Hooded Definitions

Hooded Definitions

Is Major Hasan a terrorist? Was the act - killing thirteen people at an army base - terrorism? And what difference does it make?

Politically, and rhetorically, there’s a great deal of difference between terrorism and murder, mass or otherwise. Politically, one doesn’t have to worry about definitions; rhetorically, ignore them at your peril.

Before looking at why politically it doesn’t matter if Hasan is a terrorist, or his act, terrorism, we need to look at the rhetorical difference between words and values. True, words are used to convey values, but values-talk, particularly political values-talk, doesn’t really care what the words mean.

Arguments centering around words or values both are demonstrative arguments - meant to establish identity and affiliation. Who are you and whose side are you on - the values question - often depends on what you mean by “who” and “side”. There’s a famous Rabbinic story of the non-believer who approaches the rabbi and says, “Rabbi, I don’t believe in G-d.” The rabbi replies, “The G-d you don’t believe in, I don’t believe in, either.” We are a capitalist society (hence, capitalism is good - value) if by capitalism you mean (define it - word).

Stasis theory distinguishes between definition as the place (stasis) of the argument and value, though both are present tense, and thus demonstrative.

Returning to our question: Political speech naturally focuses on values. That’s also its fallback stasis. We have to work hard to get political speech to stay in the deliberative stasis - debating choices.

So in this case, calling Hasan a terrorist reinforces the “us vs. them” politics. It feeds a position fueled by conspiracy theories, mythic battles, and inevitable, if not Divine, destiny. It also justifies the “we’re the good guys, saving the world” self-image.

Whether this narrative is true is irrelevant. It draws the “tribe” closer together through fear and anger - righteous indignation. Hasan may be a terrorist, but politically it doesn’t matter so long as one group can call it so, and turn that to political advantage. (That advantage may or may not include influencing policy; it definitely includes increasing power, status, support and recognition.)

Of course, Hasan may be a terrorist - but only if what he did can be defined as terrorism, as opposed to “just” murder. This brings us to rhetoric, and the stasis of definition.

It also brings us to history, because terrorism has not always been defined as a political tactic, rather than an emotional response to an act, political or otherwise. “Terrorism” is one of those words that show just how situational - and how critical to group identity - definitions are. “One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” (or frighter). Even more: yesterday’s terrorist may become today’s liberator and tomorrow’s statesman - and sometimes, perhaps, often, the only change is in definition.

The United States has given terrorism a legal definition. Political discussions should start with that; they won’t, obviously, but they should. Terrorism, legally, must not only violate the criminal laws and be violent or life-threatening, it must also intend to intimidate or coerce people, or influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or affect how a government acts, through mass destruction, etc.

In other words, motive, or intent, defines terrorism. We also look to motive, or mind set, to determine - define - sanity. Is every terrorist crazy? At least by “our” definition. But that makes him, or her, no less a murderer. Or terrorist.

Legally, there’s no need to rush a definition. Whether Hasan is a terrorist or a murderer (assuming he’s guilty), if he’s not insane, his sentence will probably be the same.

Politically, there ought not be a need to rush a definition, either, because the label becomes useful only if it helps us uncover a conspiracy, or a network of those whose actions fit the legal definition. From the tactic, once defined, to the strategy. Or, if policy follows definition, we better get the definition right.

I wonder, what should we call, how should we define, talking heads who torture rhetoric to justifiy ratings?