A culture entails a system of values in terms of which the participants in it find identity, meaning, and purpose.1 In this sense, there is a reciprocal productive exchange by which we are always engaged in the creation of the culture that constitutes us in turn. Much more precisely than age, the concept of culture describes the way in which we express our agency, and thus conditions what we remember and forget, what we believe in and how we judge, organizing our actions and projections. A culture, in other words, both opens up and limits one's sense of possibility. It is hard, by contrast, to know what we really mean by terrorism. Clearly, it does not pick out a fact in the physical sense in which water names the chemical combination of two molecules of hydrogen with one of oxygen. But it is unclear whether it picks out a fact in the more comprehensive sense either, namely, as the worldly correlate of a true proposition. If I look at the proposition is a planet, the fact I am indicating is that the celestial body we have referred to as Mars since ancient times has the features of a planet. Does the proposition 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004 are terrorist truly describe a worldly correlate? My suspicion is that most people would not dispute that this is the case. I find this suspicion deeply disturbing given the crucial role that has played on the global political scene in the new millennium. In this essay, I shall call into question the legitimacy of taking as a self-evident expression and examine the vast array of political implications that derive from it. The difficulty with defining starts with naming the individual occurrences of it. 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004, are terrorist features only elliptical denominations. Indeed, many violent events that are classified as terrorist go by date, even though that is a problem too, often due to different linguistic conventions and sometimes to other more emotive reasons. For example the Madrid train bombings of March 11,2004 are also known as 11/3, 3/11, M-11, and 11-M, while the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which occurred on September 11, 2001, often go by the abbreviated denomination 9/11, perhaps reflecting the wish to mark the absolute uniqueness and monumentality of this event. Some other violent occurrences labeled as terrorist go by the name of their targets: this is the case of the attack against the USS Cole, which occurred on October 17, 2000, while it was refueling in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. Some others yet don't have a proper name at all, which is the case with the suicide bombings of Israeli buses, carried out by Palestinian militants. It is puzzling that such naming instability has not issued some doubt,2 or at least more critical caution, with respect to the meaning or concept that all those multiple names are supposed to pick out. For the expressions in use to designate of are not a finite set containing different names for the same thing. Keeping with celestial bodies, the problem with naming terrorist acts is not reducible to Frege's celebrated distinction between sense (Sinne) and reference (Bedeutung), whose paradigmatic example is that there are two senses, or names, Morning Star and Evening Star, both referring to one reference, the Venus. The instability pertaining to the naming of instances of stretches in all directions, a fact which reflects the even deeper difficulty of establishing whether terrorism refers to anything at all. Let's look again at the two propositions is a planet and 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004 are terrorist acts. I mentioned the former as an example of a true proposition in the sense that it describes a worldly correlate: Mars carrying the features of a planet. One could certainly suggest that the system of classification of celestial bodies based on the distinction between stars and planets is just one astronomical scheme of description. …
Read full abstract