Abstract
This article proposes a conceptualization of violence that builds on a tripartite relationship between violence, victims, and sacrifice that frames violence as a self-justifying sacrificial act. This conceptualization delineates the nature of violence by addressing its transformation from an instrumental act to a constitutional act, making violence possible, ongoing, contagious, and productive. In particular, I argue, with the help of René Girard’s theoretical framework, that conceptual accounts of violence can gain further insights through an engagement with his concepts of sacrifice and victims. Violence, this article illustrates, becomes a societal feature by producing victims via sacrifice rather than drawing simplified boundaries between the relation of perpetrator and victim, mediated by the act of violence. To illustrate the epistemological value of this conceptualization, the article re-examines Timothy McVeigh’s justification of his Oklahoma City bombing. The article concludes that not only terrorism’s atrocities reflect this proposed conceptualization of violence but also potentially all acts of political violence.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
[H]uman beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. George Orwell in a review of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (Orwell, 2017 [1940]).
Apart from what the introductory quote from George Orwell on people’s will for struggle and self-sacrifice suggests, analyses often dilute an understanding of violence as an end in itself. Certainly, some consider violence as a foundational and enduring part of politics (e.g., Howard, 2001).Footnote 1 Other accounts, however, assume violence to be something exceptional (e.g., Collins, 2009), an atavism in decline due to human progress (Heath-Kelly, 2013, p. 1; see also Oona A. Hathaway and Shapiro, 2019; Pinker, 2011). Conceptual accounts of violence often treat it as a means, an instrument, rather than an end in itself. This is particularly obvious as faced with continuing violent atrocities, the public and academia alike lack an adequate vocabulary to grasp the character of modern violence and its prevailing features of sacrifice and victimhood. These features suggest that violence is more than just an instrument (Williams, 2015, p. xiii; see also Juergensmeyer, 1991).
I argue that conceptual accounts of violence, the physical destruction of bodies, can gain further insights through an engagement with the concepts of sacrifice and victim as provided by René Girard’s mimetic theory. To illustrate the value of these concepts, the article re-examines Timothy McVeigh’s justification for his 1993 Oklahoma City bombing. This look at the violence inflicted on the “home front” by “homegrown” terrorism like McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing is helpful to expand our understanding of political violence. McVeigh’s example illustrates that violence, rather than a mere instrument to achieve political ends, consists of a tripartite relationship between violence, victims, and sacrifice. This conceptualization of violence as a sacrificial act opens up hitherto neglected avenues of interpreting violence. Recent and current research illustrates this relationship. For example, by pointing out that the process of radicalization is similar in cases of terrorists and conventional soldiers (Haggerty & Bucerius, 2018), both of which groups are meant to purposely inflict violence. As I illustrate, McVeigh’s case is intriguing in this regard, as he was a soldier-turned-terrorist. Moreover, the relationship between violence, victim, and sacrifice illustrates the correlative threats and similarities of justifications for the violence of far-right terrorism and Islamist terrorism (e.g., Abbas, 2017; Ebner, 2018; Atran, 2017; Gill et al., 2019).
The article continues as follows. The first section illustrates that conceptualizing violence needs to take into account what violence immediately causes and produces, that is, sacrifices and victims. They make violence possible, ongoing, contagious, and productive. To illustrate this relationship, I adapt Girard’s concepts of victim and sacrifice. The article then illustrates the relevance of conceptualizing these terms with the example of McVeigh’s justification for innocent victims of his Oklahoma City bombing. This helps to better understand and discern other terrorist atrocities and points to further avenues for research. For example, McVeigh’s case suggests that the tripartite conceptualization of violence is not exclusively engrained in terrorist atrocities. Rather, it is potentially also engrained in the response to the infliction of violence of other actors by turning, for example, to torture.
Violence, Power, Politics, and Social Fragility
Seemingly peaceful social relationships are often more fragile than assumed (Mueller, 2004, p. 197). The most obvious example is the primary form of human political organization, the state that continuously built on as well as turned to violence (e.g., Tilly, 1985; Arnold, 2017; Scott, 1998). Furthermore, as the success of the “Islamic State” to control vast parts of Iraq and Syria illustrated, few extremely violent actors are often successful in achieving political ends (e.g., Atran, 2015). Where there are no clear boundaries between state and non-state actors and secular and religious motivations, theory often fails to adapt to the changing nature of violence that is justified in religious concepts and terms such as “sacrifice” (e.g., Asad, 2007; Dumouchel, 2015; Palaver, 2014; Kahn, 2008). Other than delving into the religious or secular motivations of violence (e.g., Cavanaugh, 2009), I argue that this failure of theory to adapt is because violence produces victims via sacrifice rather than that the act of violence draws and relies on simplified boundaries between the relation of perpetrator and victim. Violence, I take it, is essentially bodily injuring and thus not an instrument but a form of action (Ray, 2018, p. 2; see also Scarry, 1985). As such, the action is directly connected with its object, the victim.
In what follows, I illustrate this relationship with the help of Girard’s mimetic theory (for an overview, see Palaver, 2013b). His conceptual framework facilitates understanding via an interpretative approach to political and social reality. In this sense, the conceptual framework is not necessarily causal. Conceptualizations do not, up front, distinguish between normative arguments and analytical conceptualizations but rather have a broader ideal-type thrust. A concept is “a means toward the formation of hypotheses” and “represents a deliberate, constructive interpretation of reality” (Drysdale, 1996, p. 80).Footnote 2
Girard’s theory already proved to be useful for studies attempting to understand the logic of terrorism, violence, sacrifice, and politics and conflict more generally (e.g., Juergensmeyer, 2008, 2020; Abbink, 2020; B. Evans, 2021; Troy, 2021). In Girard’s theory, imitation is central to the human condition because it points out that imitation of desires generates resentment and conflict (Girard, 1983).Footnote 3 The Greek word mimesis points to the connection between desire and imitation. However, it is not the desire for a definite or original object. The imitation of desire means following the desire of others (Girard, 2008 (2000), pp. 59–60) rather than copying others. What is desired is constructed socially. How the desire is constructed occurs in a “triangular desire” (Girard, 1996), consisting of the Self, the Other (mediator), and the object that is desired by the subject. This is “because the person knows, imagines, or suspects that the model or mediator desires it as well. Therefore, the goods or objects people desire, and their ideas about what to desire, are based on the ideas and desires they learn from others” (Thomas, 2005, p. 124). The persecution of a victim, a scapegoat, solves mimetic rivalry. Sacrificial rituals thus became a common form to canalize violence.Footnote 4 The scapegoat, a replacement, is a sacrificial substitution to protect society from its inherent destructive tendencies due to mimetic rivalry (Girard, 1988; see also Palaver, 2013a). The scapegoat mechanism, a form of mediation, serves as a means to channel and contain violence. Mimetic theory’s “causal story,” then, “begins with reciprocal imitation, not from an impulse to harm.” The details of its “sequence” are as follows: imitation, small state conflict, contagion, large scale conflict, sacrifice, and resolution (Farneti, 2015, p. 6). Moral codes and modern law transformed and camouflaged the archaic scapegoat mechanism.
