The Argument For Terrorism As A Social Movement

In their work, “Terrorism as Formal Organization, Network, and Social Movement,” Comas, Shrivasta, & Martin argue that terrorism can adopt an organizational structure, specifically as a formal organization, network, or social movement. For the purpose of this essay, I will look specifically at their argument for terrorism as a social movement. According to Comas et al., terrorism can be classified as a social movement because of the ability for terrorist groups to create a sense of common purpose and mobilize resources to influence widespread societal change. Perhaps the most crucial aspect of terrorism is the ability for terrorist groups to harness the emotion and passion of supporters so that they are willing to break societal rules and

50). This is congruent with the definition of social movements as provided by Comas et al: “A social movement is a broad collection of individual and organizational actors unified by historical moments, critical cultural experiences, and communication flows” (Comas et al., 2015, p. 50). Comas et al. analyze Al-Qaeda as an example of a highly-organized terrorist movement. From their analysis, I was able to highlight specific qualities of the Jihadi movement that resemble characteristics of a social movement: 1) a common goal of uniting Muslims under a government that subscribes to the rules of the Caliphs; 2) a strategy of removing Western powers from Islamic majority countries and removing corrupt Muslim governments from power; and 3) a network of groups and members spanning across numerous countries, creating an influence that extends to the world stage (Comas et. al., 2015, p. 54). In addition to possessing these characteristics of social movements, I would posit that during the time in which the Al Qaeda terrorist organization flourished, Al Qaeda was able to maintain the unity of its members despite the vast heterogeneity – a necessary condition as understood by