who have had direct contact with other non-Islamist active and former terrorists prior to the event of 9/11 include Della Porta (1995), Coogan (1995) and Bowyer-Bell (2000).

5 that more often than not there is no explicit discussion of where the author has got his or her information from. While it may be possible that some have had access to Al Qaeda more directly, it is safe to assume that most of what has been written about this organisation draws uniquely on secondary material be it books written by others, press reporting or intelligence reports. The latter, in particular, are interesting, because in terrorism research they are often treated as if they were primary material (e.g. Burke 2003; Gunaratna 2001; Jacquard 2001; Koch 2005; Reeve 1999). Yet, while it may be true (we dont know because they are secret) that these intelligence reports are based on primary sources, e.g. on successful infiltration, these reports nevertheless are secondary, not primary information for terrorism researchers. Research informed by such reports is the interpretation of other peoples first-hand information at best. The implications of such second-hand research on Al Qaeda is obvious: Rather than providing new insights based on direct observation, this kind of research re-produces the views of others, wrong or false we do not know. This leads to a rather incestuous field of knowledge, where one scholars quotes the unverified views of another and thus contributes to the circulation of the ever-same facts (which in fact are often beliefs) about Al Qaeda. This is hardly a new insight about terrorism research: Back in 1988, Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman found that there are probably few areas in the social science literature in which so much is written on the basis of so little research (Schmid/Jongman 1988: 177). And in the same year, Ted Robert Gurr remarked that with a few clusters of exception there is, in fact, a disturbing lack of good empirically-grounded research on terrorism (Gurr 1988: 2). This point has often been repeated since (e.g. Merari 1992; Silke 2001; Horgan 2004; Schulze 2004), with Brian Jenkins having found the analogy we like best: He compares terrorism researchers to Africas victorian-era cartographers who mapped the continent from afar without ever having seen it (Jenkins cited in Hoffmann 2004b: xviii). Hence, the lack of primary information is a constant source of concern in terrorism research (Sinai 2007; Silke 2007). In fact, we suggest that this concern is constitutive of the field itself: That more first-hand information is desperately needed, yet so hard to come by, is the central narrative that binds the members of this particular community together. If anything, what they have in common is an obsession with primary sources: they all long for first-hand information and still they know that they are unlikely to make their dream come true. As a consequence,

6 the discipline has developed a narrative that nicely explains why there is so little research based on primary sources: Terrorist organisations are dangerous and clandestine organisations (Ranstorp 2007). Therefore, Ariel Merari points out, in situ studies of group structure and processes () are inconceivable modes of research on terrorism (Merari 1991: 89-90). What is more, even if access would be granted to researchers, there is good reason to refrain, as Andrew Silke makes clear: Academic researchers have been threatened, kidnapped, attacked, shot and killed for attempting to research terrorism (Silke 2004: 189). Hence, it is the characteristics of the research object that serve as an excuse for the failure to study it in a more direct way normally considered central to social scientific analyses. While this, of course, raises the question how these people can then know that terrorism is really dangerous and a risky thing to research, this narrative is revealing in a more important respect: If primary sources really are that important and at the same time so hard (and dangerous) to come by, there is not much to be expected from terrorism studies. If only a fraction of the research fulfils the fields self-proclaimed standards of quality, then the field in general has failed. And this is why we believe it is high time for a new kind of terrorism studies. However, we are not alone in believing so. Most notably, there is a group of scholars advocating what they term a critical terrorism studies. In the following section we introduce this group and show that despite introducing a more reflexive approach to terrorism studies it, too, adheres to the cult of primary sources, as it is equally preoccupied with getting firsthand information on terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. Critical Terrorism Studies In response to the many problems terrorism research is facing, a number of scholars have called for a critical terrorism studies (Gunning 2007a, Jackson 2007a, Breen Smyth 2007, Blakeley 2007).2 What they refer to as orthodox terrorism research is criticised, first, for treating terrorism in the form of Al Qaeda as a new phenomenon, i.e. for lacking sensitivity for terrorist experiences in other countries, contexts and time periods (Gunning 2007b; Breen Smyth 2007: 260). Second, the orthodoxy is found to ignore research on terrorism in other fields such as anthropology, sociology, psychology and peace and conflict studies (Gunning
2

Academics involved in this effort have organised a number of workshops and conference-panels, created a working group at the British International Studies Association and launched a new journal (Critical Studies on Terrorism). For more information on the Critical Studies on Terrorism Working Group see: http://www.bisa.ac.uk/groups/7/index.asp (accessed on the 06.02.2008).

7 2007a). Third, it is said to be uncritical of the role of the state in perpetrating terrorism itself or at least contributing to the conditions which foster terrorism by none-state groups (Blakeley 2007). Fourth, conventional terrorism studies is condemned for poor research methods and equally poor theoretical foundations (Blakeley 2007). If theory is used at all, it is informed by rationalism and positivism, while constructivism is virtually unheard of (Jackson 2007b). Fifth, it is criticised for producing only problem-solving theories, i.e. for treating terrorism as an objective problem which terrorism research should help solve (Jackson 2007b). This critique is important and suggests a way forward for terrorism studies, which should become more historical, interdisciplinary, state-sceptical, theoretical, constructivist and reflexive. While we find ourselves in agreement with all of these points, there is a sixth point of critique that we do not find very convincing at all: Conventional approaches are criticised for being over-reliant on secondary information instead of basing their research on primary sources (Jackson 2007b: 244). As we have shown above, this is hardly an original observation, because conventional scholars are well aware that a lack of first hand information hampers the quality of their work. What is more, critical terrorism scholars sound very conventional when they claim that interviews with terrorists, for example, are pivotal to good scientific research (Gunning 2007a: 378), or when they concede that collecting primary data is difficult, but maintain that nonetheless these problems must be negotiated and overcome if the credibility of research is to be maintained (Breen Smyth 2007: 262). Hence, we cannot see much of a difference between critical and not so critical terrorism studies when it comes to celebrating the importance of primary sources. Indeed, we would hold that critical terrorism scholars, too, are obsessed with getting first hand information, while at the same time disregarding the intrinsic value of secondary sources. This poses a huge problem for the critical terrorism studies project, as the cult of primary sources is diametrically opposed to the call for a more reflexive and constructivist research agenda. One cannot call for more reflection on how knowledge on the terrorist is being produced and at the same time argue that more first hand information is needed (as if this was to bring us closer to the truth about the terrorist organisation). And one cannot call for a constructivist approach to terrorism which would entail shifting the focus from the terrorist to the social construction of the terrorist and still maintain that we need to analyse primary