Today, law “represents the rejection of a premodern worldview in which human sacrifice was a conceivable means of social and political integration” (Bourg, 2010, p. 139). Scholars of political theory have been aware of Girard’s insights, for example, by pointing out that the character of modern conflict originates in a societal notion of violence being a means and an end itself. The Girardian perspective points out that law is a distinct feature of the principle of politics and cannot escape the archaic character of violence (Kensey, 2014). What the law does is tame and regulate violence born out of mimetic rivalry. “Unable to exorcize violence within themselves, humans have chosen to sanctify it” (Gray, 2016, p. 81; see also Benjamin, 1996; Cover & Minow, 2001). Modern transformations of the scapegoat mechanism illustrate why Girard’s framework, originally focusing on sacrifice as a social and public ritual, can still be applied to notions of sacrifice that seem alien to any public meaning system.
Political theory elaborates on the necessity to separate political power from violence, arguing that violence and politics are distinct principles (e.g., Frazer & Hutchings, 2011). For example, Hannah Arendt’s (1970, p. 46) characterization of violence as essentially instrumental remains a prevailing feature of conceptions of political violence (see also Bufacchi, 2005). Violence, in this view, is in “need of guidance and justification through the end it pursues. And what needs justification by something else cannot be the essence of anything.” Violence and political power are thus opposites; “where one rules absolutely, the other is absent” (Arendt, 1970, pp. 51; 56).Footnote 5 Violence, however, has always made its way into the political sphere. It has been the demystifying and de-politicizing assumptions that led to a genuinely procedural view of politics putting aside this relation (e.g., Mouffe, 2005a, 2005b).Footnote 6
Existing research looks at the outcomes of the modern transformations of the scapegoat mechanism and the societal containment of violence (e.g., via law, moral frameworks, or advocacy activities) (e.g., Oona Anne Hathaway & Shapiro, 2017; M. Barnett & Finnemore, 2004; M. N. Barnett, 2013). However, what the literature lacks is to look at specific instances where violence actually and unveiled still occurs as part of politics. This is not the least because few studies consider violence an ontological feature of politics. Studies that attempt to understand the logic of terrorist violence conclude that, “positing a rational and causal ‘means-end’ calculation may not be a sufficient explanation for all terrorist acts themselves. An understanding of how terrorists think on a subjective and culturally determined level is also required.” In other words, violence must also be understood in symbolic terms of the “act itself, rather than just the deliberate selection of symbolic targets … And one of the most important symbolic acts in many societies is the sacrificial act of violence” (Dingley & Kirk-Smith, 2002, pp. 103, 104).
Increasing resentment and rivalry on a global scale (e.g., Brighi, 2016; Laurent & Paquet, 1991; Mishra, 2018) also highlight the importance of the concepts of victim and sacrifice. Both concepts suggest looking at instances where and how they materialize—in actual acts of violence. Yet there remains a conceptual gap. Despite existing accounts of the act of violence, research usually treats the categories of “victim” and “perpetrator” as “prior or external to analysis” (Jacoby, 2015, p. 512). Certainly, conceptualizations of victimhood rhetoric mark various attempts to comprehend violence. The notion of victimhood “can have a cohesive function in a community” (Wydra, 2013, p. 178), and metaphysical underpinnings are a necessary language for referring to the evil that causes victims (Casebeer, 2004, p. 442; see also Münkler & Fischer, 2000).
However, those attempts, first, show little interest in the actual victims. Second, they argue that, as in the case of terrorism, it is not useful to focus on the victims of terrorism.Footnote 7 However, representations of victimhood “have become a non-negative, unconscious force of globalization” (Wydra, 2013, p. 178). Take, for example, terrorism that originates in subjective perceptions of victimhood, injustice, and feelings of resentment, giving rise to violence. Terrorist activists are often “people who feel oppressed more by socio-economic and cultural changes, rather than any empirically-defined act of oppression” (Dingley & Kirk-Smith, 2002, p. 113; see also Richardson, 2007). The trigger for “terrorist violence,” thus, lies “in resentment against weakness or losing in political rivalries albeit often in a context of growing equality and the elimination of structural differences” (Morrow, 2017, p. 495). This is why the “emergence of global terrorism” is “evidence of the spread of internal mediation and mimetic escalation (Morrow, 2017, p. 494; see also Brighi, 2015).
In fact, rivalries over victimhood and its hierarchy, based on feelings of oppression by socio-economic and cultural changes, frequently mark conflicts (Jacoby, 2015, p. 529; see also Ferguson et al., 2010; Lynch & Joyce, 2018), making it necessary to conceptualize how victims and victimhood come into being in the first place. The lack of a comprehensive engagement with the concepts of victim and sacrifice reveals the modern myth of the autonomous subject, unconscious of social complexities (e.g., Chandler, 2014; Farneti, 2013), questioned by mimetic rivalry and the scapegoat mechanism. “Contrary to the ‘romantic’ lie of individual autonomy, Girard asserts the novelistic or ‘romanesque’ truth or relatedness. Human desires are not original but interrelated and mediated by a model from which we learn what to desire. Human beings are ‘mimetic’” (Morrow, 2017, p. 493). The dominant assumption of the autonomous subject is, for example, obvious in the individualization of accountability, largely ignoring societal factors contributing to violence (e.g., Ainley, 2011). What is more, this assumption is ignorant of social and political dynamics following forced violent political intervention, ignoring that violence causes victims based on the demands for sacrifice.
