Terörist Söylemde 'Biz' ve 'Onlar': Mobilizasyon ve Meşruiyet Aracı Olarak Dil

Abstract

Bu çalışma terörist söylemlerde kullanılan "biz" ve "onlar" ayrımını grup kimliği inşası, mobilizasyon ve ideolojik meşruiyet süreçlerindeki rolü açısından incelemektedir. Araştırmada dini ve etnik temelli terör örgütlerinin söylemleri karşılaştırılarak yapılan ayrımın grup içi dayanışmayı güçlendirme ve grup dışını ötekileştirme stratejilerinde nasıl kullanıldığı analiz edilmiştir. Berger ve Luckmann'ın sosyal inşacılık teorisi ile Tajfel ve Turner'ın sosyal kimlik teorisi çerçevesinde çalışılan bu inceleme dilin terörist grupların toplumsal gerçeklik ve kimlik inşasında merkezi bir araç olduğunu ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bulgular, dini temelli örgütlerin "biz" zamirine kutsal ve ahlaki bir üstünlük atfederken, "onlar" zamirini tehdit edici ve düşmanlaştırıcı bir çerçeve içinde kullandığını; etnik temelli örgütlerin ise "biz" zamirini tarihsel mağduriyetler ve ulusal kimlik bağlamında pozitif bir grup tanımı için, "onlar" zamirini ise baskıcı ve işgalci bir güç olarak tanımlamak için kullandığını göstermektedir. Çalışma, terörist söylemin dilsel ve söylemsel araçlarının şiddetin meşrulaştırılmasında, ideolojik sürekliliğin sağlanmasında ve grup üyelerinin mobilizasyonunda nasıl etkili olduğunu detaylandırmaktadır. Çalışmada "biz" ve "onlar" ayrımının terörist grupların ideolojik hedefleri doğrultusunda toplumsal gerçeklikleri şekillendirme ve çatışmaları derinleştirme açısından kritik bir öneme sahip olduğu vurgulanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda yapılan araştırma terörist söylemler üzerine daha kapsamlı bir anlayış geliştirilmesine katkı sunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Keywords

• Terörist Söylem
• "Biz" ve "Onlar"
• Mobilizasyon
• Sosyal Kimlik Teorisi
• Kimlik İnşası

"Us" and "Them" in Terrorist Discourse: Language as a Tool for Mobilization

Abstract

This study examines the role of the "us" and "them" dichotomy in terrorist discourse within the processes of group identity construction, mobilization, and ideological legitimization. By comparing the discourses of religious and ethnically motivated terrorist organizations, the study analyzes how this dichotomy is used to strengthen in-group solidarity and to otherize out-groups. Developed within the framework of Berger and Luckmann's social constructionism theory and Tajfel and Turner's social identity theory, this analysis reveals the central role of language in the construction of social realities and identities by terrorist groups. The findings indicate that religiously motivated organizations attribute sacred and moral superiority to the "us" pronoun while framing the "them" pronoun as threatening and hostile. In contrast, ethnically motivated organizations employ the "us" pronoun to define a positive group identity based on historical grievances and national identity, while depicting the "them" pronoun as oppressive and invasive. The study details how the linguistic and discursive tools of terrorist discourse effectively legitimize violence, sustain ideological continuity, and mobilize group members. In conclusion, the "us" and "them" dichotomy is highlighted as a critical tool for shaping social realities and deepening conflicts in alignment with the ideological objectives of terrorist groups. In this context, the research aims to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of terrorist discourses.

Keywords

• Terrorist Discourse
• "Us" and "Them"
• Identity Construction
• Mobilization
• Social Identity Theory

References

1. Al-Baghdadi, A. O. (2007, 13 Mart). Say I am on Clear Proof from my Lord [Konuşma Metni]. Jihad Media Battalion.
2. Alkaff, S. H. B. O. (2014). Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the Imposter. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 6(10), 4–7. Erişim Adresi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26351289
3. Allport, G. W (1954). The Nature Of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin Books.
5. Bloom, M. (2005). Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. Columbia University Press.
6. Brigham, J. C, & Barkowitz, P. (1978). Do "They All Look Alike"? The Effect of Race, Sex, Experience, and Attitudes on the Ability to Recognize Faces. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 306-318.
7. Buzan, B. (1991). New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty-first Century. International Affairs, 67(3), 431–451.
8. Byman, D. (1998). The Logic of Ethnic Terrorism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 21(2), 149–169.

