The phenomenon of terrorism: understanding the essence

Постановка проблеми. Сучасний світ після подій 11 вересня 2001 р. .живе з розумінням того, що поряд з глобальними проблемами, які вже були усвідомлені людством наприкінці XX cm. (загроза ядерної війни, забруднення навколишнього середовища, зміна клімату, бідність і злидні в окремих регіонах планети), виникла ще одна загроза, яку теж можна віднести до глобальних, - тероризм. Тероризм багатоликий і різноманітний, він трансформується разом з людством, він мімікрує під боротьбу з несправедливістю, нерівністю, пригнобленням, національно-визвольну боротьбу та інші соціально-політичні процеси, які можуть бути сприйняті амбівалентно. Тому проникнення в сутність тероризму, осмислення причин, способів і методів його боротьби, є особливо актуальним для України, яка вже п 'ятий рік як стала об 'єктом «гібридної» війни, у ході якої супротивник широко використовує терористичні акти.

Аналіз останніх досліджень та публікацій. Феномен тероризму став особливо активно досліджуватися вченими після трагедії в Америці, хоча і раніше він перебував у полі їх зору. Але лише за останні півтора десятиліття написано сотні книг і тисячі статей на цю тему, видані десятки енциклопедій, які досліджують дане явище. Серед вчених, які досліджують сутність, природу, форми і методи боротьби з тероризмом можна назвати таких дослідників за кордоном як М. Абрамс, Бреннан, С. Гоерц, Б. Гоффман, Б. Дженкінс, Л. Дуган, М Креншоу, Д. Фрейліч, М Хамм, А. Хашим та ін. Велику увагу дослідженню тероризму приділяли й українські вчені, такі як В. Антипенко, О. Бардін, А. Деменко, В. Ємельянов, В. Крутов, Ліпкан, В. Мандрагеля, І. Мусієнко та ін.

Формулювання цілей. Метою статті є спроба проникнути у сутність феномену тероризму і запропонувати дефініцію тероризму.

Виклад основного матеріалу. Осмислення тероризму як глобальної проблеми сучасності і з 'ясування боротьби з ним є важливим гносеологічним завданням, що вимагає негайного разе 'язання. Крім того, генезис даного явища свідчить про його значну трансформацію: змінюються форми здійснення терористичних актів, відбувається зсуву полі цільового впливу терористів, змінюються методи їх діяльності, особливості організаційного будівництва та ін. Тероризм також має багато спільного з іншими формами соціального протесту і насильства - агресією, збройною боротьбою, військовими конфліктами різного ступеня інтенсивності, партизанськи

ми діями, диверсіями тощо. У сучасній науковій літературі існує понад сто визначень тероризму. Хоча на рівні ООН на сьогодні не досягнуто жодної домовленості про визначення цього поняття. Американські дослідники тероризму підкреслюють, що це явище легше описати, ніж дати йому чітке, однозначне тлумачення.

Однак саме по собі визначення тероризму дуже важливе. Визначити будь-яку дію як терористичну означає не просто стверджувати, що вона має певні характеристики, але і засудити її. Спробуємо уточнити ряд моментів, пов 'язаних із дефініцією тероризму. Кожне визначення повинне містити в собі істотні ознаки явища. На наш погляд, коли говориться про тероризм, то, по-перше, до таких ознак належить насильство. Склалися три типи теорій, що пояснюють джерела насильства. Перший тип поєднує ті концепції, що виводять насильство з природи людини. Другий тип теорій виводить застосування насильства з економічних і соціальних умов життя суспільства. Третій тип теорій зв язує насильство з динамікою конфлікту.

Звичайне насильство має два основні трактування: примус і застосування фізичної сили. Системний аналіз допускає з'ясування функцій насильства, які значною мірою зумовлені ступенем усвідомлення своїх дій суб 'єктами насильства й остаточною метою насильства. Розрізняють так зване ірраціональне і раціональне насильство, а також інструментальне і символічне (чи «комунікативне») насильство.