In the relationship between act, actor, and audience, symbolic acts of violence seek to imply “a sympathetic relationship between act, actor and audience; that the audience knows what the symbol means and how they should respond” (Dingley & Kirk-Smith, 2002, p. 123). As indicated above, studies in conflict and political theory tend to assume violence to be an instrument within a conflict to pursue an end (e.g., Rapoport, 1989). My argument posits that violence is an essential part of the relationship between the act of sacrifice and the victim. This relation makes it possible to frame violence as a form of purification (of victims and victimhood) and as a socially constitutive act. Including the concepts of victim, sacrifice, and their relationship introduces an additional layer to other conceptualizations of violence by pointing out how violence is “productive” (Heath-Kelly, 2013, p. 2; Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois, 2004, p. 1).
Productive violence means that violence is “used to make and remake bodies in efforts to realize certain narratives and derealise others” (Heath-Kelly, 2013, p. 172). Consider, for example, terrorists who justify their violent acts based on resentment (e.g., Nesser, 2012; Simon, 2013). Applying the Girardian concepts, this is because globalization and equalization of culture generate rivalry, competition, and conflict, rather than mere ideology (Bourg, 2010, p. 137). “Globalisation,” then, “reveals the ultimate secret of political modernity: the fragmentation and increasing impotence of territorial sovereign states in both governing the political process and controlling violence … With the triumph of the principle of equality, enshrined in the liberal democratic ethos and central to the project of secular modernity, the idolatry of the tyrant as mediator is ‘replaced by hatred of a thousand rivals’ … in a move from external to internal mediation” (Brighi, 2015, p. 153).
Many terrorists are “deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers” (Žižek, 2015). The problem, then, is not difference, but sameness as Girard points out, and which has been echoed by Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984, p. 479) conceptualization of social identity which “lies in difference, and difference is asserted against what is closest, which represent the greatest threat.” As Slavoj Žižek (2015) puts it in a Girardian conceptualization, today’s violent fundamentalists and terrorists “are already like us, that, secretly, they have already internalized our standards and measure themselves by them.” The other, the victim, thus becomes sacrificial in doing justice to experienced or assumed resentment, whatever the pretext might be.
What current perspectives on the use of violence miss is a relational perspective on the origins of their violent acts as well as the productive power of their acts with respect to the internal mediation of mimetic rivalry. To illustrate this relationship, the remainder of the article turns to the case of the “Oklahoma City Bomber” Timothy McVeigh, providing an example of how this mechanism of internal mediation potentially leads to radicalization because extreme resentment, internally mediated, still needs a victim to sacrifice.
Storm Troopers in the Gray Zone
In the late 1990s, three unique inmates briefly shared a row in the Colorado “Supermax” Federal Prison: The “Oklahoma City Bomber” Timothy McVeigh, the “UNA” Bomber Theodore Kaczynski, and the 1993 World Trade Center Bomber Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. The histories of all three individuals epitomize some of the most pressing challenges posed by current political extremism and its terrorist outlets from the far right to Islamism. Resentment was the motivating force in all of their actions, either encouraged by big-government trimming individual freedom (McVeigh); the technologization and individualization of modern society (Kaczynski); or to avenge the sufferings of Muslims (Yousef) (Michel & Herbeck, 2001, pp. 359–365; see also Chase, 2003; Fleming, 2022; CNN, 2007). Furthermore, all three represent the dangers of “homegrown” terrorism by individuals with few and lose ties to other terrorists or networks.
Although all three would serve as cases to exemplify the conceptualization of violence, here I turn in more detail to McVeigh. This is for three main reasons. First, McVeigh epitomizes one of the prevailing motives for turning to acts of terrorism and the so-called lone-wolf terrorism: resentment. This is particularly obvious while illustrating in his acts the cycle of the relationship between sacrifice, violence, and victim. Second, because his case illustrates this conceptualization so well, it might also serve as a “lesson-learned,” illustrating that “lone wolfs” are not so lone after all (e.g., Schuurman et al., 2017; Hofmann, 2018), not least because internal mediation depends on outside contexts as well. Third, McVeigh’s case illustrates what scholarship on terrorism has only recently engaged: the correlation between threat and the path to radicalization between far-right terrorism and Islamist terrorism.
On April 19, 1995, a bomb planted in a rental truck, went off next to the “Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building” in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. Shortly thereafter Army veteran Timothy McVeigh was arrested, eventually sentenced to death, and executed in 2001. Like right-wing militias (e.g., Stern, 1997; Barkun, 1996), “McVeigh, blamed the FBI and the ATF for the militia movement’s twin tragedies: the deaths of white supremacist Randy Weaver’s wife and son in a 1992 confrontation at Weaver’s home in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidians’ compound in Waco, Texas, that resulted in the deaths of 82 cult members, including their leader David Koresh” (DeSa & McCarthy, 2009, p. 46; see also Michel & Herbeck, 2001, p. 135; Serrano, 1998, p. 219; Wright, 2007, p. 5).
Retaliation for the debacles at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and in particular the fact that the federal government was not held responsible for the tragedies, became an essential motivation for McVeigh’s Oklahoma City bombing (DeSa & McCarthy, 2009, p. 47). The blueprint for the bombing itself and accompanying the way of radicalization of McVeigh was The Turner Diaries (Serrano, 1998, p. 28; 51; 219; Wright, 2007, p. 21; DeSa & McCarthy, 2009, p. 47), exposing him even more to anti-government views.Footnote 8 It is crucial to note that McVeigh was eventually mobilized to violence by specific violent acts, in particular the FBI raids (Berger, 2018, pp. 129–130). This justification supports the thesis that McVeigh’s act, as well, “implies a sympathetic relationship between act, actor and audience; that the audience knows what the symbol means and how they should respond” (Dingley & Kirk-Smith, 2002, p. 123). As illustrated above, the mediator of the relationship between the actor and the audience is sacrificial violence. This relationship turns violent acts into symbolic and productive ones.
