Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT An Interdisciplinary Approach: Addressing the Trust Deficit Between Marginalized

Citizens and Government Agencies in the Current Counter-terrorism Paradigm.

Cassandra Acua Norfolk State University

Author Note Cassandra Acua, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Norfolk State University. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Cassandra Acua, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Norfolk State University, 700 Park Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23504. E-mail: c.m.acuna@spartans.nsu.edu.

Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT Abstract This paper aims to present two theories from seemingly disparate disciplines to create a new, integrative theory. This new theory expounds on the current approaches

implemented by government agencies in the identification, prevention, and mitigation of terrorism through the lenses of Social Psychology and Political Science. In this paper, Agnews General Strain Theory and Theory of Consent as presented by Beran will provide conceptual models and the foundational underpinnings of an evolutionary approach to address the trust deficit between citizens and United States governmental agencies in the current counter-terrorism paradigm.

Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT An Interdisciplinary Approach: Addressing the Trust Deficit Between Government Agencies and Citizens in the Current Counterterrorism Paradigm. Since the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, counter-terrorism remains an issue of primacy within National Security Discourse and the United States domestic policy arena. It is unlikely that this will change during our lifetimes. As a result, a clear shift can be observed in the domestic security environment, particularly in a communal contestation of hyper-militaristic policing. The attacks of September 11, 2001 have significantly altered the relationships between local police agencies and the communities that they serve in. In a post 9/11 paradigm, police departments have assumed new roles and responsibilities in the

protecting of citizens from terrorist activity. Correspondingly, shifted their priorities and processes to encompass aggressive methodologies to proactively engage in the identification, prevention, and mitigation of terrorism.Proponents advance that this style of policing has proven effective in deterring and disrupting terrorism. While opponents contend that such measures increase distrust and suspicion between the government and its citizens. According to Aldrich & Kasuku this augmentation of capacity is evidenced by, The United States and its closest allies now spend over $100 billion a year on surveillance and intelligence. This evolution in in policing is largely a driven by an omnipresent intelligence machine, which Aldrich & Kasuku argue is not necessarily better (Aldrich & Kasuku, 2012). An example of this contentious paradigm can be observed in the redeployment and reallocation of resources within the New York Police Department. Since the events of 9/11 police departments, such as the NYPD, have engaged in concerted efforts to expand their capacity to intercept data through the surveillance of its populace and enhanced targeting of community centers. According to Patel, these soft measures of surveillance are predicated on ethnocentric panic of racially defined agendas rather than agentive and inclusionary community engagement (Patel, 2012).

Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT 4

Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT Strain Theory- A basis for explaining terrorism Contemporary Social Psychology research on the topic of terrorism commonly

advances that social strains or grievances are a major factors in the espousal of terrorist activity. Despite this consensus, a comprehensive literature review reveals conflicting perspectives as to which sources of strain are clearly linked to terrorism. Among these different perspectives, some commonalities can be observed. Firstly, terrorism is an intentional act that seeks to address or remedy a perceived injustice suffered by the terrorist. Secondly, the injustices the terrorist seeks to remedy can be tangible or intangible injuries. Some examples of tangible injuries are material deprivations of resources and inequitable incomes. Alternatively, intangible strains could be a perceived environment of social or cultural oppression and marginalization. According to Social Psychology, terrorist seek to rationalize their actions through the justification of strain. Notably, current research using the lens of General strain theory advances several hypothetical determinants leading individuals to engage in acts of terror. As stated in Agnews brief overview on the utility of General Stain Theory in explaining terrorism, it is important to note a few clear distinctions. Firstly, Agnew draws a conclusive line between objective strains, which refer to events and conditions found antagonistic to a particular group; and subjective strains, which refer to aversive events and conditions experienced by particular person (Agnew, 2010 p.135). Secondly, a differentiation must be made between strains that are personally experienced by the actors, versus those which are vicarious in nature and experienced by individuals in the periphery, or are anticipated to happen by both the actor and individuals in their immediate proximity. Lastly, these types of strains undermine both governmental legitimacy and social controls. According to Agnew, these strains create a contentious environment of distrust between government agents and strained communities. As a result, an increased likelihood likelihood that members of the strained collectivity will sanction terrorists, since the experience of these strains tends to create tolerance, sympathy, or even support for terrorism(Agnew, 2010, pp. 141-142).

Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT

Theoryof Consent

From the perspective of Political Science, a body polity and its institutions, ideologies, and national policies are informed by an amalgam of cultural traditions and rational behaviors (Repko, 2008, p. 96). Meta-theoretical work in this discipline embraces a rational-choice modeling to consistently explain the actions of governance. In this light, the theory of consent is central to the dynamic between a democratic government and its people. At primacy, consent is the expressed or tacit approval by a people to adhere to a fundamental social contract and applicable rule of law set forth by a government. In order for consent to be properly applied to a condition, consenting parties must be adequately informed about the terms of their consent, additionally, parties consent must be freely given. Thus, coercion, obfuscation, and subversive methodologies can sufficiently nullify the purpose the consent and any arising obligations. It is important to note that disagreements can ensue over the subjective nature of adequately informed and coercive. As expressed by Beran, The sole justification for enforcing laws is if those who have consented to the general arrangements in which the laws are drawn up. Thus, the consent of the governed is the only means of legitimacy for the actions undertaken by a government and its agents. Consequentially, an individual who perceives the actions of a government as illegitimate, oppressive, or immoral has a moral justification to not comply fully with the law (Beran, 1977). Drawing from this theory, contemporary police forces rely heavily on the partnership and support of the public to effectively gain authority and political endorsements. It is from this compliance that police can vie for greater technological capacities and resources (Fleming & Wakefield, 2009). In a post 9/11 era of policing, this has resulted (in some cases) in the reduction or elimination of community policing methodologies and degraded relationships between the police and the community (Jones & Supinski, 2010).

Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT A Hybrid Theory: Addressing the trust deficit in the current US counter-terrorism paradigm is a complex and multifaceted issue. While current efforts have proven to effectively deter

and disrupt acts of terror (Bornstein, 2005; Gilly, 2013; Huey, Nhan, & Broll) within the United States, they do not adequately address social and cultural issues marginalized and strained groups may experience (Huq, Tyler, & Schulhofer, 2011; Jones & Supinski, 2010; Kerlikowske, 2008). Additionally, increased culture of intelligence and surveillance that is perceived to unduly target minority groups has proven counterproductive in rendering out cooperative responses from these groups.

Different schools of thought approach this issue from vastly different perspectives that fail to holistically address the increasing environment of distrust between US citizens and governmental agents. By attempting to raise fundamental questions regarding political consent and general social strain into an integrative lens, one can appreciate both the social challenges and potential opportunities for future civic engagement in counterterrorism. It should be understood that the need for surveillance and technology is important to the counter-terrorism paradigm. However, it should be viewed as simply one

Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT tool amongst a cadre of tools, not as the primary tool. As stated in, technology and intelligence alone cannot be the saving grace of Homeland Security (Riebling, 2006). Future counter-terrorism efforts must evolve towards a more culturally integrative, prosocial model that invites open communication without the fear of punitive or social sanctions.

Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT

References
Agnew, R. (2010). A general strain theory of terrorism. Theoretical Criminology, 14(2), 131-153. doi: 10.1177/1362480609350163 Aldrich, Richard J., & Kasuku, John. (2012). Escaping from American intelligence: culture, ethnocentrism and the Anglosphere. International Affairs, 88(5), 1009-1028. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01116.x Beran, Harry. (1977). In Defense of the Consent Theory of Political Obligation and Authority. Ethics, 87(3), 260-271. doi: 10.2307/2380215 Bornstein, A. (2005). Antiterrorist policing in New York City after 9/11: Comparing perspectives on a complex process. HUMAN ORGANIZATION, 64(1), 52-61. Fleming, J, & Wakefield, A. (2009). ConsentThe Sage Dictonary of Policing. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446269053. doi: doi: 10.4135/9781446269053 Gilly, Thomas Albert. (2013). The New Paradigm: Terrorism Policing Is More Than Policing Terrorists. The Need for Adaptive Models of Terrorism Policing. Homeland Security Review, 7(2), 179-226. Huey, L., Nhan, J., & Broll, R. - 'Uppity civilians' and 'cyber-vigilantes': The role of the general public in policing cyber-crime. - 13(- 1), - 97. Huq, A. Z., Tyler, T. R., & Schulhofer, S. J. (2011). WHY DOES THE PUBLIC COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT? The Influence of The Purposes and Targets of Policing. PSYCHOLOGY PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW, 17(3), 419-450. Jones, Chapin, & Supinski, Stanley B. (2010). Policing and Community Relations in the Homeland Security Era. Journal of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, 7(1), 1-14. Kerlikowske, R. G. (2008). Safe at home? Policing the US hometown in a post 9/11 environment. CRIME LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 50(1-2), 47-58. Patel, Tina G. (2012). Surveillance, Suspicion and Stigma: Brown Bodies in a TerrorPanic Climate. Surveillance & Society, 10(3/4), 215-234.

Running Head: ADDRESSING THE COUNTERTERRORISM TRUST DEFICIT

10

Repko, A.F. (2008). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory: SAGE Publications. Riebling, Mark. (2006). Hard Won Lessons: Problem-Solving Principles For Local Police In M. Riebling (Ed.), Safe Cities Project: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.