З погляду з 'ясування особливостей насильства при здійсненні терористичних діянь варто акцентувати два моменти: явний і латентний елементи насильства. Явний елемент насильства пов 'язаний із здійсненням безпосередніх терористичних актів, унаслідок яких гинуть люди, руйнуються будинки, вибухають літаки, потяги тощо. Латентний елемент насильства пов 'язаний з тим, що терористичний акт запускає механізм примусу людей робити так, як цього вимагають терористи, впливати на державні структури з метою реалізації на практиці тих вимог, що висувають терористи, створює в суспільстві атмосферу страху та безвиході. Акцентування уваги на явному і латентному компонентах терористичної діяльності дозволяє зафіксувати те, що явний компонент терористичних дій значною мірою показує інструментальну функцію терористичного акту як явища видового стосовно насильства: латентний компонент показує генезу і динаміку такого явища, як наростання страху, безвиході в соціумі, зростання ентропійних процесів у ньому.

Аналіз суттєвих ознак тероризму дозволяє сформулювати своє бачення тероризму. Під тероризмом розуміється соціальне явище, засноване на використанні чи загрозі використання насильства у вигляді терористичного акту з метою нагнітання атмосфери страху і безвиході в суспільстві в ім 'я досягнення мети суб 'єктів терористичної діяльності.

Висновки. Отже, тероризм - багатоликий, не зупиняється на місці, а постійно розвивається, як соціальне явище він має дуже складну природу, його виникнення і розвиток залежать від багатьох чинників, завдяки своїй деструктивності та руйнівності він є серйозною загрозою для суспільства й особистості.

Ключові слова: тероризм, терористичний акт, насильство, війна, дефініція тероризму.

Characteristics of Terrorism, Guerrilla and Conventional War as Modes of Violent Struggle

Unfortunately, at the UN level, no agreement has yet been reached on the unequivocal definition of terrorism [52, p. 120-132]. American researchers of terrorism emphasize that this phenomenon is easier to describe than to give it a clear, unambiguous interpretation. This is how American researcher Brian Jenkins approaches the interpretation of this concept. Terrorism, he stresses, “is defined by the nature of the act, not by the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of their cause. All terrorist acts are crimes - murder, kidnapping, arson. Many would also be violations of the rules of war, if a state of war existed. All involve violence or the threat of violence, often coupled with specific demands. The violence is directed mainly against civilian targets. The motives are political. The actions generally are carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. The perpetrators are usually members of an organized group, and unlike other criminals, they often claim credit for the act. And finally the act is intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage” [53, p. 2-3]. Richard A. Falkenrath in his definition of terrorism also emphasizes the religious aspect. Terrorism for him - “is typically defined as premeditated violence used to achieve specific political, social, or religious objectives by instilling fear among the general public” [54, p. 149]. V. Yemelyanov in his monograph “Terrorism - as a phenomenon and as a crime” gives a definition of terrorism, which emphasizes the political and legal aspect of the phenomenon: “Terrorism is a publicly-made, generally dangerous act or threat, aimed at intimidating a population or social groups, with a view to directly or indirectly influencing or rejecting any decision in the interests of terrorists” [55, p. 28]. According to experts, among the definitions of terrorism, the following looks interesting: “Terrorism is the use of non-state violence or threats of violence in order to cause panic in society, to weaken and even to overthrow the government and cause political changes; it is aimed at destabilizing state regimes, disturbing people's concerns through their defenselessness against the threat of violence, the change as a result of this state power in the country, on the exercise of other political, religious or ethnic aspirations” [56, p. 7]. Although this definition of terrorism is not perfect.

However, the definition of terrorism itself is very important [57, p. 345]. Identifying any action as a terrorist means not just claiming that it has certain characteristics but also condemning it. Let's try to clarify a number of points related to the definition of terrorism. Each definition must contain the essential features of the phenomenon. In our view, when it comes to terrorism, then, firstly, it refers to violence. It is well presented Alex P. Schmid in Table 2 [58, p. 58-59].

Table 2. The Spectrum of Political Action

There were three types of theories explaining the sources of violence [59]. The first type combines the concepts that draw violence from the nature of man. The whole history of human civilization is connected with violence. “The very first law of nature, - wrote V. Soloviev, - is the struggle for existence. All nature lives in the constant hostility of creatures and forces, in their wicked perturbations and the charms of someone else's life. Every creature in our world, from the smallest particles of dust to humans, speaks about one thing all of its natural life: I exist, and everything else here is only for me. Facing another one, he says to him: if I exist, then you can no longer exist, you have no place next to me. And everyone ... want all to destroy and exterminated by all. The confrontation between each and every one inevitably ends with the death of everyone - a hostile environment, finally tearing its existence and pushing it out of life, the struggle ends in death and decay...” [60, p. 71-72]. With this approach, it is assumed that there are innate tendencies, instincts (death instinct, sexual instinct), pushing people to violence. To this type can be attributed, and philosophical concepts that explain the violence inherent in man by the will to power, domination. So, Finnish researcher Tatu Vanhanen emphasizes that people must fight for power, because this is the ultimate way to distribute control over resources [61, p. 17], and therefore to a better life.

