On decolonial and abolitionist arguments against the strategic uses of “terrorism”

In this article, I examine Rabea Khan’s recent argument, using decolonial and abolitionist precepts, that the concept of terrorism is irredeemable for several reasons – including its use as a non-neutral pejorative, its status as a product of Western modernity, and its thoroughgoing coloniality. Khan’s abolitionism is notable for stretching beyond the uses of “terrorism” by orthodox terrorist literature or the larger so-called terrorist industry: rather, even critical uses aimed strategically at undermining that industry are within her sights, such as “state terrorism” or “white supremacist terrorism”. Here, I take each of Khan’s arguments in turn, concerned ultimately to defend the use of critical and strategic uses of the concept of terrorism. One upshot of the preceding arguments is that they clear the path for a future research agenda focusing on those strategic uses. To that end, I detail what such an agenda might look like in my final section. But first, scholars must take seriously arguments informed by decolonial and abolitionist think- ing to the effect that, even with best intentions, continuing to use the concept of terrorism even critically or strategically is fraught with problems.