Processes of “martialization” during his service in the United States Army and his tour during the Iraq War preceded McVeigh’s affection for violence. Considering martialization, “rather than radicalization therefore marks a distinct conceptual advancement, in that it helps to humanize all combatants, including terrorists.” Doing so allows us to acknowledge that individuals like soldiers and terrorists alike “might be drawn to a martial lifestyle through family support, the allure of highly gendered forms of adventure, a quest for personal meaning, a sense of vicarious injustice, and so on” (Dingley & Kirk-Smith, 2002, p. 123). Although McVeigh was an enthusiastic soldier, he was bothered to be involved in a war that posed no direct threat to the USA and forced him to kill innocents (Michel & Herbeck, 2001, p. 76; Serrano, 1998, p. 39). Eventually, he left the military frustrated because he felt “betrayed by a government that he desired to represent as a member of elite Special Forces” (Simi et al., 2013, p. 661) but which training he failed.
McVeigh’s temporary co-inmate, the “UNA bomber” Theodore Kaczynski, and psychological experts alike seem convinced that McVeigh’s involvement in the Gulf War had an “emotional aftershock” (Michel & Herbeck, 2001, p. 382). This is also indicated by a psychiatric review that described McVeigh’s act of bombing as a cold-blooded killing in which he found no pleasure. To illustrate this paradox even more, Kaczynski describes McVeigh as both right-wing (e.g., based on his pro-arms stand) and liberal (e.g., based on his sympathy for the Iraqis). This characterization hints at the problems of an all-too-easy distinction of motives based on distinctions between left and right, liberal and conservative. Kaczynski concludes that McVeigh is an adventurer for whom there is little room in the USA (Michel & Herbeck, 2001, p. 363)—or whose desires could not be mediated any longer.
In a letter to a newspaper in 1992, McVeigh wrote, “‘The American Dream of the middle class has all but disappeared, substituted with people struggling just to buy next week’s groceries’ ... ‘What is it going to take to open up the eyes of our elected officials? AMERICA IS IN SERIOUS DECLINE’” (Lepore, 2018, p. 702). It seems to be no coincidence that McVeigh invokes the American Dream, for the longest time something desired, imitated, and mediated by many. The American Dream has not least been legitimated and driven by American exceptionalism which itself “is legitimated through sacral and sacrificial forms, and its arbitrary nature is hidden behind paeans raised to the glory of its promise, and to all who bow to its power.” As with American exceptionalism, violence “becomes a sacrament by which one wins glory over oneself, one’s family, and the state” (Pahl & Wellmann, 2015, p. 85). Eventually, McVeigh made it his mission and duty to erupt the government while working for the greater good (Michel & Herbeck, 2001, pp. 288–289; 382). The “leaderless resistance” (Kaplan, 1997; see also Wilhelmsen, 2021, pp. 28–29) approach of radical-right wing groups in the USA came thus as a natural take on the way of life and eventual terrorist tactic for McVeigh. This is not least because “The far-right is utilising the popular history of America that is disseminated within mainstream society” (Vertigans, 2007, p. 655).
Asked about the innocent people killed by the bombing, McVeigh compared them to the “Storm Troopers” in Star Wars. Individually, they might be innocent, but they are guilty because they are working for the Evil Empire. Killing them was thus a necessary act just like dropping the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima (Michel & Herbeck, 2001, p. 166). Like the “Death Star” in Star Wars, the federal building in Oklahoma City harbored innocent people who were serving and representing the Evil Empire (Michel & Herbeck, 2001, pp. 224–225). Rather than killing individual FBI agents (i.e., those responsible for the Waco siege), by bombing a federal building McVeigh was seeking to make the loudest possible statement.
McVeigh contemplated that history would see him as a “martyr, maybe a hero” (Michel & Herbeck, 2001, pp. 168; 166) for the sacrifice of the victims he made. Up until the execution of his death sentence, McVeigh was eager to deliver a spectacle to make people think about the government’s failures and to spark a revolution (Wright, 2007, pp. 17–18). During the trial, he wanted to speak to the jury, not to ask for forgiveness but to explain himself and talk about the Waco siege (Serrano, 1998, p. 307) where the FBI debacle became his justification for retaliation with the “Oklahoma City bombing” (Wright, 2007, pp. 17–18; 5).Footnote 9
The here outlined conceptualization of violence with the help of mimetic theory’s concepts illustrates why McVeigh placed such great emphasis on his role as one who violently sacrifices victims in the “gray zone.” These victims are a necessary component to justify the violent act. In the resentful circle of violence, victims became “acceptable targets” and, even more, “sacrificial victims” (Dumouchel, 2015, p. 90). In several ways, victims are powerless but highly significant to the sustainability of any form of violence (Heath-Kelly, 2013, p. 172). Victims thus need to be included in the concept of political violence. In addition, sacrifice is an overlooked link between violence and the consequential victim. As the case of torture illustrates, victims become “sacrificable,” yet the means to do so is violence. Ultimately, and as McVeigh’s example illustrates, “All political violence is an exercise in shifting the violence of some onto acceptable targets, sacrificial victims” (Dumouchel, 2015, p. 90). Certainly, McVeigh’s radicalization also depended on the external context of the militia movement of the time and The Turner Diaries as a focal point, as his desires reshaped around these contexts. McVeigh expressed these eventually in the awakening of the American public to its decline. That might sound instrumental yet this motivation was contingent on the need for sacrificial victims in the “gray zone.”
Sacrificial Victims Everywhere
The use of symbolic expressive violence to enact political superiority illustrates that violence is a productive act, whether, for example, in the context of Argentinian death flights or the more recent rendition programs (e.g., Austin, 2016; Verbitsky & Allen, 2005; Latour, 2002; Grey, 2006). The individualization of warfare and the rise of individual responsibility and accountability to tackle the mimetic crisis may build on recognition and the acknowledgment of equality in conflict and thus as some kind of a noble duel character (Kahn, 2008, p. 63). Yet, “the imaginative construction of meaning through sovereign violence has not” changed (Kahn, 2008, p. 69; see also Chamayou, 2012; Chamayou & Lloyd, 2015). The public atrocities conducted by the “Islamic State,” the justification of innocent victims because they are in the “gray zone” like McVeigh’s “Storm Troopers,” or the camouflaged and secretive acts of violence at black sites are thus neither new nor surprising.