8 sources. From a constructivist perspective, not the terrorist him- or herself is the primary source that can be studied, but the texts and practices which constitute the terrorist actor. Hence, a constructivist approach to terrorism, we claim, must abandon the conventional and critical terrorism studies fascination with primary sources. Getting first hand information from the terrorist him- or herself is no longer important. What really matters, for a constructivist, is how the terrorist actors are constituted in discourse. In summary, we suggest that terrorism studies should downgrade the importance of first hand information about Al Qaeda. If terrorism is a social construction, it is impossible to study Al Qaeda from the inside, because it is only through the outsides construction that Al Qaeda exists. This is why, in the following section, we will develop an approach to studying terrorism from the outside.

3. Outside Al Qaeda: Towards Constructivist Terrorism Studies

Constructivists in psychology (e.g. Harr 2003) and sociology (e.g. Turk 2004) argue that terrorism is a social construction. Yet terrorism studies itself has remained largely unaffected by the constructivist turn in the social sciences and sticks to the idea that there is an objective reality of terrorism that terrorism studies need to uncover. It is only with the recent rise of critical terrorism studies that a constructivist approach seems to be gaining some ground in this field. While critical terrorism studies generally seems to sympathise with a constructivist take on terrorism (Gunning 2007a: 377; Breen Smyth 2007: 265), only one scholar has actually conducted empirical research along these lines. For Richard Jackson, "terrorism is fundamentally a social fact rather than a brute fact" (Jackson 2007b: 247) and critical terrorism studies "rests (...) upon an understanding of knowledge as a social process constructed through language, discourse and intersubjective practices" (Jackson 2007b: 246). It is against this background that he studies US and European post 9/11-discourses on terrorism with a view to finding out how these discourses have constituted the terrorist act and actor as well as counter-terrorism action (Jackson 2005; Jackson 2007c). Hence, Jackson is the first in terrorism studies to have analysed the discursive construction of terrorism. This is certainly a major contribution to the field, and yet we claim that this is but a half-hearted constructivism: For one, because despite doing discourse analysis himself, he still deplores

9 the lack of first hand information in terrorism research (Jackson 2007a: 225), as if this would allow us to find out the truth about Al Qaeda. A stronger constructivism, in contrast, would emphasise that there is no such truth, as even direct encounters with Al Qaeda produce but an interpretation of the phenomenon an interpretation which is not inherently better than any other. Ultimately, constructions of Al Qaeda are all there is, and consequently terrorism research must be discourse analysis. Two further issues indicate that Jackson offers but a weak version of constructivism: He has an instrumental understanding of language and discourse and he takes an elite/state-centric-approach to terrorism. We discuss both these issues in the following and thereby sketch out our own approach in comparison, which is characterised by a non-instrumental understanding of discourse and a focus on popular, low data. From Instrumental Language to Metaphor Jackson has an instrumentalist view of language and discourse. Language, in his understanding, is deployed to maintain power (Jackson 2005: 25), discourse is designed to achieve a number of key political goals (Jackson 2005: 2) and thus has a clear political purpose (Jackson 2005: 2; original emphasis). This view of discourse as something that can be used and manipulated is shared by another critical terrorist scholar, Jeroen Gunning, who suggests to analyse how terrorism discourse is used to discredit oppositional groups and justify state policies (Gunning 2007a: 377). While such an understanding of discourse may correspond to the common sense understanding, it is certainly at odds with discourse analysis as it has been put forward in International Relations by, among others, David Campbell (1990), Roxanne Lynn Doty (1996), Jennifer Milliken (1999) or more recently Lene Hansen (2006). Drawing on Michel Foucault, these scholars share a concept of discourse which is above individual discourse-participants. Discourse constitutes actors and structures what they can meaningfully say or do. Accordingly, actors have very limited agency. Rather than being able to use words intentionally and manipulate discourse to further their own purposes, they are themselves inextricably bound up with discourses that leave them little room for individuality. What they say and what they do is to a large extent determined by the discourse. Seen in this light, it hardly makes sense to ask about the use of discourse by particular actors. Instead, the main focus is on how discourse shapes the world, i.e. the actors, their self-understandings, their purposes and their practices.

10 It is against this background that we have decided to focus on metaphors, a focus that has become increasingly popular in discourse approaches in IR over the past few years. 3 To explain why metaphors make for a particular interesting object of research, let us briefly introduce the concept. According to classical rhetoric, a metaphor is nothing but a substitute of the proper term. It serves as an embellishment for ones speech (Chilton 1996: 359; Charteris-Black 2004: 25). Today, however, students of metaphor agree that a metaphor cannot be reduced to an ornamental substitute. Rather, by mapping a source domain (i.e. the new term) onto a target domain (i.e. the original term), a metaphor puts the target domain into a new light (Charteris-Black 2004: 13; Schffner 1996: 32). By projecting the known onto the unknown metaphors create reality, they constitute the object they signify. Hence metaphors embody the constructivist principle in their very logic of operation and this makes them such an interesting research-object for constructivists. What is more, the use of metaphors contradicts an instrumental view of language and discourse. While there certainly is the rare creative moment when we invent a new metaphor, we most of the time speak in metaphors many others have used before us, i.e. in dead or conventional metaphors (Charteris-Black 2004: 17-19). Every discourse carries with it a particular stock of metaphors which is commonly used when referring to the discourse-topic. If we participate in a discourse we have to use the metaphors associated with it (Doty 1993). And we do so quite automatically, as this is the established way of relating to the topic (Charteris-Black 2004: 17). As a consequence, the metaphorical variation in most discourses is low (Schffner 1996: 36). In effect, metaphor analysis can limit itself to interpreting the principal metaphors of a given discourse. These metaphors reflect and constitute the discourses fundamental constructions of a certain topic. If we want to know how Al Qaeda is seen in the German discourse, for example, the analysis of the main Al Qaeda metaphors used in this discourse provides us with a good picture. As to the interpretation of metaphors our analysis is guided by Umberto Ecos (1995: 191) suggestion to interpret a metaphor from the point of view of someone who encounters it for the first time. The idea is to pretend ignorance about the target domain, in

Metaphors play an important, yet not very explicit role in the discourse analytical classics in IR (e.g. Campbell 1992, Doty 1996). More explicit analyses of metaphors role in world politics have been given, among others, by Chilton (1996), Milliken (1996), Fierke (1998), Drulak (2006), Hlsse (2006), Beer/De Landtsheer (2004) and Luoma-aho (2004).