The second type of theory explains the use of violence by the economic and social conditions of society. Even Aristotle noted that the basis of violence is the inability of the authorities to establish equality in society [62, p. 420-422, 577]. Economic and social inequality causes the differentiation of society into groups, social classes and, accordingly, contradictions and struggle between them. K. Marx, F. Engels and their followers substantiated the class antagonisms that exist in society, social inequality and exploitation. The overcoming of these antagonisms is through the establishment of social equality or, in any case, the alleviation of inequality. Accordingly, the permissible limits of differences in living standards of different classes are determined to ensure the stability of public life. Many contemporary social scientists also tend to conclude that there is a link between violence and inequality. So, Ralph Dahrendorf writes that inequality and power continue to be powerful factors in the clash of interests and struggle [63, p. 47]. Y. Antonyan stressed that today's terrorism “is not only the collision of religions, nations, civilizations, but also antagonism between the poverty of often potentially wealthy regions and the wealth of developed countries. But here, not only the very poverty itself, but also the driving force, advocates a sense of its greatest social injustice” [64, p. 337]. Professor Pak Hun concluded that inequality in income is the most important reason for political violence on materials from 62 countries of the world [65, p. 8].

The third type of theories relates violence to the dynamics of conflict. In any society there are competing groups - economic, political, and spiritual. The initial state of competing groups and individuals is a potential conflict. It becomes real when the competitive state is personified when each individual begins to confront each other. This is precisely the stage when violence becomes very likely. The conflict finds its solution in the victory of one of the conflicting parties. A new hierarchy is being approved. There is a period of adaptation to the situation. This is the period when new competing groups are formed. Conflict resolution history repeats over and over again. According to P. Shikhirev, the history of the development of social conflicts and the forms of violence used in them can be divided into three main stages [66, p. 28-29]. The first involves the use of direct physical abuse. Primitive man sought to destroy another person or group if they prevented him from living. During the period of slavery, a man realized that it was better not to kill the enemy, but to make him work for himself. The second stage is political. Its content is the dominance of some social groups over others. At this stage, the principle of “agree, or I”ll kill you” dominates. The third, economic stage is based on a wide mutually beneficial social exchange. The basic principle of interaction at this stage is “give me this, and I will give you that”. In parallel with these three methods of solving social conflicts (physical, political, economic) ideological and moral principles of interaction of people based on ethnic, value and legal norms were formed.

Conventional violence has two main interpretations: coercion and the use of physical force [67, p. 11-30]. In some philosophical works, violence is interpreted as limiting a person's physical and spiritual abilities, suppressing his free will. In the Italian Philosophical Encyclopedia, violence is defined as an act committed from outside against spontaneous attraction and natural movement. A. Getman, M. Panov, V. Tatsiy emphasize that violence is any restriction of fundamental human rights. The understanding of violence as an obligatory restriction of human freedom is also characteristic of some Russian researchers. Thus, Abdusalam Guseynov defines violence as “the usurpation of free wifi” [68, p. 9]. The most common approach to violence distinguishes those authors for whom it is synonymous with everything that harms a person.

System analysis allows us to find out the functions of violence, which are largely due to the degree of awareness of their actions by actors of violence and the ultimate goal of violence. There are so-called irrational and rational violence. The first is the process of mental disorientation (aggression), with the object subjected to substitution and violence is an end in itself (the catharsis function of violence). “Rational” violence, on the contrary, has a pronounced social or political function and is one of many means. It is worthwhile to distinguish between instrumental and symbolic (or “communicative”) violence. Instrumental violence pursues a specific goal, often used as a means of forming power or redistributing it (for example, the terrorist nature of the early phase of Italian fascism and a number of movements in developing countries). Therefore, violence performs an instrumental function, if used for the purpose of existential destruction in the name of creating a religious, ethnic, racial or social homogeneity of society. Symbolic violence, on the contrary, is aimed not at the realization of the goal, but at the addition of the consciousness created by the propaganda of a certain image. For a society undergoing systemic transformation, it is important to remember that the phenomenon of violence in its current form has a completely new, unusual character unlike all past eras, because it is a product of a society of a qualitatively different nature, namely, a society defined as post-industrial. For such a society, the special terrorist activities of its individuals and groups were particularly characteristic.