Like McVeigh’, the “Islamic State’s” surge of violence justified the victims of its terrorism. “Although it shifts the focus to its status as a victim, the major trend of ISIS’s public exploitation is to get rid of the ‘grayzone’” (Troy, 2020, p. 398). The “Islamic State’s” journal Dabiq, for example, approvingly quotes bin Laden: “The world today is divided. Bush spoke the truth when he said, ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,’ with the actual ‘terrorist’ being the Western Crusaders. Now, ‘the time had come for another event to… bring division to the world and destroy the Grayzone’” (Atran, 2015). The brutal violence that the “Islamic State” inflicts and broadcasts is not new. Rather, what is new is the public visibility of the violent spectacle on a global scale. The acts of violence function to mobilize the victim to enact the perpetrator’s political superiority (Friis, 2017, p. 8). Turning to such an approach, the “Islamic State” illustrates how violence creates and sustains political meaning by using symbolic expressive violence to enact political superiority.Footnote 10
The relationship between violence, sacrifice, and victimhood also offers new perspectives on the “war on terrorism.” The bewilderment about the ensuing torture programs, for example, largely rests on the assumption that “the taboo against torture has been a stable norm for a very long time” (Moyn, 2017, p. 117; see also Danner, 2009; Neu, 2017). Extremists turning to terrorism, as McVeigh did, understood the hubris of this assumption. What could have changed since McVeigh’s terrorist attack lies not in the motivation for terrorism, but in the responses to it. Today, a legal framework that focuses on individual responsibilities fortifies the infliction of violence, such as torture (e.g., Sanders, 2018). Eventually, the justifications of this legal framework might have the potential to entrench the “war on terrorism” as a “forever war,” relying ever more on forms of violence, however, subtitle and humane they might be (Moyn, 2021).
As in the case of torture, rather than “trying to escape violence, human beings more often become habituated to it” (Gray, 2016, p. 80). The assumed objective of torture is to protect us from others, “not as a violation of our own values or even as a threat, which could leave us all, as Americans, exposed to violence and violation or worse.” Justice, therefore, cannot only come through courts as instances of mediating mimetic rivalry but through politics, seeking not to destroy the “torturers but the idea of torture as necessary and vital” (Danner, 2016, p. 142). However, to do so, politics and political analysis must pay more attention to the relationship between violence, victims, and sacrifice.
Conclusion
What surprises us perhaps most about recurrent violent acts is that they confront us with what many seem to have forgotten. Violence remains a part of politics. It is not only the instrumental use of violence but also the symbolic productive thrust of violent acts because of their relationship with sacrifices and victims that are constitutive of political action. Such an understanding runs counter to understandings of politics that perceive violence as an atavism or, at best, as a sphere distinct from politics. Yet this incomprehension is logical as a liberal take on politics and violence thrives on the premises that it was seeking to ban, relying rather on external mediation and ignoring the thrust of internal mediation.
There are limits to mimetic theory’s potential to explain terrorism such as McVeigh’s acts. Yet as illustrated here, there is still little research on how sacrifice and victims provide meaning to those who commit violence (e.g., Della Porta & Haupt, 2012; Heath-Kelly & Fernández de Mosteyrín, 2021). With few exceptions, such as describing nationalistic endeavors, martyric death, or lone-wolf terrorism (e.g., Giglioli, 2017; Rusu, 2016; Brighi, 2015), the process illustrated here often seems to be treated as a relic of an ancient past (e.g., Enzensberger, 2002). However, the sweeping success of the “Islamic State,” terrorist acts committed by individuals such as McVeigh, and the frequency of mass and school shootings call for creative conceptualizations that allow us to understand and consequently counter the sacrificial aspect of violence. I illustrated one of these paths here as an example of how internal mediation of mimetic rivalry leads to self-radicalization.
Certainly, for those outside of the experience, these acts look like a sacrifice to the “wrong gods” (Kahn, 2008, p. 177). Yet the world today is in a state of constant competition due to mimetic rivalry on a global scale (Girard & Tincq, 2002). It seems that the partisans of the “holy war” on all sides of the political and religious spectrum are everywhere (Mishra, 2018, p. 280), identifying ever more sacrificable victims in the “gray zone.” Relentless comparison and frustration over their identity fuel their resentment but, more consequential, it fuels their internally mediated violent outlets. The argument presented here illustrates how crucial the relationship between violence, sacrifice, and victims is. Not least because it helps to understand why people turn to violence for some greater good once caught in the circle of sacrifice and victimhood, no matter if worshipping the “right” or “wrong” god and no matter how archaic their acts may look.
Notes
Carl von Clausewitz 1989 [1832], p. 89) understood the most obvious embodiment of political violence in the political sphere, war, as a “fascinating trinity – composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force.”
In terms of mimetic theory, of which Girard is not the only exponent, I focus on his work rather than other interpretations of mimetic theory. This reliance on Girard is mainly because of the concepts involved (i.e., violence, sacrifice, and victim) that are prominent features in his work.
In their analysis of the current state of liberalism and the backlash against it, Krastev and Holmes (2019, pp. 12; 13) also employ Girard’s theses, arguing that the imitation of desires is the “contentious form of emulation that helped trigger the current sweeping anti-liberal revolt;” not least because of imitation’s tendency to “breed resentment.”
The sacred, blessed, and cursed at the same time are essential for the functioning of society. Sociology, for example, also started to counter the trend of the study of violence that used to be split into specific subfields (e.g., Ray, 2018).
