Terrorism Redefined: Extremism, Vigilantism, and Terrorism

In recent years there has been much debate and controversy over the proper definition of terrorism. In 1984, Schmid compared over 100 different definitions of terrorism and came to the conclusion that there was no single accurate definition due to the wide variance of opinion over the specifics of terrorism. In 2001, however, Vohryzek-Bolden decided to define several terms other than terrorism in order to help define terrorism in teaching her Criminal Justice students. She defined the terms vigilantism, political extremism, and terrorism. The similarities and differences between these three terms are the major focus of this paper. First, the various definitions of terrorism will be identified and outlined. Then, the three terms defined by Vohryzek-Bolden will be explained. Finally, the similarities and differences between these three concepts will be examined.

In 1991, White compiled five major definitions of terrorism, which have been the topic of debate since the 1980s. The broad definition defined terrorism as the use of force to bring about political change, but it was not limited to specific actions. The legalistic approach defined terrorism as a form of criminal violence, violating legal codes and therefore giving the state the power to impose punishment. The analytical definition identifies the problem through specific factors, such as the unacceptable use of violence aimed at innocent targets. The state-sponsored definition maintained that small states, especially those with Communist backing, used terrorism to attack political viewpoints and interests of Western powers. The state definition held that various states, particularly the United States, had supported regimes which used repression and terror to maintain control. White considered all five of these definitions viable since all attempts at definition would be influenced by "political bias." The definition of terrorism used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation stated that "terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Now this, obviously, was a very specific and narrow definition, that largely allowed for actions to be taken by the U.S. government which some might consider terrorism, while at the same time proliferating against political adversaries to the contemporary administrations.

Vohryzek-Bolden used a much broader definition of terrorism. This broad definition recognizes that terrorism and terrorists are most often defined by the moral and political perspective of an individual or government. It also does not allow for the dehumanization or stereotyping of political adversaries, whether "terrorist" or victim, nor does it allow for grievances of those targeted to later be ignored. In some cases, individuals or groups will view acts of "terrorism" as justified, but the broader definition doesn't allow for this justification. Thus, an act that could be construed as terrorism cannot later be deemed heroic because it is beneficial to biased parties. She then separates terrorism from different acts, such as political extremism and vigilantism. Political extremism is defined as a set of political views taken to absolute extremes with the intent of achieving political goals. Vigilantism is defined as the enforcement of laws and punishment through the hands of private citizens. Terrorism is the use or threat of political violence with the intent to instill terror within a target population in order to achieve political goals.
The similarities between the three are actually quite small. While they are all forms of extremism, the lack of necessary action in some cases draws a huge line between them. They have a great deal in common at times, but generalities based on specific situations make broad comparisons difficult and inaccurate. This extremism that all three forms share does have the common foundation in political and societal conditions. Since terrorists, extremists, and vigilantes all share political extremism at the base of their identity, the similarity there is quite clear.

The differences, however, can be a great deal more complex. There are a few shared, or similar, differences between all three of these groups. All of them espouse different viewpoints and meanings and, while some may have some common opinions, their methods and specific ideologies are extremely varied and complex. The scale that they act on is also a great dissimilarity, as some tend to be small-scale while others are quite vast. Terrorists and political extremists, for example, tend to have far-reaching goals and agendas. Vigilantes, on the other hand, tend to be very local, with personal and individualized motivations and targets. The perceptions towards them by the state and the populace are also quite varied. In the case of vigilantes, there is a tendency for actions to be seen as justified or stress-induced. Political extremists, in many Western states, are often protected by the right to peaceful assembly and other civil liberties. This, of course, does not extend into the realm of illegal activism. Terrorists, on the other hand, are almost universally denounced outside of their particular group or affiliation. Beyond these things, there are some very specific differences between the three groups.

Vigilantism, while encompassing aspects defining both extremism and terrorism, can be pushed away the scale and intent of extremism and terrorism due to the general lack of intent to bring about any major political or ideological change. Also important, vigilantism always involves action and that action is always illegal - as it is defined as "taking the law into one's own hands." This legality and activism is not always the case in respect to extremism and terrorism. Political extremism is almost universally very broad in scope, but it does not always necessitate activism or illegality. Political extremists are able to work within the system, especially in Western states, due to the fundamental political basis of their organizations. While many political extremists that come to mind when placed in the context of vigilantism and terrorism are responsible for actions that violate legal codes, there are also extremist groups that limit themselves to an ideological level. The "religious right," for instance, is composed largely of political activists with extremist viewpoints, but it is only the rare fanatic that takes violent extremist-driven actions. Terrorism is generally, but not always, illegal and always involves action, whether direct or threatened. This ability to use threats of political violence truly sets terrorism apart from the other two, but the intent to target populations with actions that inspire terror is the real key here. Once a vigilante or political extremist has taken actions or made threats of actions that are designed with the intent to instill abject fear into the population in order to achieve political goals, they have ceased to be a simple vigilante or extremist and have become a terrorist. Up to that point, there are many fundamental and important differences between the three groups but all of them present a danger if not monitored.

In time, perhaps scholars and governmental agencies will come to agree on which actions are terrorism and which are not. Until then, the argument remains academic and the reality remains something that people all over the world try to shut out of their daily lives.