9. Celso, A. (2016). More than the Voice of the Caliphate: The Destructive Legacy of Abu Muhammad al-Adnani. Middle East Review of International Affairs
10. Chalk, P. (2008). The Tigers Abroad: How the LTTE Diaspora Supports the Conflict in Sri Lanka. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 9(2), 97–104.
11. Cohen, J., & Blanco, J. M. (2016). Knowledge, The Great Challenge to Deal with Terrorism. Revista de Estudios en Seguridad Internacional, 2(1), 43–62.
12. Crenshaw, M. (1981). The Causes of Terrorism. Comparative Politics, 13(4), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.2307/421717
13. Crenshaw, M. (2019). Terrorism and International Cooperation. Routledge. ISBN: 9780367289904 Dingley, J. (2012). The IRA: The Irish Republican Army. Praeger.
14. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. Verso.
15. English, R. (2003). Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. Pan Books.
16. Foucault, M. (2002). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Routledge.
17. Goulding, C. (1969). Irish Republican Army Statement in Relation to the Situation in Northern Ireland. National Archives of Ireland. Referans Kodu: 2000/6/658.
18. Güntay, V. (2020). Discussing the Global Security and Terrorism Dilemma within the Framework of Constructivism in the 21st Century. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 479–500.
19. Hadra, D. (2015). ISIS: Past, Present and Future: Pro-ISIS Media and State Formation. Boston College University Libraries, 6.
20. Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism (2nd ed.). Columbia University Press.
21. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. Routledge.
22. Holbrook, D. (Ed.). (2017). Al-Qaeda 2.0: A Critical Reader. Oxford University Press.
23. Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. University of California Press.
24. Ingram, H. J., Whiteside, C., & Winter, C. (2020). The ISIS Reader: Milestone Texts of the Islamic State Movement. Oxford University Press.
25. İçişleri Bakanlığı. (2017). Türkiye’ nin DEAŞ ile mücadelesi. https://www.icisleri.gov.tr/kurumlar/icisleri.gov.tr/IcSite/strateji/deneme/YAYINLAR/%C4%B0%C3%87ER%C4%B0K/deas%20en.pdf
26. Joffé, H. (1999). Risk and “The Other.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Jović, M., Šubelj, L., Golob, T., Makarovič, M., Yasseri, T., Krstićev, D. B., Škrbić, S., & Levnajić, Z. (2023). Terrorist Attacks Sharpen the Binary Perception of “Us” vs. “Them”. Scientific Reports, 13, 12451.
28. Kepel, G. (2002). Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam. Harvard University Press.
29. Kirdar, M. J. (2011). Al Qaeda in Iraq. CSIS Transnational Threats Project. Erişim Adresi: https://www.csis.org Law, R. D. (2009). Terrorism: A History. Polity.
30. Lawrence, B. (Ed.). (2005). Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden. Verso.
31. Miller, B. H. (1987). Terrorism and Language: A Text‐based Analysis of the German Case. Terrorism, 9(4), 373–407.
32. Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of Out-Group Homogeneity And Levels Of Social Categorization: Memory For Subordinate Attributesof In-Group And Out-Group Members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,1051-1068
33. Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., & Tyler, R. B. (1990). Us and Them: Social Categorization and the Process of Intergroup Bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(3), 475–486
34. Prabhakaran, V. (1992). Heroes' Day Speech. Heroes' Day Speeches Translated Into English. National Archives.
35. Rapoport, D. C. (2004). The Four Waves of Modern Terrorism. In A. K. Cronin & J. M. Ludes (Eds.), Attacking terrorism: Elements of a grand strategy (ss. 46–73). Georgetown University Press.
36. Rasoulikolamaki, S., Kaur, S., Zhdanava, A., & Mat Isa, N. A. N. (2023). In-group and Out-group Identity Construction in Extremist Discourse: a Critical Multimodal Approach. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 1–19.
37. Sageman, M. (2004). Understanding Terror Networks. University of Pennsylvania Press.
38. Schmid, A. P. (Ed.). (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. Routledge.
39. Schwartz, S. J., Dunkel, C. S., & Waterman, A. S. (2009). Identity and Terrorism: Collective and Personal Identity in Extremist Groups. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 32(6), 537-556
40. Stern, J. (2003). Terror in the Name Of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. Ecco.
41. Strindberg, A. (2020). Social Identity Theory and the Study of Terrorism and Violent Extremism. FOI.
42. Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. A Study of the Sociological Importance of Useages, Manners, Customs, Mores and Morals. Boston. Ginn and Company.
43. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
44. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social psychology of Intergroup Relations (ss. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
45. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory Of Intergroup Behavior. In S. Worchel & W G. Austin (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed., ss. 7-24).
46. Taylor, P. (2014). The Provos: The IRA and Sinn Fein. A&C Black.
47. Tulga, A. Y. (2022). Constructivism, Identity, and Discourse in Terrorism. Journal of Politics and Policy, 4(2).
48. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
49. Wendt, A. (1994). Collective Identity Formation and the International State. American Political Science Review, 88(2), 384–396.
50. Winter, C. (2015). The Virtual Caliphate: Understanding Islamic State’s Propaganda Strategy. Quilliam Foundation