For example, recent research critical of the liberal international order points out how the liberal world order has inflicted more harm and violence than the term suggests (e.g., Baron et al., 2019; Porter, 2020). Others picked up the Girardian-inspired points of critique, challenging tendencies to frame international politics as a matter of legalization. Without using mimetic theory, Hurd (2016, p. 98), for example, points out that “legal procedures and institutions are expected to take the place of power struggles” (see also Posner, 2009), bare of any consideration that violence might remain a part of politics.
Some, for example, argue that “‘victims’ are not necessary for a definition of terrorism, neither are ‘innocent victims’. What counts for terrorists is the effect of their actions, which means taking care not only to match proximate targets (people or things) to target audience(s) so as to maximize affective recognition, but also to choose the measure and nature of the violence by which they are to be linked” (Le Vine, 1997, p. 60).
Moreover, McVeigh used his execution as a demonstration that made the world see him dying as a martyr, made people think, and kept the revolution going.
Eventually, McVeigh’s sacrificing of victims (and his own death) proved to be not as inspiring. The years after McVeigh’s death saw a decrease of “patriotic groups” and the existing ones largely distanced themselves from his acts (Wright, 2007, p. 18). This is also to suggest that groups, other than the argument illustrated with the help of McVeigh here, have motivations that are more diverse.
References
Abbas, T. (2017). Ethnicity and Politics in Contextualising Far Right and Islamist Extremism. Perspectives on Terrorism, 11(3), 54–61.
Abbink, J. (2020). Religion and Violence in the Horn of Africa: Trajectories of Mimetic Rivalry and Escalation between ‘Political Islam’ and the State. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 21(2), 194–215.
Ainley, K. (2011). Excesses of Responsibility: The Limits of Law and the Possibilities of Politics. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(04), 407–431.
Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Arnold, J. (2017). State Violence and Moral Horror. State University of New York Press.
Asad, T. (2007). On suicide bombing. Columbia University Press.
Atran, S. (2015). ISIS is a revolution: All world-altering revolutions are born in danger and death, brotherhood and joy. How can this one be stopped? aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/why-isis-has-the-potential-to-be-a-world-altering-revolution. Accessed 19 Aug 2023.
Atran, S. (2017). Alt-Right or jihad? Unleashed by globalisation’s dark side and the collapse of communities, radical Islam and the alt-Right share a common cause. Aeon(6 November). https://aeon.co/amp/essays/radical-islam-and-the-alt-right-are-not-so-different. Accessed 19 Aug 2023.
Austin, J. L. (2016). We have never been civilized: Torture and the materiality of world political binaries. European Journal of International Relations, 23(1), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115616466
Barkun, M. (1996). Religion, militias and Oklahoma City: The mind of conspiratorialists. Terrorism and Political Violence, 8(1), 50–64.
Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Cornell University Press.
Barnett, M. N. (2013). Empire of humanity: A history of humanitarianism. Cornell Univ. Press.
Baron, I. Z., Havercroft, J., Kamola, I., Koomen, J., Murphy, J., & Prichard, A. (2019). Liberal Pacification and the Phenomenology of Violence. International Studies Quarterly, 63(1), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy060
Benjamin, W. (1996). Critique of Violence. In W. Benjamin, M. P. Bullock, M. W. Jennings, H. Eiland, & G. Smith (Eds.), Selected writings (pp. 236–252). Belknap Press.
Berger, J. M. (2016). The Turner Legacy: The Storied Origins and Enduring Impact of White Nationalism’s Deadly Bible. Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.19165/2016.1.11
Berger, J. M. (2017). How 'The Turner Diaries' Changed White Nationalism. The Atlantic (September 16). https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/how-the-turner-diaries-changed-white-nationalism/500039/. Accessed 19 Aug 2023.
Berger, J. M. (2018). Extremism. MIT Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. trans. Richard Nice. Routledge.
Bourg, J. (2010). On Terrorism as Human Sacrifice. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 1(1), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1353/hum.2010.0006
Brighi, E. (2015). The mimetic politics of lone-wolf terrorism. Journal of International Political Theory, 11(1), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088214555598
Brighi, E. (2016). The Globalisation of Resentment: Failure Denial, and Violence in World Politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(3), 411–432.
Bufacchi, V. (2005). Two Concepts of Violence. Political Studies Review, 3(2), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2005.00023.x
Casebeer, W. D. (2004). Knowing Evil When You See It: Uses for the Rhetoric of Evil in International Relations. International Relations, 18(4), 441–451.
Cavanaugh, W. T. (2009). The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict. Oxford University Press.
Chamayou, G. (2012). Manhunts: A philosophical history. Princeton University Press.
Chamayou, G., & Lloyd, J. (2015). Drone theory. Penguin.
Chandler, D. (2014). Beyond good and evil: Ethics in a world of complexity. International Politics, 51(4), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.18
Chase, A. (2003). Harvard and the Unabomber: The education of an American terrorist. Norton.
Clausewitz, C. von. (1989). On War: A Princeton shorts selection from On war. Edited and Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton University Press
CNN. (2007). Terror on Trial: Life in Supermax's "Bombers Row". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/17/court.archive.mcveigh4/index.html. Accessed 19 Aug 2023.
Collins, R. (2009). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton University Press.
Cover, R. M., & Minow, M. (Eds.). (2001). Narrative, violence, and the law: The essays of Robert Cover. Univ. of Michigan Press.
Danner, M. (2009). Stripping bare the body: Politics, violence, war. Nation Books.
Danner, M. (2016). Spiral: Trapped in the forever war. Simon & Schuster.
Della Porta, D., & Haupt, H.‑G. (2012). Patterns of Radicalization in Political Activism. Social Science History, 36(3), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0145553200011846
DeSa, T. M., & McCarthy, K. E. (2009). The Solo Crusader: Theodore Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh. In M. R. Haberfeld & A. Hassell (Eds.), A New Understanding of Terrorism (pp. 37–57). Springer US.
Dingley, J., & Kirk-Smith, M. (2002). Symbolism and Sacrifice in Terrorism. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 13(1), 102–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/714005406
Drysdale, J. (1996). How are Social-Scientific Concepts Formed? A Reconstruction of Max Weber's Theory of Concept Formation. Sociological Theory, 14(1), 71–88.
Dumouchel, P. (2015). Barren sacrifice: An essay on political violence. Michigan State Univ Press.