11 this case: Al Qaeda. The only way to find out what Al Qaeda is and how it has evolved between 2001 and 2005, is to look at its metaphorisations. Hence we manually re-construct the projection from the source domain (about which we have knowledge) to the target domain (of which we are ignorant), which has become automatised in the use of conventional metaphors. In order to make sure that our knowledge of the source domain is not arbitrary, we refer to dictionaries. For example, the murderer-metaphor is important in the terrorismdiscourse. To find out how this particular source domain constitutes Al Qaeda, we consult the definitions of the murderer provided in dictionaries. Dictionaries, so the assumption, store the common knowledge about a phenomenon. With this technique of spelling out what appears to be obvious, i.e. the de-automatisation of the usually automatic projection from source to target, we can reconstruct the reality constructions of metaphors. 4 From High to Low Data A second major weakness in Jacksons approach, which is related to the first, is his focus on a particular type of discourse participants, namely political elites. In his book Writing the War on Terrorism, the focus is explicitly on the speeches, interviews and public addresses given by senior members of the Bush administration (Jackson 2005: 26). This focus is justified, he claims, by the fact that these speeches represent the source of the discourse (Jackson 2005: 26) and by the fact that the war on terrorism is an elite-led project (Jackson 2005: 26). However, Jackson does nothing to substantiate this claim. Surely, no one would deny that the political elite is important, but it is quite something else to state that they are the source of the discourse, that they and here is the connection to our first criticism have initiated and now control the discourse at their own will. As the proponents of critical terrorism studies themselves are eager to point out (Breen Smyth 2007: 260), the post 9/11 discourse on terrorism is not entirely new. Rather, it builds upon former discourses of terrorism and it intersects with other discourses (on Islamism, for example). Hence, it is impossible to identify any single source of this discourse. And talk of the discourse as an elite-led project grossly overestimates the agency of actors. The political elite, like anyone else, is bound by discourses. What the elite perceives, believes, says and does is pre-structured by discourses. Hence, it is former discourses on terrorism which have shaped the political elites
4

This technique, of course, recalls the post-structuralist method of deconstruction, i.e. denaturalising and making strange taken-for-granted meanings (cf. Gregory (1989: xiv); Der Derian (1989: 4)).

12 understanding of 9/11, making certain kinds of political action possible while excluding others. While the political elite may have the ability to opt for one reaction rather than another, the array of possible reactions has already been severely restricted by the discourse. The elite chooses from a very limited set of options, thus one can hardly speak of the war on terrorism as an elite-led project. If anything, we should conceive the political elite as a discourse-led project. The elite-focus of Jacksons research is not only indicative of a discourse-approach that underestimates the power of discourse (and overestimates the power of actors), but also of the fact that critical terrorism studies is more conventional than it would like to be seen. Not only does it share with the mainstream an obsession with primary sources, but also a state-centric view. It is one of the core commitments (Jackson 2007b: 246) of critical terrorism studies to overcome terrorism researchs traditional states-centrism (Breen Smyth 2007: 261). Yet, from our perspective a sceptical attitude towards state-centric understandings of terrorism (Jackson 2007: 246) would have to entail a shift of focus towards other segments of discourse, e.g. civil societys or popular cultures terrorism discourse. Otherwise, the call for a less statecentric perspective sounds hollow. Our approach, in contrast, seeks to overcome the state-centrism of both conventional and critical terrorism studies by focusing on popular rather than elite discourse. We do so through an analysis of the popular press. Although there has been some investigation of quality press newspapers (Winfield et al 2002; Flowerdew/Leong 2007), analysis of popular tabloid news has so far been neglected. Nevertheless, it seems important to examine the social part of the social construction in discourse. If one is interested in examining the social construction of a phenomenon then surely it makes sense to examine the medium which many members of society interact with. The normal average person does not read government press-releases, presidential speeches or parliamentary debates. Most people get their information from the media. The Bild Zeitung here is particular interesting because it is the largest national newspaper in Germany with over eleven and a half million readers. It is widely accepted that the Bild Zeitung has great influence on the perception of many people in the country (Alberts 1972, Klein 2000, Gabrys 2005). It is also the paper which is quoted most commonly, and it has frequently taken the top slot in a national agenda-setting ranking conducted by Media

13 Tenor.5 It can therefore be considered one of the most important agenda setters in Germany, able to not only influence the national discourse but to actually set the national debate. As we want to find out about the social constructions of Al Qaeda in Germany and how this construction has changed over time, we have chosen to disregard the high data of politicians statements and the quality-press and instead analyse the low data (Weldes 2006) produced by the tabloid press. Summing up this section, we propose an outside-approach to Al Qaeda that analyses the metaphorical making of the actor. We examine the metaphors used in the popular press and thus leave behind the elite-focus of both conventional and critical terrorism studies. The following section illustrates this approach by reporting the results of an empirical analysis of terrorism-metaphors in the German tabloid press.

4. The Metaphorical Construction of Al Qaeda

So far, we have argued that most approaches in terrorism studies fail to recognise that terrorism is a social construction. A constructivist approach is needed and we have tried to develop one in which the metaphorical constitution of Al Qaeda in terrorism-discourse is reconstructed. In the present section we want to give an impression of the results such an approach can produce. To this end we summarise the findings of a research project on the metaphorical construction of Al Qaeda in the German popular press. What are the key metaphors applied to Al Qaeda between 2001 (9/11-attacks in New York and Washington), 2004 (Madrid train bombings) and 2005 (London underground bombings)? Have the metaphors changed during this period of time? We then go on to interpret our findings: How can metaphorical change be explained? What do the metaphorical constructions of Al Qaeda mean for our understanding of Al Qaeda and for our counter-terrorism policies? Shifting Metaphors One of the difficulties we encountered in this research project was that digital archives are still rare for the tabloid press. While one can easily research the quality press in archives such as Lexis Nexis, analysing the metaphors used in the Bild Zeitung requires looking through the original print-editions. This not only made the analysis rather time-consuming, it also caused
5

See Media Tenor http://www.medientenor.com/newsletters.php?id_news=239 (accessed on 02.02.2008).

