The Terrorist Spectacle Revisited: Assemblages of Terror from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to the Islamic State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article employs the assemblage thinking to further the debates on the nature of terrorist spectacle. The spectacular nature of terrorism – inducing shock on the wide part of the public – is widely regarded as one of the defining traits which distinguish it from other forms of political violence. So far, most studies have focused on the role of modern media in enacting the terrorist spectacle, showing how violent actions are conveyed via media straightforwardly to audiences who react to the (spectacular) acts with the feeling of terror. To nuance these works, I suggest adopting the prism of assemblage which highlights how various human and non-human elements co-constitute the social and political world(s). The ‘assemblage thinking’ makes it possible to discern two features crucial for studies of terrorist spectacle. First, it highlights how it emerges from the interplay of particular objects that carry within them wider meanings, various historically situated modes of transmitting information and images, and broader civilisational fears related to the perpetrators’ identities. Second and relatedly, I show that rather than a wilful strategy pursued by human actors, the terrorist spectacle is a contingent phenomenon produced by the interplay between various elements and practices. I illustrate these points by juxtaposing Palestinian groups’ plane hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s and the recent ISIS attacks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".