Ebner, J. (2018). The Rage: The Vicious Circle of Islamist and Far Right Extremism. I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited.
Enzensberger, H. M. (2002). The resurgence of human sacrifice. Society, 39(3), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-002-1022-4
Evans, B. (2021). Ecce humanitas: Beholding the pain of humanity. Insurrections. Columbia University Press.
Farneti, R. (2013). Bipolarity redux: The mimetic context of the ‘new wars’. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(1), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2012.737305
Farneti, R. (2015). Mimetic politics: Dyadic patterns in global politics. Michigan State University Press.
Ferguson, N., Burgess, M., & Hollywood, I. (2010). Who are the Victims? Victimhood Experiences in Postagreement Northern Ireland. Political Psychology, 31(6), 857–886.
Fleming, S. (2022). The Unabomber and the origins of anti-tech radicalism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 27(2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2021.1921940
Frazer, E., & Hutchings, K. (2011). Virtuous Violence and the Politics of Statecraft in Machiavelli, Clausewitz and Weber. Political Studies, 59(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00841.x
Friis, S. M. (2017). 'Behead, burn, crucify, crush': Theorizing the Islamic State's public displays of violence. European Journal of International Relations, 24, 243-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117714416
Gallagher, E. v. (1997). God and country: Revolution as a religious imperative on the radical right. Terrorism and Political Violence, 9(3), 63–79.
Giglioli, M. F. N. (2017). The Self as Legitimate Target: Self-sacrifice and Self-determination in Mazzini and Gandhi. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 18(1), 23–41.
Gill, P., Corner, E., McKee, A., Hitchen, P., & Betley, P. (2019). What Do Closed Source Data Tell Us About Lone Actor Terrorist Behavior? A Research Note. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1668781
Girard, R. (1983). Das Ende der Gewalt: Analyse des Menschheitsverhängnisses. Herder.
Girard, R. (1988). Violence and the Sacred. Translated by Patrick Gregory. Athlone Press.
Girard, R. (1996). Triangular Desire. In R. Girard & J. G. Williams (Eds.), The Girard Reader (pp. 33–44). Crossroad and Herder.
Girard, R. (2000). Evolution and Conversion: Dialogues on the Origin of Culture. With Pierpaolo Antonello at Joao Cezar de Castro Rocha. Continuum.
Girard, R., & Tincq, H. (2002). What is Happening Today is Mimetic Rivalry on a Global Scale. South Central Revue, 19(2/3), 22–27.
Gray, J. (2016). The soul of the marionette: A short inquiry into human freedom. Penguin.
Grey, S. (2006). Ghost plane: The untold story of the CIA's secret rendition programme. C. Hurst.
Haggerty, K. D., & Bucerius, S. M. (2018). Radicalization as Martialization: Towards a Better Appreciation for the Progression to Violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2017.1404455
Hathaway, O. A [Oona A.], & Shapiro, S. J. (2019). International law and its transformation through the outlawry of war. International Affairs, 95(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy240
Hathaway, O. A [Oona Anne], & Shapiro, S. (2017). The internationalists: How a radical plan to outlaw war remade the world. Simon & Schuster.
Heath-Kelly, C. (2013). Politics of violence: Militancy, international politics, killing in the name. Interventions. Routledge.
Heath-Kelly, C., & Fernández de Mosteyrín, L. (2021). The political use of victimhood: Spanish collective memory of ETA through the war on terror paradigm. Review of International Studies, 47(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210520000182
Hofmann, D. C. (2018). How “Alone” are Lone-Actors? Exploring the Ideological, Signaling, and Support Networks of Lone-Actor Terrorists. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2018.1493833
Howard, M. (2001). The Invention of Peace: Reflections on War and International Order. Yale University Press.
Hurd, I. (2016). Enchanted and Disenchanted International Law. Global Policy, 7(1), 96–101.
Jacoby, T. A. (2015). A Theory of Victimhood: Politics, Conflict and the Construction of Victim-based Identity. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 43(2), 511–530.
Juergensmeyer, M. (1991). Sacrifice and cosmic war. Terrorism and Political Violence, 3(3), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546559108427118
Juergensmeyer, M. (2008). Martyrdom and Sacrifice in a Time of Terror. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 75(2), 417–434.
Juergensmeyer, M. (Ed.). (2020). Violence and the sacred in the modern world. Routledge.
Kahn, P. W. (2008). Sacred violence: Torture, terror, and sovereignty. University of Michigan Press.
Kaplan, J. (1997). ‘Leaderless resistance’. Terrorism and Political Violence, 9(3), 80–95.
Kensey, N. (2014). Scapegoating the Guilty: Girad and International Criminal Law. In S. Cowdell, Fleming Chris, & J. Hodge (Eds.), Violence, Desire, and the Sacred: René Girard and Sacrifice in Life, Love, and Literature. Volume 2 (pp. 67–80). Bloomsbury.
Krastev, I., & Holmes, S. (2019). The light that failed: A reckoning. Penguin Books.
Latour, B. (2002). We have never been modern (7. print). Harvard University Press.
Laurent, P., & Paquet, G. (1991). Intercultural Relations: A Myrdal - Tocqueville - Girard Interpretative Scheme. International Political Science Review, 12(3), 171–183.
Le Vine, V. T. (1997). On the victims of terrorism and their innocence. Terrorism and Political Violence, 9(3), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546559708427415
Lepore, J. (2018). These truths: A history of the United States. W.W. Norton & Company.
Lynch, O., & Joyce, C. (2018). Functions of collective victimhood. International Review of Victimology, 24(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758018758396
Michel, L., & Herbeck, D. (2001). American terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. Regan Books.
Mishra, P. (2018). Age of anger: A history of the present. Penguin.
Morgenthau, H. J., Behr, H., & Rösch, F. (2012). The Concept of the Political. Palgrave Macmillan.
Morrow, D. (2017). Terrorism and the Escalation of Violence. In J. Alison & W. Palaver (Eds.), Springer eBook Collection Religion and Philosophy. The Palgrave Handbook of Mimetic Theory and Religion (pp. 493–500). Palgrave Macmillan.
