Within politics there is so much ambiguity, even the word politics itself has no clear meaning, although it’s a word we use so frequently in everyday life. As a subject so little of the content is objective, with all ideas being open to interpretation, debate and scrutiny. This contestation that we see is especially prevalent regarding concepts. Concepts are a vital part of politics and as Heywood states are the “tools of political analysis” that can help us to understand some of the key ideas within the political world. They are the “building blocks of human knowledge”, therefore the way in which these are interpreted can have an impact on how we personally see things within politics. Through the use of one concept, this essay will try to explain why political concepts are subject to contestation. The concept within this essay being terrorism; an extremely relevant political term that most people would at first say that they felt happy using and understand the word, but when fully unfolded and explored, so many questions and contestations behind its meaning and use arise.
Terrorism is one of the hardest words to define and conceptualise. Scholars and experts have been trying to come up with an appropriate definition for decades. In their book Political Terrorism, Schmidt and Jongman (1988) cited 109 different definitions of terrorism, which they obtained in a survey of leading academics in the field. Therefore the concept is an extremely useful example to demonstrate the contestable nature of politics. The term ‘essentially contested concept’ was first coined by W.B Gaille in 1955. He used this term to label and address the problem that occurs when we use abstract concepts, “concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper use on the part of their users.” Such concepts are so subjective, various disagreements about them can arise, which cannot be settled through any empirical science.
The political world is constantly changing and throughout time many new ideas, political structures, theories and institutions have been formed. Our cultures and personal values have drastically evolved and the way we view things have changed alongside this. Due to this, we can observe a vast difference in the way that language has had to adapt to match the change, especially how we label and use certain concepts. When we experience new examples that perhaps don’t fit the original concept, we can be tempted to simply change the remits of the concept. Sartori described this as ‘conceptual stretching’, the distortion that occurs when a concept does not fit the new cases . Although naturally concepts need to be able to “travel” in order to match the ever-changing political world, stretching, however, has implications. This can obviously lead to a loss in the essence of the concept and therefore lose its decisiveness and usefulness. Terrorism has been exposed to concept stretching to some extent. During the 1950’s while Britain still held on to its empire, the Mau Mau uprising occurred in Kenya. As a response to colonial rule, an armed rebellion took place, and Britain responded by moving army reinforcers in, and it’s estimated by David Anderson, professor of African Politics at Oxford University, that the death toll was around 25,000 . At the time the Mau Mau were labelled by the British as terrorists as they were using violence to make political gain, a definition commonly used for terrorism, however, this can obviously be disputed due to the oppression they were facing down to British rule. Was the use of violence the only way to release Kenya from oppression? Many would label them as freedom fighters.
This “stretching” can also be seen when new terms begin to arise around the premise of terrorism, an example of this would be cyber-terrorism. Many widely accepted definitions of terrorism, such as the Collins dictionary, would define it as “the use of violence”, but cyber-terrorism, an attack against information or computer skills, doesn’t actually use violence. Here the category has been extended in order to cater to new cases, and these may be so “sufficiently different that the category is no longer appropriate in its original form” . Sartori came up with the idea of the ‘ladder of abstraction’ . This is a ladder whereby the “pattern of inverse variation between the number of defining attributes and number of cases” is noted. Higher up on the ladder are concepts where there are fewer defining attributes, so apply to more cases, and lower down the ladder you place concepts with more defining attributes which therefore apply to fewer cases. This helps to demonstrate how concept boundaries can move and change in order to aid the user.
As George Orwell states when writing about political language, some words have “several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another”, and that these are often used in a “consciously dishonest way” . He demonstrates this through the use of the concept democracy, but this can easily be substituted for terrorism. In the above example regarding the Mau Mau, the labelling of the uprising as a terrorist act allowed Britain to try and justify what they’re doing. Similarly, this can arguably be seen in the Israel Palestine conflict. Hamas, a “Palestinian militant Islamist group” , are regarded by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a terrorist organisation, however, China, Turkey, Russia and Switzerland all refuse to designate them as a terrorist organisation. The President of Turkey said “Hamas is not a terrorist organization and Palestinians are not terrorists. It is a resistance movement that defends the Palestinian homeland against an occupying power.” The use of the word allows a justification of the way the organisation in viewed by different countries, therefore expressing the importance of the contestability of political nature. Of course, terrorism as a word is so value-laden, and now has negative connotations that come with it, therefore organisations are clearly unlikely to want to label themselves as that, so would refrain from doing so.
