Diverse Perspectives of Sociology - Literature review Example

Analytical Essay- Terrorism Student’s Name Course Title Instructor’s Name Date of Submission Introduction As a significant social and political issue of concern, terrorism has attracted multiple research issues. From the sociological point of view, sociology has been defined in different dimensions by various sociologists and related scholars. For instance, according to the notions of Sevinc (2009, p. 03), there has been a serious dilemma and conflict as per the actual definition of the term. According to the sociological essay provided by this author, terrorism as an act is not complimentary to any topic or discipline. Instead, the argument is based on different origins of the act. The manner in which it takes place, its origin and the various effects it has on the society has a major role in determining the actual definition of the term (Turk, 2004, p. 271-286). Theories of Terrorism from a Sociological Aspect Different researchers have analysed this social concern from an individual, group and societal levels (Kinloch, 2005, p. 03). A number of these researchers relate terrorism acts to negative personal traits and responses such as personal low self-esteem, projection of the ‘enemy’ inadequate or no personal trust and high individual independence. In addition, there is also the personal trait of search for intimacy in a way that does not only satisfy the person but also causes harm to the target person. According to this perspective of terrorism, the main causative agent of the terrorism acts emanate from within an individual and are intended towards causing harm to the society. The other theory that has been developed as an explanation towards the origin of terrorist acts is the sense of self-destruction or negation in the context of social and cultural disintegration. The ill-motivated persons not allied to the unification of different societies will do anything, terrorism being one of them, to seek outlets for their unlawful intentions. Other explanations that have been provided by socialists to explain the ignitions of terrorism include mental illnesses and instability. It is from this view that people may find themselves being participants in terrorism plans. The mentally ill or disturbed persons may not really project the outcome of the activities that they take part in. This accidental perspective of terrorism has gained limited support from the scholars and other sociological researchers in the issue of terrorism. From the various theories on the factors that kindle terrorism, all the perspectives that have been used to view this unsocial act bear significant meaning and relevance. The major limitation that can be derived out of all the views is that all are based on the individual point of view. There are, however, cases where terrorist acts are spearheaded by communities and / or groups. In this case, the reasons may be broader than those catered for in the theories covered in the previous sections. Propositions to the Explanation of Terrorism There are other sociological explanations that have been derived to deduce more ideas and meanings out of terrorism. The explanations that are covered by Boyns and Ballard (2004, p. 10-15) are more intensive into the manner in which the act takes place. To begin, the counter hegemony proposition provides that frequent mobilization of social movements can give rise to terrorism activities. The counter-movements that are likely to emerge as a result of these mobilizations may be explained from continuum of formalization and institutionalization, from formal bureaucratic organizations to more of informal militia or terrorism groups. What brings about such responses is difference in ideology among the participants. The resource mobilization, on the other hand, explains terrorism from the perspective of economic and social resources. The scramble for these resources in the long run creates a situation of conflict that may in turn lead to terrorist attacks between the societies that are involved. Other constraining resources that may brew terrorism among social set-ups include labour resources, technological progress, organizational potential, human capital, ideological validation among others (Lizardo, 2011, p. 94). From the point of counter-institutionalization proposition, group ideological differences may give rise to conflicts of interest from among the participants. The extents to which these conflicts develop may then lead to severe impacts on the groups involved. In this proposition, the groups that are involved could be institutions, societies, nations or even governments and rebel teams. These sociological propositions are more to the current views of terrorism and fully cater for the dynamics of today’s terrorist acts. From an analytical point of view, these aspects of terrorism have been frequent, especially in the 21st Century. The act is group-based and takes place in the basis of institutional or group influence. The political stir that exists in different countries has been attributed to the spread of terrorism across the globe. Despite the efforts that have been put forward by the international community to counteract terrorism, it is still prospected that the act is likely to take on different dimensions. Coining Terrorism from the Origin Terms In an attempt to fully understand terrorism as a social concern, Tilly (2007, p. 01) makes it clear that one must be in a position to relate the three main terms that revolve around terrorism. These are terror, terrorism and terrorist. From this point of view, it can be denoted that the assumption made on the similarity or correlation among these three terms may lead to permanent misunderstanding of terrorism. In accordance with the provisions of Tilly,(2007, p. 8) all violent activities quality to be considered as terror. There