14 some embarrassment, as we sat in our library for months reading nothing but the yellow press. Still, compared to the reported difficulties and dangers of primary research in terrorism studies discussed above, this kind of research is less hazardous (unless one considers the impact of such work on ones image within the faculty). We examined all texts in the Bild Zeitung dealing with terrorism in the month after three major terrorist attacks since 2001, namely the attacks on September 11th, 2001, the Madrid bombings on March 11th, 2004 and the London bombings on July 7th, 2005. Regarding the first period of time we studied, i.e. the one month after 9/11, the most striking observation is how many metaphors have a military connotation. The general picture painted was that there had been a military strike conducted by a military organisation. Various metaphors contributed to this general theme: For example, according to one popular interpretation the actors perpetrating the attacks were kamikaze flyers6, kamikaze pilots7 or kamikaze assassins8, and the airplanes used to crash into the targets were described as kamikaze-weapons9 or kamikaze-flights10. The act of terrorism was also referred to as a kamikaze attack11, explicitly connecting the events of 9/11 to the war with Japan and their use of kamikaze tactics during the Second World War. This constituted the target domain 9/11 terrorist attacks in terms of the source domain war, and more precisely Japanese attacks during Second World War. This military style construction of the terrorist in the popular media discourse was further strengthened by the use of words like death-troop12 or suicide-commandos13. Osama bin Laden was said to have a private army14. And in other places the actors involved were considered as a terrorist army made up of 3000 veterans from the war with Soviet Union in Afghanistan.15 This army used camouflage16 and was thought to be hierarchically structured, with bin Laden being the head of this organization. Several metaphors constructed him as the
6

Kamikaze-Flieger, Bild Zeitung 13.09.2001: 10. Note that all of the following quotes are from the Bild Zeitung. 7 Kamikaze-Piloten, 12.09.2001: 1, 14.09.2001: 2, 4. 8 Kamikaze-Attentter, 13.09.2001: 4, 22.09.2001: 4. 9 Kamikaze-Waffen, 12.09.2001: 2. 10 Kamikaze-Flge, 20.09.2001: 1. 11 Kamikaze-Angriff, 12.09.2001: 5. 12 Todestruppe, 20.09.2001: 4. 13 Terror-Kommando, Selbstmordkommando, 14.09.2001: 1, 15.09.2001: 1, 2, 18.09.2001: 4, 20.09.2001: 5. 14 Privat-Armee, 19.09.2001: 4. 15 Terroristen-Armee, Veteranen, 14.09.2001: 2. 16 Tarnung, 20.09.2001: 4.

15 ultimate leader of a hierarchical structure who is in full control of his organization. He was referred to as a top-terrorist17, terror-chief18, terror-leader19, terror-boss20 and seniorterrorist21. Accordingly, he was described as someone who controls22, directs23and orders24 his army of heavily armed warriors25 from the safety of his military bases26 in Afghanistan. This shows how with the projection from the source to the target domain numerous connotations of the source domain are being transferred to the target domain. Applying military metaphors to Al Qaeda meant more than simply comparing the terrorist attacks to a military attack. It also attached various characteristics of the military to Al Qaeda, such as the organisational structure common to an army in a war. The military metaphors of 9/11 constituted Al Qaeda as an actor the West is quite familiar with, a rational-bureaucratic military organisation. After the Madrid train bombings in 2004, again, military metaphors were used in the Bild Zeitung. For example, terrorists were said to have been given terror-orders27, they were commanded28 to attack and they were described as having been especially drilled 29 for such operations. However, in comparison to 9/11 these metaphors were used much less often and the most obviously militaristic metaphors such as terrorist army were no longer in use. Hence, the dominant source domain in 2001 was much less important in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings. Instead, a new source domain entered the metaphorical stage. Now, Al Qaeda was quite commonly referred to as a criminal organisation: The term murderer30 was used as a synonym for the actor involved in terrorism and his act was referred to as murder and mass murder31, as a murderous strategy32 or a criminal assault33. The actor was

17 18

Top-Terrorist, 13.09.2001: 4, 14.09.2001: 2, 15.09.2001: 5. Terror-Chef, 12.09.2001: 4, 13.09.2001: 2, 18.09.2001: 1. 19 Terror-Fhrer, 17.09.2001: 4, 18.09.2001: 2. 20 Terror-Boss, 19.09.2001: 4. 21 Oberterrorist, 19.09.2001: 4. 22 lenkt, 13.09.2001: 4. 23 dirigiert, 15.09.2001: 5. 24 befiehlt, 15.09.2001: 5. 25 Gottes-, Glaubens und Heilige-Krieger: 12.09.2001: 4, 5, 14.09.2001: 2, 17.09.2001: 2. 26 Sttzpunkte, 21.09.2001: 2. 27 Terror-Befehl, 16.03.2004: 1. 28 kommandiert, 17.03.2004: 2. 29 drillen, 18.03.2004: 2. 30 Mrder, 12.03.2004: 1, 13.03.2004: 12, 15.03.2004: 2, 22.03.2004: 1, 25.03.2004: 9, 01.04.2004: 2. 31 Mord, Massenmord, 12.09.2004: 7, 15.03.2004: 2, 07.04.2003: 1. 32 mrderische Strategie, 01.04.2004: 2. 33 verbrecherische Anschlge, 27.03.2004: 2.