In terms of identifying the features of violence in the commission of terrorist acts, two points must be emphasized: explicit and latent elements of violence. An explicit element of violence is connected with the implementation of direct terrorist acts, which can cause people to die, houses getting destroyed, planes, trains, etc. explode. In today's conditions, the nature of the objects of terrorist attacks and the forms of these attacks are sharply spreading. But the main threat from terrorists remains a threat to the lives and safety of people. It should be noted that the distinctive feature of modern terrorism is that it has a distinction between the immediate victim of violence and the group being the object of influence and the purpose of violence, and the degree of cruelty from this does not diminish, and perhaps even more. According to Hans Schneider, “terrorism is a process of transforming people into non-people... Terrorists are insensitive to the suffering of their victims, distanced themselves from them and predefined their criminal behavior, which causes harm to the victims. For them, the victims of terrorism are at best bargain objects, tools for achieving the goal” [69, p. 443]. Most forms of armed violence characteristic of terrorism are not its monopoly, same as their use is not evidence of what is just about terrorist practice. Here the main thing is, with what purpose these violent actions are carried out. Motives and orientation are very important in the analysis of terrorist acts. Hence, one more distinguishing feature of terrorism, which is that it combines a high level of political motivation with low participation of the masses.

The latent element of violence is related to the fact that a terrorist act launches a mechanism for coercion of people to do as terrorists demand it, to influence state structures in order to put into practice those demands that were forwarding by them, creating an atmosphere of fear and hopelessness in society. Thomas Hobbes wrote about such consequences of violence: “The worst thing is that there is an eternal fear and constant danger of violent death, and human life is lonely, poor, hopeless, stupid and short-lived” [70, p. 96]. The execution of the attack does not cover the content of terrorist acts, and they do not end at the end of the combat operation. Their main goal is not just the commission of mass killings, the elimination of individuals, material damage, etc., but the achievement of social resonance, intimidation of peoples and governments. Terrorism is not only a form of political violence, but also a form of political communication. Although intimidation in the past, characteristic of invasions, has often been in the shadow, since terrorism has become organized, ideologically sound and systematic, this function is even more pronounced. Preventive intimidation by terrorist acts applies to everyone: workers, bankers, employees, officials in ministries. Everyone, absolutely everyone should feel their insecurity in the face of constant evil, the variability of modem life. With the help of terrorist acts in a society, hysteria of fear, hopelessness, distrust of certain social groups, and sometimes entire nations, is manifested, which manifests itself in the growth of aggressiveness in society. Consequently, violent acts acquire the character of terrorist, if they are aimed at creating an atmosphere of fear and hopelessness. In this case, the system of terrorist means includes not only actions that directly threaten the lives and safety of people, but also bloodless preventive operations that intimidate people - arson or explosions in abandoned premises - shops, offices, headquarters of political parties, industrial enterprises, etc.

Atmosphere of fear often causes an increase of aggression in society, awakens an evil, destructive element in man. Aggressiveness is inherent in man since ancient times. The “evil inclination” as well as the “good inclination” is an integral part of the human world. Terrorism is one of those triggers that reproduce the growth of aggression and violence in society, the growth of dissipative processes.

The emphasis on the explicit and latent components of terrorist activity allows to capture the fact that the explicit component of terrorist acts largely shows the instrumental function of a terrorist act as a phenomenon specific to violence; the latent component shows the genesis and dynamics of such a phenomenon as an increase in fear, a lack of output in society, and the growth of entropy processes in it.

Analysis of the main characteristics of terrorism allows us to formulate our vision of terrorism. Terrorism is a social phenomenon that is based on the use or threat of violence in the form of a terrorist act in order to create an atmosphere of fear and hopelessness in society in order to achieve the goals of terrorist actors.