Mouffe, C. (2005a). On the Political. Routledge.
Mouffe, C. (2005b). The Return of the Political (3. impr.). Verso.
Moyn, S. (2017). Human rights and the uses of history (Expanded new edition). Verso.
Moyn, S. (2021). H-.umane: How the United States abandoned peace and reinvented war. Farrar Straus and Giroux.
Mueller, J. (2004). Why isn't there more violence? Security Studies, 13(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410490914031
Münkler, H., & Fischer, K. (2000). Nothing to kill or die for…“: Überlegungen zu einer politischen Theorie des Opfers. Leviathan, 28(3), 343–362.
Nesser, P. (2012). Single Actor Terrorism: Scope, Characteristics and Explanations. Perspectives on Terrorism, 6(6), 61–73.
Neu, M. (2017). Just liberal violence: Sweatshops, torture, war. Rowman & Littlefield International.
Orwell, G. (2017 [1940]. Review of Mein Kampf. https://bookmarks.reviews/george-orwells-1940-review-of-mein-kampf/
Pahl, J., & Wellmann, J. K. (2015). Empire of Sacrifice: Violence and the Sacred in American Culture. In P. Antonello & P. Gifford (Eds.), Can we survive our origins? Readings in Rene Girard's theory of violence and the sacred (pp. 71–93). Michigan State University Press.
Palaver, W. (2013a). Mimetic Theories of Religion and Violence. In M. Juergensmeyer, M. Kitts, & M. K. Jerryson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence (pp. 533–553). Oxford University Press.
Palaver, W. (2013b). René Girard's Mimetic Theory. Michigan State University Press.
Palaver, W. (2014). Abolition or Transformation? The Political Implications of René Girard's Theory of Sacrifice. In S. Cowdell, Fleming Chris, & J. Hodge (Eds.), Violence, Desire, and the Sacred: René Girard and Sacrifice in Life, Love, and Literature. Volume 2 (pp. 17–29). Bloomsbury.
Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined. Viking.
Porter, P. (2020). The false promise of liberal order: Nostalgia, delusion and the rise of Trump. Polity.
Posner, E. A. (2009). The Perils of Global Legalism. University of Chicago Press.
Rapoport, A. (1989). The origins of violence: Approaches to the study of conflict. Paragon House.
Ray, L. (2018). Violence & society (Second edition). Sage.
Richardson, L. (2007). What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat. Random HouseTrade Paperbacks.
Rusu, M. S. (2016). The Sacralization of Martyric Death in Romanian Legionary Movement: Self-sacrificial Patriotism, Vicarious Atonement, and Thanatic Nationalism. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 17(2-3), 249–273.
Sanders, R. (2018). Plausible legality: Legal culture and political imperative in the global war on terror. Oxford University Press.
Scarry, E. (1985). The body in pain: The making and unmaking of the world. Oxford paperbacks. Oxford University Press.
Scheper-Hughes, N., & Bourgois, P. I. (2004). Introduction: Making Sens of Violence. In N. Scheper-Hughes & P. I. Bourgois (Eds.), Violence in war and peace (pp. 1–31). Blackwell Pub.
Schuurman, B., Lindekilde, L., Malthaner, S., O'Connor, F., Gill, P., & Bouhana, N. (2017). End of the Lone Wolf: The Typology that Should Not Have Been. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2017.1419554
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a State: How certain Schemes to improve the Human Condition have failed. Yale University Press.
Serrano, R. A. (1998). One of ours: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma city bombing. W.W. Norton.
Simi, P., Bubolz, B. F., & Hardman, A. (2013). Military Experience, Identity Discrepancies, and Far Right Terrorism: An Exploratory Analysis. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(8), 654–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2013.802976
Simon, J. D. (2013). Lone Wolf Terrorism: Understanding the Growing Threat. Prometheus Books.
Stern, K. S. (1997). A force upon the plain: The American militia movement and the politics of hate. University of Oklahoma Press.
Thomas, S. M. (2005). The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations: The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-first Century. Palgrave Macmillan.
Tilly, C. (1985). War Making and State Making as Organized Crime. In P. B. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 169–191). Cambridge University Press.
Troy, J. (2015). Desire for power or the power of desire? Mimetic theory and the heart of twentieth-century realism. Journal of International Political Theory, 11(1), 26–41.
Troy, J. (2020). The containment of the Islamic State: A realist case to engage a hybrid actor. Contemporary Security Policy, 41(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2019.1641345
Troy, J. (2021). Desire and Imitation in International Politics. Michigan State University Press.
Verbitsky, H., & Allen, E. (2005). The Flight: Confessions of an Argentine dirty warrior. A firsthand account of atrocity. New Press.
Vertigans, S. (2007). Beyond the Fringe? Radicalisation within the American Far‐Right. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 8(3-4), 641–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/14690760701571254
Wilhelmsen, F. (2021). From New Order to the Millennium of White Power: Norwegian Fascism Between Party Politics and Lone-Actor Terrorism. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 22(1), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2021.1877669
Williams, R. (2015). Foreword. In P. Antonello & P. Gifford (Eds.), Can we survive our origins? Readings in Rene Girard's theory of violence and the sacred (pp. xi–xvi). Michigan State University Press.
Wright, S. A. (2007). Patriots, Politics, and the Oklahoma City Bombing. Cambridge University Press.
Wydra, H. (2013). Victims and new wars. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(1), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2012.710581
Žižek, S. (2015). Slavoj Žižek on the Charlie Hebdo massacre: Are the worst really full of passionate intensity? NewStatesman. https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity. Accessed 19 Aug 2023.
Acknowledgements
Research funded by the Tyrolean Science Fund. I would like to thank the panelists at the ISA West Conference 2019 in Pasadena, CA where this paper was first presented as well as Wolfgang Palaver and the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier versions of the paper.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Innsbruck and Medical University of Innsbruck.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Troy, J. No Victims Without Sacrifice, No Sacrifice Without Victims: Conceptualizing Violence and the “Oklahoma City Bombing”. Soc 60, 684–693 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00889-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00889-y