16 repeatedly described as an offender34 and those assumed of committing or aiding the act were referred to as suspects35 whose acts leave behind traces or leads36 which can be followed and solved37 by the police and the judicial system. Again, these metaphors render the phenomenon of terrorism familiar. Where before the terrorist acts were constituted as acts of war, they were now constructed as a crime. The metaphors to be found in the Bild Zeitung after the London tube bombings in 2005 strongly confirm the Madrid-trend towards constructing Al Qaeda as a criminal organisation. Military metaphors were almost completely absent from the terrorism-discourse in 2005. Instead, the terrorists were labelled assassins38 committing an assassination39. Similarly, one frequently comes across terms associated with murder40 such as murderers41 or murderous42, and words such as criminal43, suspect44 and offender45. And the criminal source domain is also obvious when the terrorist is said to be a killer46 who is part of a terror-gang47 and helped by accomplices48. Hence there is a clear shift in the way the Bild Zeitung metaphorised Al Qaeda: In the beginning, Al Qaeda was constituted as a military organisation that poses a military threat to the West. Starting with the Madrid-bombings and especially after the London-bombings, however, military metaphors were replaced by criminal metaphors. Given that we have argued that Al Qaeda is a discursive construction, one can state that the terrorism discourse and its principal metaphors in particular have transformed Al Qaeda: from a military to a criminal actor. The following section will discuss what this transformation means, what reasons there may be for it and what consequences it may have.

34 35

Tter, 15.03.2004: 3, 23.03.2004: 2. Verdchtige, 12.03.2004: 7, 23.03.2004: 2, 06.04.2004: 1. 36 Spuren, 13.03.2004: 3, 15.03.2004: 3, 16.03.2004: 1. 37 aufklren, 16.03.2004: 2. 38 Attentter, 08.07.2005: 2-3, 09.07.2005: 4, 13.07.2005: 6, 25.07.2005: 10-11, 30.07.2005: 1. 39 Attentat, 08.07.2005: 2, 09.07.2005: 4, 13.07.2005: 6, 18.07.2005: 1, 25.07.2005: 11. 40 ermorden, 08.07.2005: 4. 41 Mrder, 14.07.2005: 2. 42 mrderisch, 08.07.2005: 2. 43 Verbrecher, 08.07.2005: 2. 44 verdchtig, Verdchtiger, 20.07.2005: 2. 45 Tter, 18.07.2005: 8. 46 Killer, 14.07.2005: 8, 15.07.2005: 7. 47 Terrorbande, 08.07.2005: 4. 48 Komplizen, 19.07.2005: 6, 23.07.2005: 12.

17 Shifting Experiences How can one make sense of the metaphorical shift from war to crime? We first discuss how this change would be explained by conventional and critical terrorism studies, before we develop our own interpretation. Conventional terrorism studies would probably argue that the metaphorical shift quite simply reflects actual changes on the ground: The metaphors have changed because Al Qaeda has changed from a military to a criminal actor. However, such a claim is difficult to sustain from a constructivist perspective. If reality is constituted in discourse, it is impossible that metaphors are mere reflections of reality. Yet, this does not mean that from a discourse perspective there is no reality or that discourse is completely independent from reality. Quite the opposite: The terrorist events in New York, Madrid and London were very real. However, these events did not speak for themselves, but needed to be interpreted. And because metaphors help to make sense of new and unfamiliar events, they were used to frame what had happened. And apparently, this principal frame has shifted over time from war to crime. From the perspective of critical terrorism studies, in particular the critical discourse analysis of Richard Jackson, the metaphorical shift must be due not to empirical changes on the ground, but to the interests of those using the metaphors. As we have shown above, Jacksons approach features a very instrumental view of language. In the case studied here this would mean that journalists have their own agenda and this is why they used different kinds of metaphors in 2005 than they did in 2001. Perhaps, they did so because they no longer considered the old military metaphors exciting enough to attract the attention of potential readers. In order to sell the Bild Zeitung it was necessary to come up with a new interpretation. Or, if one would argue that the Bild Zeitung mostly takes over the metaphors used in the political discourse, one would have to search for an explanation for the metaphorical shift in the political actors interests. According to such a perspective, the metaphorical shift is the result of politicians manipulation. They increasingly applied the crime source domain because they believed this to further their interest. However, as we have argued above, the poststructuralist version of discourse analysis that we prefer is characterised by an understanding of discourse that leaves very little room for agency. Accordingly, Bild Zeitung journalists or political actors today write and speak in crime metaphors not because

18 they have consciously chosen to do so, but because this has become the normal way of referring to Al Qaeda. But why has the normal way of referring to Al Qaeda changed? In our view this can best be understood as the result of us getting used to Al Qaeda-terrorism. In the face of 9/11 warmetaphors could grasp the dimension of what had happened. The sheer number of victims made it necessary to find a source domain where such a death toll was known. Over time, however, the military metaphor seemed increasingly at odds with how terrorism was perceived, at least in Germany. Without the direct experience of a terrorist attack, Al Qaedas terrorism could not compare to former experiences with war in Germany. Terrorism did not cause the kind of suffering World War II had caused. Therefore, the criminal metaphor was much better at grasping the general sentiment in Germany. It constitutes terrorism as being there all the time without constantly affecting us. Crime is a common phenomenon in all societies, hence metaphorising terrorism as crime constitutes terrorism as a fairly normal byproduct of society. Rather than being an exceptional state, as indicated by the war metaphor, terrorism has become normal. This both reflects our getting used to Al Qaeda and contributes to our getting used to it. At first glance, this explanation might not look very different from the conventional one we offered first. However, while conventional approaches would read metaphors as exact mirrors of events, our model suggests that there cannot be a 1:1 relationship between reality and metaphors. We cannot observe empirical events directly, but we do so within particular interpretive contexts, i.e. within a discourse. Discourse makes us see things in a particular way. And yet, discourse is not independent from empirical events. If, for example, there are no terrorist attacks in Germany for an extended period of time, then this can be expected to have an impact on the terrorism discourse in Germany. And this discourse, in return, shapes how we view empirical events. Put differently, discourse and our experience of empirical events feed into each other, they are mutually constitutive. Shifting Enemies Above, we have argued that the metaphorical shift from war to crime normalises Al Qaeda. However, this shift has further implications: It transforms Al Qaeda from an external into an internal enemy and from a legitimate into an illegitimate actor.

