by Tom Parker, Department of Political Science, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
Terrorist groups have yet to attract the same level of academic interest as other
social movement organizations (SMOs), although they are well suited to the
analytical approach pioneered by Ted Gurr, Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and
Charles Tilly. Social constructivism offers a valuable frame with which to assess
state responses to terrorism. Carlos Marighela argued that one of the principal goals
of the urban guerrilla was to goad the state into a spasm of overreaction that would
undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. This article takes Marighela’s
concept one step further, arguing that by adopting repressive counterterrorism policies,
democratic states ‘‘socially construct’’ more resilient, more aggressive terrorist
organizations. Like Hercules’ antagonist Antaeas in Greek mythology, terrorist
groups draw their strength from their surrounding environment. Successful counterterrorism
strategies erode popular support for terrorism and unsuccessful ones
contribute to it. This paper examines the experiences of five democratic states—
the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Italy, and Israel—from this perspective
and concludes that when confronting terrorism, the greatest challenge of all is to
adopt and maintain a measured response to terrorist outrages.