ABSTRACT
War and terrorism are two forms of political violence that are salient to current debates and future challenges faced both by scholars and the wider public. Whether agreeing with von Clausewitz (1976 [1832]) that war is simply the continuation of politics, or preferring Foucault's (2003, p. 15) suggestion that politics has become ‘the continuation of war by other means’, it is clear that the collective exercise of, and struggle for, power – one element of politics (Chilton 2004, p. 3) – is all too often associated with violence. Moreover, discourse is central to enabling that violence and formulating responses to it. War as a form of organised group behaviour ‘relies upon the organizational capacity of discourse to mobilize forces, direct resources, and legitimize actions’ (Hodges 2013a, p. 3). Terrorism as a conceptual category relies upon the discursive practices that define and label the actors and actions involved. How one characterises forms of violence – for example, as ‘terrorism’ or ‘insurgency’ or ‘guerilla warfare’ or ‘crimes’ – and the actors involved in that violence – for example, as ‘terrorists’ or ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘criminals’ or ‘activists’ – shapes understandings and constrains responses. Therefore, a better understanding of the discursive processes that undergird political violence can inform projects that seek to rescue politics from violence (Arendt 1970) and engage in a more productive politics based on that other element of the craft: co-operation (Chilton 2004, p. 3).
