Jopinions

This essay aims to evaluate the strength of the arguments presented by Rapoport in his article titled ‘The Four Waves of Modern Terror: International Dimensions and Consequences’, and the article ‘The Four Horsemen of Terrorism: It’s Not Waves, It’s Strains’ written by Parker and Sitter. Both arguments share similar notions and ideas, however Parker and Sitter take Rapoport’s theory and change the basic structure in a way that many find more convincing. This essay will assess whether these changes form a more complete and persuasive argument or if Rapoport’s assessment was stronger. The essay will outline each arguments merits and drawbacks in a fair manner while continuously comparing their strength. 

To understand the differences in the competing theories it is imperative to first understand Rapoport’s wave theory. Rapoport considers a wave as an approximately forty-year cycle in which different forms of terrorism are being exercised. “It is a cycle of activity in a given time period with expansion and contraction phases. Those activities occur in many countries, driven by a common predominant energy shaping the relationship of participating groups. As their names suggest, a different energy drives each wave” (Rapoport, 2013). He details how modern terror began in the 1880s, starting the four waves of terrorism that have been recorded from that point. 

Strain theory is an attempt from Parker and Sitter to simply build on wave theories ideas and build on them. Although they have similar approaches, Parker and Sitter disregard the ‘wave’ and claim its non-existence. They state that “terrorism comes in four different strains and that there is an important element of ‘‘contagion’’ both within and between these separate strains” (Parker and Sitter, 2016). The idea is that rather than waves, different types of terrorism come in strains that aren’t simply over once a generation has passed.

To evaluate their contrasting arguments, investigating the claims made against wave theory by Parker and Sitter is extremely important. One thing that Parker and Sitter claim against wave theory is the abundance of anomalies that can be used to either disprove wave theory or weaken its credibility. “Some of these outlying cases have been very influential in the sense that they provided important lessons or inspiration for later terrorist groups (including the main groups in each of Rapoport’s waves)” (Parker & Sitter, 2016). One of these anomalies that Parker and Sitter accuse Rapoport of overlooking is the communication between terrorists of different waves and the learning and inspiration that later terrorists took from their predecessors. They state, “there is a great deal of qualitative evidence in the historical record of the diffusion or transfer of ideas between different terrorist and insurgent actors, often across wide temporal and geographic distances”. One example they use to illustrate this is the case of Michael Collins, an Irish revolutionary who “wrote an appreciative letter to the Boer commander Christiaan de Wet thanking him for being his earliest inspiration”. They include many other examples of instances where terrorists admit to being influenced by past terrorists from different ‘waves. This point is used to dismantle Rapoport’s idea that forms of terrorism die with end of their wave. Many strategies and methods survive their wave, giving credibility to strain theory. Other scholars such as Richard Bach Jensen make arguments that support this. Jensen observes that 19^thcentury anarchists have deep rooted similarities with modern day terrorists such as Al-Qaeda. While Jensen’s overall point is that anarchism and Islamic terrorism are only partially similar, these similarities speak volumes in that it supports strain theory immensely. He notes, “both emphasize direct action, lack the detailed programmatic goals of some other political groups, and demonize the modern nation state. The threat posed by both appears—or once appeared—to be global. Suicide bombing also finds a pale premonition in pre-World War I terrorism” (R B. Jensen, 2008). While it is true that both terrorist organisations are fighting under different ideologies, both wish to ‘demonize the modern state’ and in both cases wish for its complete demise for a new system to be implemented. Rapoport failed to explain these crossovers and it is one of the main criticisms of his theory. 

It could be reasonable to say that Parker and Sitter may have a more convincing argument if the current state of global terrorism is investigated. Rapoport writes, “when its energy cannot inspire new organizations, a wave disappears”. Michael A Chiangi finds problems with this notion when considering the modern era. He states “while the previous waves have ended within their projected lifespan, the current wave of religious terrorism has proven to be so incredibly powerful that if we are to go by Rapoport’s projection, the fourth wave ought to have started diminishing … Consequently, it is the submission of this paper that the 2025 dateline projected by Rapoport is too early for the Fourth Wave to disappear” (2021). There is little over two years until 2026 and religious terrorism is indeed still prevalent. 

Although Parker and Sitter offer a different perspective than Rapoport, they begin their article with praises for his work. Many other scholars also find merit in Rapoport’s theories and works. Scholars have used Rapoport’s wave theory to develop their own theories and arguments around terrorism and some have even used Rapoport’s wave model to predict the next wave of terrorism. For example a study was conducted where, “the results confirm the presence of heterogeneous, wave-like behaviour that conforms to the Rapoport interpretation as new and old groups/tactics/issues cycle in and out of activity” (Rasler and Thompson, 2009). Another scholar, Amber Hart conducted research which aim was “to determine whether Rapoport’s ‘wave’ theory can be applied to the transnational, transhistorical evolution of the extreme-right” Her conclusion reads, “The key findings of this research conclude that Rapoport’s ‘wave’ theory adequately frames the cyclical nature of right-wing activity over the past seventy years” (Hart, 2021). Throughout her research she lays claim that Rapoport’s wave theory has given scholars the tools in order to accurately predict and notice signs of new waves. She concludes that Rapoport’s theory has allowed scholars to predict the rise of the extreme-right and that current events are proving wave theory to be convincing and strong. 