have been multiple critics to this understanding of terrorism since violent acts come in a number of ways. Some may be positively intentioned while others may be for the sake of terrorism. Acts of terror, though associated with violence, may not be assertive of the intentions of all violent incidents that take place in daily experiences. Terrorism, on the other hand, is easily explained as the act of taking part or being involved in violent acts of which terror is part. This is a more specific explanation to the word. The final term, terrorist, is defined as the person that actively performs the violent acts of terrorism on other people. The intentions of the terrorist are usually social, political or economic. The three terms have related meanings, but revolve around the same issue. In all the definitions, violence is a common factor. This makes it satisfactory to summarize and characterize terrorism with acts of violence directed towards the victims. The victims of violence often suffer multiple damages from financial, political, social and cultural perspective. In addition, immediate bodily harm is also associated with terrorism, and this may differ from incident to incident, depending on the level of severity. Sociology’s Critique of Counterterrorism Approaches There are a number of damages that have been caused by acts directed towards controlling terrorism (Deflem, 2009, p. 535). This is according to the information available in the online Wiley University online library (2007, p. 01). Some of the incidents that are mentioned in this literature include the major effects of strategies adopted by the government of United States after the 9/11 incidents. The major reasons for criticizing these approaches are the effects that were directed on the target counties such as Iraq and neighbouring nations of the Middle East. The anti-terrorism legislation that was passed after the events of 9/11 has been more severe on all the target countries, including all the citizens. The major concern of sociology in this case is the harm that these laws cause on the individual innocent people in these countries. Sociologists have also been on the ground to condemn certain counterterrorism measures put forward by governments and institutions such as Islamic extremism. In the hunt for terrorist and militia groups, the first target is often of Islamic origin. Though most of the attacks on the U.S soil were carried out by Islamic communities not allied to the victim country, the current trends in terrorism are more diverse (Oliverio & Lauderdale, 2005, p. 161). In line with this, (Mythen & Walkate, 2008, p.222) provide better measures that can be put in place to deal with terrorism and its severe impacts. Among the strategies mentioned are use of the risk theory, employment of Furedi’s work on the culture of fear, and finally by utilization of the governmentally perspectives. All put into operation, these three tools are more appropriate and stronger in dealing with terrorism. To some extent, these critiques carry substantial relevance to the practice of terrorism. The measures taken to curb terrorism need to be more specific on the actual act to be covered. As a result of this, generalization of the target nations and the design of the approaches should be more dynamic. The world is fast-revolutionizing and as technology grows, so does terrorism. Methodology Proposed The researchers mainly employed the use of comparative survey into different scholarly material written by previous researchers. The different views and perspectives of these persons have been critically analysed to provide correct inferences and conclusions. Limitations Being based on secondary data, most of the written material may not be in a position to track the changes that take place in the society, for example, the current trends in terrorism. This limits the relevance of the methodology employed to provision of historical information. Conclusion The sociological perspectives of sociology are diverse, right from the points of definition to the design of measures taken to control the vice. The multiple views of sociologists that are discussed in the essay either conflict or supplement explanations that are given in other disciplines such as political science and economics. Though at some point the views may be conflicting to general knowledge, these arguments are not entirely final per se. References Boyns, D. & Ballard, D 2004, ‘Developing a Sociological Theory of the Empirical Understanding of Terrorism’ American Sociologist/ Summer 2004, viewed 7 September 2014, Deflem, M 2009, ‘Terrorism’, In J Miller, (Ed.) 21st Century Criminology (p 533-541), Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications, viewed 07 September 2014, Kinloch, G C 2005, ‘Towards a Sociology of Terrorism: Concepts, Theories and Case Studies’ Florida State University, Florida, viewed 7 September 2014, Lizardo, M 2011, ‘Defining and Theorizing Terrorism: A Global Actor-Centred Approach’ University of Notre Dame, viewed 7 September 2014, Mythen, G & Walkate, S 2008, ‘Terrorism, Risk and International Security: The Perils of Asking “What If”, Security Dialogue 39(2-3): 221-242 Oliverio, A & Lauderdale P 2005, ‘Terrorism as Deviance or Social Control: Suggestions for Future Research, SAGE Publications, viewed 7 September 2014, Sevinc, B 2009, ‘Definitional Dilemmas of Terrorism as a Sociological and Political Phenomenon’ Turkish Journal of Police Studies, viewed 7 September 2014, Tilly, C., 2007, Terror, Terrorism and Terrorists; Sociological Theory, A Symposium, viewed 7 September 2014, Turk, A.T.,2004, ‘Sociology of Terrorism’, Annual Review of Sociology, SAGE Publications Tosini, D, 2007, ‘Sociology of Terrorism and Counterterrorism’: A Social Science Understanding of Terrorist Threat’ Sociology Compass, viewed 7 September 2014, Read More

 

Read More