19 The military metaphors constitute Al Qaeda as an external enemy. Al Qaeda is a military organisation which is conducting a war against us. It is a threat that comes from the outside. The war-metaphor thus constitutes the relationship between those affected by terrorism and the terrorist actor as an inter-state relationship. Al Qaeda is constructed as a state-like actor. As such it is in principle on equal terms with us (or the U.S.), it is if you wish a like unit. This construction of Al Qaeda as being a state-like actor and as such basically equal to all states has further implications: It constitutes Al Qaeda as a legitimate actor. In fact, even the conduct of war is a right that is, at least under certain conditions, granted to such actors. The crime metaphor, in contrast, makes Al Qaeda an enemy within. Rather than being located outside ones own territory, the terrorists are now constructed as being among us. This way the threat becomes more diffuse, more difficult to pin down. Every citizen could now potentially be a terrorist, not just the people living beyond ones borders. So the metaphorical shift transforms the relationship between us and the terrorists. No longer is Al Qaeda a like unit, basically enjoying the same sovereignty as we do. Now, as a criminal actor, it is being subjected to our laws. This makes Al Qaeda an actor which is inferior rather than equal to us, it constitutes a clear hierarchy between us and them. And what is more, it constitutes Al Qaeda as an illegitimate actor, as an outlaw. Hence the metaphorical shift from war to crime not only entails a devaluation of Al Qaeda but also its de-legitimisation. Shifting Policy-Options Metaphors constitute reality and thus shape our experiences, make our enemies and enable our actions. It is the latter we focus on now. What implications do the military-metaphors on the one hand and the criminal metaphors on the other hand have for counter-terrorism policy? The underlying assumption is that how we react to terrorism is dependent on how we see terrorism (Schmid 1992; Daase 2001). If we regard it as a military threat then certain kinds of policies become possible while other means of addressing the issue remain outside the options considered as a response. Or, in Jacksons words: Embedded within specific labels for Al Qaeda group, network, movement are very different answers to key questions for policy and counterterrorism design (Jackson 2006: 242). Apart from the connections made to the Second World War by referring to kamikaze tactic and incidences such as Pearl Harbor, the military style construction of Al Qaeda is important

20 for the understanding of the counter-terrorism policies which followed the events of 9/11. Referring to the actors involved in the hijacking of the four planes as troops, therefore constructing them as soldiers or armed forces49, which constitute and are part of a external terrorist army, automatically makes the use of ones own military to confront the threat appear logical. The fact that the terrorists are constructed to compose a foreign army that uses military bases, makes the use of military air-strikes to bombard these heavy defenses in other countries a concrete possibility. It seems appropriate to mobilise ones own army if faced with an external military foe who uses camouflage: the disguising of military personnel, equipment, and installations by painting or covering them to make them blend in with their surrounding.50 On top of this, the terrorist is not just a normal soldier, but a commando, so an amphibious military unit51 which is specially trained for carrying out raids52 into our country from outside. The West was confronted by veterans, i.e. soldiers who have seen considerable active service53. In other words, Al Qaeda was constructed not only as a military actor, but as an elite fighting force which is battle hardened, highly trained, disciplined and deadly and therefore warrants the use of our own special forces in the form of the British SAS or the German KSK. The construction of terrorists as heavily armed actors from abroad makes the use of ones military elite forces as opposed to the normal police seem necessary, it enables a military rather than a judicial response. It might therefore be possible to argue that the German support of and the contribution towards a military response to the event of 9/11, most visible in the invasion of Afghanistan, was made possible by the construction of the terrorist actor as a member of an external, hierarchical organization with specific military characteristics. The explicit focus on the person of Osama bin Laden as a kind of general who commanded his troops and was almost solely responsible for planning the attack, makes his removal by any means a concrete necessity to prevent further attacks. Hereby the personalization constructs terrorists in such a way that makes proactive policies such as military strikes and assassinations designed to remove and kill this person seem more

49 50

Oxford Dictionary of English (2005): Second Edition, Revised, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1889. Oxford Dictionary, 249. 51 Collins English Dictionary (1998): Millennium Edition, Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers, 322. 52 Oxford Dictionary, 346. 53 Collins Dictionary, 1695.

21 appropriate than defensive policies such as increased fortifications or internal security measures. In comparison, the construction of Al Qaeda as something internal and criminal rather than external and military after the bombings in Madrid and London implies a judicial response rather than a military one. The use of criminal metaphors such as murderer, offender, accomplice, i.e. a person who helps another commit a crime54, frames our thinking to consider a police response as more appropriate. Here counter-policies such as house or online computer searches, the detainment of suspected terrorists, tough anti-terror laws or the tapping of phones becomes a viable option in the fight against a criminal terrorist. The metaphorical transformation from an external terrorist army to an internal terrorist gang a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends55 may constitute as well as reflect a policy shift in the case of Germany away from a military approach to counterterrorism after 9/11 to a criminal one after Madrid and London. In summary, this section illustrated a metaphor approach to terrorism. We analysed the terrorism metaphors in the Bild Zeitung and how they evolved between 2001 and 2005. We showed that the guiding metaphor changed from war to crime, transforming Al Qaeda from an exceptional external threat to a normal and permanent internal threat.

5. Conclusion
The role model of the terrorism scholar is the traditional cultural anthropologist. Like him he is white, male and courageous, and like him he privileges field research, the direct encounter with the terrorist/native over any other form of knowledge. Unlike him, however, he rarely lives up to his ambitions. Only a handful of students of terrorism have managed to actually infiltrate Al Qaeda, live among its members and talk to them directly. As a result the discipline is in a very sad state, where most research merely recycles the few bits and pieces we know about Al Qaeda from primary source research or from intelligence reports. Yet, resolve is not far and, again, cultural anthropologists can serve as our role-models. Following a powerful attack on their traditional mode of inquiry in the 1980s (Clifford/Marcus 1986), many stopped going native and began to study the Wests (including the anthropologists)
54 55

Oxford Dictionary, 10. Merriam-Webster Online dictionary, available at: www.m-w.com (accessed on 02.02.2008).

