This book explores the use of archetypal metaphors of monstrosity in relation to terrorism. It presents two main original arguments, which are influenced by recent studies by leading philosophers and anthropologists on the social and political functions of monstrosity and monster metaphors. The first argument, developed in Part 1, explores the reasons why “terrorists” are sometimes framed as monsters by their audiences. Although this imagery serves the immediate purpose of depicting the “terrorist” as a non- or sub-human “other,” the book examines the recurrence of specific monster types acros ... More

This book explores the use of archetypal metaphors of monstrosity in relation to terrorism. It presents two main original arguments, which are influenced by recent studies by leading philosophers and anthropologists on the social and political functions of monstrosity and monster metaphors. The first argument, developed in Part 1, explores the reasons why “terrorists” are sometimes framed as monsters by their audiences. Although this imagery serves the immediate purpose of depicting the “terrorist” as a non- or sub-human “other,” the book examines the recurrence of specific monster types across time and space (from the French Revolution through anarchist and ethnonational terrorism, until the current wave of jihadist terrorism), and concludes that the terrorist-monster is primarily an unmanageable creature and that this characterization is functional to the pursuit of rational political agendas and to securing popular backing for specific types of rule-breaking behavior in counterterrorism. The second, developed in Part 2, is about why “terrorists” might want to portray and present themselves as monsters. In this regard, it argues that the impersonation of the monster prototype (in its entirety or in some of its components) is a tactic that has been rationally pursued by several groups throughout the history of terrorism, as part of the modus operandi of so-called revolutionary terrorism, primarily for increasing their scare power. Part 3 applies these analytical frameworks to other areas of terrorism studies, including the use of monster metaphors by the “terrorists” themselves to frame their enemies and recent trends in counterterrorism.