“Discussions of terrorism assume actual or threatened violence, but the term is regularly used to delegitimize rivals’ nonviolent actions. Yet do ordinary citizens accept descriptions of nonviolence as terrorism? Using a preregistered survey-experiment in Israel, a salient conflictual context with diverse repertoires of contention, we find that audiences rate adversary nonviolence close to terrorism, consider it illegitimate, and justify its forceful repression. These perceptions vary by the action’s threatened harm, its salience, and respondents’ ideology. Explicitly labeling nonviolence as terrorism, moreover, particularly sways middle-of-the-road centrists. These relationships replicate in a lower-salience conflict, albeit with milder absolute judgments, indicating generalizability. Hence, popular perceptions of terrorism are more fluid and manipulable than assumed, potentially undermining the positive effects associated with nonviolent campaigns.” “Although terrorism is commonly defined by actual or threatened violence, the term is often invoked to decry nonviolent actions by adversaries. However, little is known about the willingness of audiences to consider nonviolent campaigns a form of terrorism. Exploring this understudied question, we argue that subjective perceptions of terrorism are a spectrum that includes nonviolence too. Whether nonviolence seems akin to terrorism and justifies repression depends on the action’s nature, the audience’s ideology, and elite labeling. This fluidity differs from formal terrorism definitions, which strictly distinguish violence from nonviolence.” “These results are important for several reasons. First, they demonstrate that public perceptions of terrorism are not restricted to violence. Thus, target audiences are willing to diverge from formal definitions of terrorism further than previously suggested. More research is warranted into what other nonviolent actions, and under which conditions, audiences are willing to accept as terrorism and justify the use of coercive force” “Part of the motivation for the renewed interest in nonviolence is the moral premise that less violence is better and harder to defeat. Our findings imply that leaders who wish to suppress nonviolent campaigns can invoke the pejorative sense of terrorism without falsely claiming that they are violent … Further, if nonviolent contention is portrayed, perceived, and quelled like violence, the resisting side may find actual violence more effective. Thus, labeling nonviolence as terrorism may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.” “The different perceptions of adversary actions by dovish and hawkish audiences reflect deep-seated moralities that deem them less swayable by elite labels. It is the centrists and independents, who have weaker ideological convictions, that are most susceptible to such efforts. This aligns with recent research showing that nonpartisans are the most affected by international actors when choosing between violent and nonviolent contention … Hence, competition over the center seems critical for ideologues on both sides who wish to establish broader dovish or hawkish coalitions in conflictual contexts. Our analysis indicates that labels and rhetoric are key tools in this arena.”—”Is Terrorism Necessarily Violent? Public Perceptions of Nonviolence and Terrorism in Conflict Settings.” by Ben Sasson-Gordis, Avishay, and Alon Yakter, in Political Science Research and Methods, 2023, 1–19. https://ift.tt/woad8Lh.
Powered by WPeMatico
source https://thegame23.eu/labeling-nonviolence-as-terrorism-may-become-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/
Amour Fou 