22 social construction of the native instead. A similar constructivist turn in terrorism studies has been called for in this article. This new kind of terrorism studies analyses the making of terrorism in academic, political and popular discourse and may be better suited to the postheroic era we live in. Rather than risking ones life in the field, scholars can now study Al Qaeda from the safe distance of their offices. This contribution demonstrated how such a constructivist terrorism studies could look like by developing a metaphor-approach to terrorism. Metaphors, we argued, are particularly important makers of social reality, because they project familiar worlds onto unfamiliar phenomena and thus constitute the new in terms of the old. We then showed how the new terrorism of Al Qaeda has first been constructed with the help of the old concept war and later with the equally old concept of crime. The Bild Zeitung, through which we studied the popular terrorism discourse in Germany, constructed Al Qaeda as a military organisation following the events of 9/11, but later on used metaphors that constituted Al Qaeda as a criminal actor. This metaphorical shift, we claimed, has transformed Al Qaeda from an external into an internal threat and enabled policing rather than the use of military forces as the appropriate response to terrorism. Constructivist takes on terrorism that re-construct the social production of the terrorist threat have many advantages over conventional approaches: They work with data that is better accessible, they allow for armchair-research without risking ones life, and they teach us that one and the same terrorist actor may have very different meanings to different people, depending on place and time. The greatest strength, however, has to do with the goals of terrorism. If, as many scholars agree, terrorism is not so much about causing material damage, but about causing fear among its targets (Mueller 2005, Spencer 2006), then a constructivist approach brings us much closer to the heart of terrorism than conventional ones. Interviewing a terrorist would hardly help us to find out if and how terrorism has been effective, i.e. whether it has attained its self-declared goal of creating a state of terror. If it is true that terrorists main goal is to creep into our heads, then we ourselves become a valid primary source of terrorism research. Only we how we think, how we talk and how we act, i.e. our discourses can provide evidence about whether or not terrorism actually works. Still, we do not want to replace one obsession getting inside Al Qaeda with another the discursive construction of Al Qaeda. We have here advocated a constructivist approach,

23 because we find terrorism research remarkably untouched by what is by now well-established thinking in the social sciences more generally. Only a wake-up call has the chance to alert terrorism studies to the fact that it lags far behind other disciplines as far as its ontological assumptions, not to speak of its epistemology, is concerned. Once awoken from its realistobjectivist dreams, however, terrorism studies need not give up its traditional style of research altogether. There is room for both approaches, in fact we would be the first to acknowledge that there are some things one can only find out through first hand information and not by way of metaphor analysis, e.g. how terrorist organisations recruit their personnel. However, after a constructivist turn in terrorism studies primary source research could no longer pretend to be reporting on reality or describing the truth about Al Qaeda. Instead, it would be a much more modest undertaking. Like their colleagues who study the discursive construction of terrorism, those scholars who investigate inside Al Qaeda would simply contribute one particular interpretation of the phenomenon: not inherently better, nor inherently worse than other interpretations.

References
Alberts, Jrgen 1972: Massenpresse als Ideologiefabrik. Am Beispiel "Bild", Frankfurt am Main. Beer, Francis A./De Landtsheer, Christ'l (eds.) 2004: Metaphorical World Politics, East Lansing. Bergen, Peter L. 2001: Holy War Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden The Free Press. Blakeley, Ruth 2007: Bringing the State Back into Terrorism Studies, in: European Political Science 6: 3, 228-235. Bowyer-Bell, J. 2000: The IRA 1968-2000: An Analysis of a Secrete Army, London. Breen Smyth, Marie 2007: A Critical Research Agenda for the Study of Political Terror, in: European Political Science 6: 3, 260-267. Burke, Jason 2003: Al Qaeda. Casting a Shadow of Terror, New York. Campbell, David 1998 (1992): Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Minneapolis.

24 Charteris-Black, Jonathan 2004: Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis, Houndmills. Chilton, Paul 1996: Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House, New York. Clifford, James/Marcus, George E. (eds.) 1986: Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Berkeley. Coogan, Tim Pat 1995: The IRA, London. Daase, Christopher 2001: Terrorismus. Begriffe, Theorien und Gegenstrategien. Ergebnisse und Probleme sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung, in: Die Friedens-Warte 76: 1, 55-79. Della Porta, Donnatella 1995: Social Movements, Political Violence and the State, Cambridge. Der Derian, James 1989: The Boundaries of Knowledge and Power in International Relations, in: Der Derian, James/Shapiro, Michael J. (eds.): International/Intertextual Readings of World Politics, Lexington, MA, 3-10. Doty, Roxanne Lynn 1993: Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines, in: International Studies Quarterly 37: 3, 297-320. Drulak, Petr 2006: Motion, Container and Equilibrium: Metaphors in the Discourse about European Integration in: European Journal of International Relations 12: 4, 499-531. Eco, Umberto 1995: Die Grenzen der Interpretation, Mnchen. Erickson, Christian W. 2007: Counter-Terror Culture: Ambiguity, Subversion, or Legitimization?, in: Security Dialogue 38: 2, 197-214. Fielding, Nick/Fouda, Yosri 2003: Masterminds of Terror, Edinburgh. Fierke, Karin M. 1998: Changing Games, Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Security, Manchester Flowerdew, John/Leong, Solomon 2007: Metaphors in the Discursive Construction of Patriotism: The Case of Hong Kong's Constitutional Reform Debate, in: Discourse & Society 18: 3, 273-294. Gabrys, Ewelina 2005: Kriegsberichterstattung in der Bild-Zeitung, in: Klner Arbeitspapiere zur Internationalen Politik 36. Gregory, Donna U. 1989: Foreword, in: Der Derian, James/Shapiro, Michael J. (eds.): International/Intertextual Relations, Lexington, ix-xxi.