Furthermore, another example is the way President George W Bush described his approach as a “war on terrorism” in an attempt to legitimise his actions within the Middle East. The use of terrorism as a word is clearly not done without thought. George Orwell stated within ‘Politics and the English Language’ that “political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible” , and this is, as well as the above example in Kenya, is an example of that. Here Bush has categorised terrorists as a “conventional military enemy and legitimises conventional military action rather than counter-terrorist measures which can be interpreted by the US electorate as being “too soft.” ’And so the use of the contested nature of the political concept has been used in a way in which to justify controversial means. To expand upon this, terrorism as a term has also been used in order to “repress, victimise or demonise”, such as the use of Guantanamo Bay to “sequestrate individuals from the normal legal system in the USA by defining them as terrorists.” This shows not only how contestable political concepts are, but also how important it is to recognise this, as the word is being used to allow far greater political decisions with large effects to occur.
There are a variety of social forces behind the contestable nature of terrorism. The way in which it is used can be “based upon assumed motivations of the perpetrators, or social standing of their victims” . For example, the media is often very fast to label acts of violence committed by perpetrators from a different race or with links to Islam as terrorism, however, when the person in question is white this label is less likely to be used. This brings up questions about how the contestability of the concept is due to different social issues that surround it. As Gallie stated, a large proportion of contestability comes from a conflict in “tastes or attitudes, which no amount of discussion can possibly dispel’. People from different social backgrounds, religions, countries or those who have experienced different things throughout their lives that have shaped their worldview, are all going to have different views on the way in which political concepts are used, thus leading to dispute. Many civilians in Palestine who have suffered oppression are highly unlikely to view or label Hamas as a terrorist organisation and instead see them as a political organisation fighting for their freedom, but a large proportion of Israelis who have experienced the conflict and violence stemming from Hamas would label them as terrorists. It is almost guaranteed that no discussion or debate would resolve this. Therefore, simply human nature and experience has led to the term remaining contested with no seeming way to end up come to a resolution to this. This is a recurring theme within the political world.
Political concepts are also often subject to contestation due to disagreements about where the boundaries of politics actually lie. There are no universally agreed rules when looking at concepts, how can we decide what is within the boundaries of the concept? In regard to terrorism, this is a large issue. Where is the line between terrorism and any other forms of political violence, such as means for revolution? Both are using violence to achieve political change. Therefore because of the lack of established boundaries, any political concept is contestable.
There is, however, some criticism and speculation behind Gallie’s idea of contestable concepts. Ernest Gellner said “Gallie is, implicitly, betraying his own idea: he talks as if, behind each ‘essentially contested concept’, there was, hidden away in some platonic heaven, a non-contested, unambiguously defined and fully determinate concept or exemplar”. And that the narrowing the Gallie expresses is, “in effect inimical to the very notion of essential contestability, as it presumes an agreed or correct position from which deviations have occurred”. Therefore, the very notion of such focus of contestable concepts and Gallie’s approach shouldn’t be assumed to be correct.
In conclusion, the varied nature of the political world inevitably leads to concepts being contested. Individuals own experiences, backgrounds and place within society can have a profound impact on how they view and use concepts. There is no science or empirical way to figure out an objective boundary for politics or any political concept. Human nature and the progression of society naturally leads to all areas of politics being contested and is why it’s one of the most subjective areas of study. Also, the way in which academics subject political concepts to “stretching” is another factor as to why they are so contested. This is incredibly important to analyse. Political language in itself is fascinating as there is so much value behind the words which we use without thought, and the way in which a concept is used can have a huge political impact, and there is almost no greater example to demonstrate this than that of terrorism. The use of this label can lead to the justification of wars or violence, which are perhaps in some circumstances, unlawful, as well as prison sentences or a prejudiced view of a certain religion. A combination of all these factors leads to political concepts being contestable and will almost certainly always be that way.