Hart also mentions how “Parker and Sitter have suggested that the wave concept is too simple, and that historical similarities can be observed throughout all waves, across both tactics and ideology” (2021). While it has been said that Rapoport’s wave theory is a simplified theory that lacks detail and scope, it can also be argued that this is a very unfair criticism. For example, Parker and Sitter comment how Rapoport fails to realise the similarities that some waves share with one another. Rapoport however describes revolution as “the over-riding aim in every wave” (2013). Rapoport acknowledges that terrorists in different waves can have similar goals and methods. It can be argued that Rapoport’s research lacks scope, however the lack of scope means a theory that is very easy to understand and can be widely used. There are crossovers like Parker and Sitter discovered, however as a basic overview, Rapoport identifies four waves that seem very real when looking at history. One critique of the wave theory is that elements from one wave can reoccur in another, however Rapoport never claims that a wave cannot repeat or that certain aspects of a wave cannot happen again. To refer to this quote again, a wave is “driven by a common predominant energy shaping the relationship of participating groups. As their names suggest, a different energy drives each wave” (Rapoport, 2013). The key word he uses, predominant, is important as it illustrates how each way is mostly driven by something different. It is believed by many that wave theory is therefore not too simple. It can definitely be developed however its simplicity does not make the argument less convincing, in fact the opposite may be true. 

This essay has reviewed the contrasting nature of both theories, however there are obvious similarities that cannot be ignored. Whether it is referred to as a wave or a strain, clearly both articles recognise that there are different categories of terrorism. Rapoport’s waves are the anarchist, colonial, new-left and religious waves. Parker and Sitter’s strains are the nationalist, socialist, religious and social exclusion strains. These concept may have different names and refer to different time periods, however when examined closer they share many of the same characteristics. For example, when observing Parker and Sitter’s explanation of the socialist strain they write, “The heyday of New Left terrorism may have been in the 1970s and 1980s”. This is exactly the time period that Rapoport describes as the new-left wave. Therefore it can be said that while Rapoport doesn’t investigate the entire history of leftist terrorist groups, he understands the most prominent period to be the same period that Parker and Sitter do. Furthermore, Parker and Sitter state, “Religion was an important factor in Irish Nationalism—with the Easter Uprising in 1916”. Here they insinuate that because religion played a role in terrorism in Ireland before Rapoport’s religious wave begins in 1979 that Rapoport’s wave theory is weak. However, Rapoport does not argue that religious factors cannot be seen in other waves. Rapoport simply, as explained previously, names the waves after the main driving force of terrorism in that time period. Once again, it can be seen that Parker and Sitter misinterpret Rapoport’s argument. It is argued that Parker and Sitter make a similar argument to Rapoport however they overcomplicate the simple model by focusing on unnecessary details. 

From what has been discussed in this essay it is extremely difficult to conclude that one argument is stronger than another. Both theories have been received well amongst many scholars and have explored important ideas, advancing the understanding of terrorism and aiding in the discovery of counter-terrorism measures. Rapoport’s wave theory is concise and easy to understand. It provides the reader with a strong understanding of some of the forces behind terrorism and its different eras. His article is not easy to disprove and if the fifth wave of terrorism occurs before 2026 it will transform his theory into a much more robust one. However, the fourth wave is likely to outlast its projected lifespan, which would become one of many limitations Rapoport’s wave theory bares. Parker and Sitter expand on the ideas put forward by Rapoport and provide a wider scope that more accurately depicts the true nature and cycle of terrorism. While Rapoport’s theory is useful, strain theory provides a much more comprehensive view. There are many outliers in wave theory, which Parker and Sitter are quick to mention. Wave theory also ignores the importance of studying terrorism before 1880 which reduces the strength of the theory massively. Parker and Sitter produce a theory that accurately details how different types of terrorism can operate both separately and together over a time period. They show how different strains can take inspiration and share goals with others and the ways in which they are interlinked. Rapoport’s theory is not clearly weak, it serves a useful and interesting argument, however its lack of detail in comparison to strain theory and clear setbacks lead to the conclusion that strain theory offers a much stronger account of the historical development of terrorism. 

References:

• Chiangi, M.A., 2021. Critically Examining David Rapoport’s Four Waves Theory of Modern Terrorism in the Light of Factual Historical Events. African Journal on Terrorism, 11(1), pp.11-29.
• Hart, A. 2021. Right-Wing Waves: Applying the Four Waves Theory to Transnational and Transhistorical Right-Wing Threat Trends, Terrorism and Political Violence, DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2020.1856818
• Jensen, R.B., 2008. Nineteenth century anarchist terrorism: how comparable to the terrorism of Al-Qaeda?. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20(4), pp.589-596.
• Parker, T. and Sitter, N., 2016. The four horsemen of terrorism: it’s not waves, it’s strains. Terrorism and Political Violence, 28(2), pp.197-216.
• Rapoport, D.C., 2013. The four waves of modern terror: international dimensions and consequences: David C. Rapoport. In An international history of terrorism Routledge.
• Rasler, K and Thompson, W.R., (2009) Looking for Waves of Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, 21:1, 28-41, DOI: 10.1080/09546550802544425