25 Gunaratna, Rohan 2001: Inside Al Qaeda, New York. Gunaratna, Rohan 2003: Al Qaeda, Organisation and Operations, in: Buckley, Mary/Fawn, Rick (eds.): Global Responses to Terrorism. 9/11, Afghanistan and Beyond, London, 37-51. Gunaratna, Rohan 2006: The Post-Madrid Face of Al Qaeda, in: The Washington Quarterly 27: 3, 91-100. Gunning, Jeroen 2007a: A Case for Critical Terrorism Studies, in: Government and Opposition 43: 3, 363-393. Gunning, Jeroen 2007b: Babies and Bathwaters: Reflecting on the Pitfalls of Critical Terrorism Studies, in: European Political Science 6: 3, 236-243. Gurr, Ted Robert 1988: Empirical Research on Political Terrorism: The State of the Art and How it Might be Improved, in: Slater, Robert/Stohl, Michael (eds.): Current Perspectives on International Terrorism, New York, 115-154. Hansen, Lene 2006: Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, London. Harr, Rom 2004: The Social Construction of Terrorism, in: Moghaddam, Fathali M./Marsella Anthony J. (eds.): Understanding Terrorism: Psychosocial Roots, Consequences, and Interventions, Washington. Heng, Yee-Kuang 2002: Unravelling the 'War' on Terrorism: A Risk-Management Exercise in War Clothing?, in: Security Dialogue 33: 2, 227-242. Heupel, Monika 2007: Adapting to Transnational Terrorism: The UN Security Council's Evolving Approach to Terrorism, in: Security Dialogue 38: 4, 477-499. Hoffman, Bruce 2003: Al Qaeda, Trends in Terrorism, and Future Potentialities: An Assessment, in: Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 26: 6, 429-442. Hoffman, Bruce 2004a: The Changing Face of Al Qaeda and the Global War on Terrorism, in: Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 27: 6, 549-560. Hoffman, Bruce 2004b: Forword, in: Silke, Andrew (ed.): Research on Terrorism: Trends Achievements and Failures, London, xvii-xix. Hglund, Anna T. 2003: War on Terrorism: Feminist and Ethical Perspectives, in: Security Dialogue 34: 2, 242-245. Horgan, John 2004: The Case for Firsthand Research, in: Silke, Andrew (ed.): Research on Terrorism: Trends Achievements and Failures, London, 30-56. Hlsse, Rainer 2006: Imagine the EU: The Metaphorical Construction of a Supra-Nationalist Identity, in: Journal of International Relations and Development 9: 4, 396-421.

26 Jackson, Brian 2006: Groups, Networks, or Movements: A Command-and-Control-Driven Approach to Classifying Terrorist Organizations and Its Application to Al Qaeda, in: Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 29: 3, 241-262. Jackson, Richard 2005: Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counterterrorism, Manchester. Jackson, Richard 2007a: Introduction: The Case for Critical Terrorism Studies, in: European Political Science 6: 3, 225-227. Jackson, Richard 2007b: The Core Commitments of Critical Terrorism Studies, in: European Political Science 6: 3, 244-251. Jackson, Richard 2007c: An Analysis of EU Counterterrorism Discourse Post-September 11, in: Cambridge Review of International Affairs 20: 2, 233-247. Jacquard, Roland 2001: Au Nom d'Oussama Ben Laden. Dossier Secret sur le Terroriste le Plus Recherch du Monde, Paris. Klein, Ulrike 2000: Tabloidized Political Coverage in the German Bild Zeitung, in: Sparks, Colin/Tulloch, John (eds.): Tabloid Tales, Global Debate over Media Standards, Lanham. Koch, Egmont R. 2005: Atom Waffen fr Al Qaida, Berlin. Luoma-aho, Mika 2004: 'Arm' versus 'Pillar': The Politics of Metaphors of the Western European Union at the 1990-91 Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union, in: Journal of European Public Policy 11: 1, 106-127. Merari, Ariel 1991: Academic Research and Government Policy on Terrorism, in: Terrorism and Political Violence 3:1, 88-102. Milliken, Jennifer 1996: Metaphors of Prestige and Reputation in American Foreign Policy and American Realism, in: Beer, Francis/Hariman, Robert (eds.): Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations, East Lansing, 217-238. Milliken, Jennifer 1999: The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods, in: European Journal of International Relations 5: 2, 225-254. Mueller, John 2005: Six Rather Unusual Propositions about Terrorism, in: Terrorism and Political Violence 17: 4, 487-505. Musharbash, Yassin 2006: Die neue al-Qaida. Innenansichten eines lernenden Terrornetzwerks, Bonn. Ranstorp, Magnus 2007: Introduction: Mapping Terrorism Research, in: Ranstorp, Magnus (ed.): Mapping Terrorism Research: State of the Art, Gaps and Future Direction, London, 128.

27 Reeve, Simon 1999: The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden and the Future of Terrorism, London. Schffner, Christina 1996: Building a European House? Or at Two Speeds into a Dead End? Metaphors in the Debate on the United Europe, in: Musolff, Andreas/Schffner, Christina/Townson, Michael (eds.): Conceiving of Europe: Diversity in Unity, Aldershot, 3160. Schmid, Alex/Jongman, Albert 1988: Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories and Literature, Amsterdam. Schmid, Alex 1992: The Response Problem as a Definitional Problem, in: Terrorism and Political Violence 4: 4, 7-13. Schulze, Frederick 2004: Breaking the Cycle: Empirical Research and Postgraduate Studies on Terrorism, in: Silke, Andrew (ed.): Research on Terrorism: Trends Achievements and Failures, London, 161-185. Sifaoni, Mohamed 2004: Inside Al Qaeda: How I Infiltrated the World's Deadliest Terrorist Organization, New York. Silke, Andrew 2001: The Devil You Know: Continuing Problems with Research on Terrorism, in: Terrorism and Political Violence 13:4, 1-14. Silke, Andrew 2004: The Road Less Travelled: Recent Trends in Terrorism Research, in: Silke, Andrew (ed.): Research on Terrorism: Trends Achievements and Failures, London, 186-213. Silke, Andrew 2007: The Impact of 9/11 on Research on Terrorism, in: Ranstorp, Magnus (ed.): Mapping Terrorism Research: State of the Art, Gaps and Future Direction, London, 7693. Sinai, Joshua 2007: New Trends in Terrorism Studies: Strengths and Weaknesses, in: Ranstorp, Magnus (ed.): Mapping Terrorism Research: State of the Art, Gaps and Future Direction, London, 31-50. Spencer, Alexander 2006: The Problems of Evaluating Counter-Terrorism, in: UNISCI Discussion Papers 12, 179-201. Turk, Austin T. 2004: Sociology of Terrorism, in: Annual Review of Sociology 30: 1, 271286. Ulfstein, Geir 2003: Terrorism and the Use of Force, in: Security Dialogue 34: 2, 153-167. Weldes, Jutta 2006: High Politics and Low Data: Globalization Discourses and Popular Culture, in: Yanow, Dvora/Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine (eds.): Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, Armonk, NY, 176-186.

28 Winfield, Betty H./Friedman, Barbara/Trisnadi, Vivara 2002: History as the Metaphor through which the Current World is Viewed: British and American Newspapers' Uses of History Following the 11 September Terrorist Attack, in: Journalism Studies 3: 2, 289-300.