The four horsemen of terrorism: it’s not waves, it’s strains
Argument against the four waves theory of David Rapoport
David Rapoport's article provides the basic conceptual framework for many courses on the subject of
terrorism. He identified four waves of terrorism:
1. Anarchist wave (started with Russian populist group in 1880s)
2. anti-Colonial wave (1920s to 1960s)
3. New Left wave (1960s to end 20th century)
4. Religious wave (beginning 1979 to now)
> Predicts that Religious wave might dissipate by 2025 and that new wave might emerge
> He acknowledge existence of other group that didn’t fit the template → but those were outliers
> Criticism is that Rapoport took analogy too far (he states ‘when a wave’s energy cannot inspire
new organizations, the wave disappears’ → problematic as there is no evidence that this actually
happens)
It is our contention that the strategic and tactical choices terrorist organizations make play an
important role in the evolution of terrorism
> Dynamic exchange of ideas between groups
> Some ‘outlying’ groups have had significant impact on the evolution of terrorism
We therefore propose an alternative framework for analysis, based on the idea that terrorism
comes in four different strains and that there is an important element of ‘‘contagion’’ both within
and between these separate strains
1. Nationalism
2. Socialism
3. Religious Extremism
4. Social Exclusion
> Using Ganor’s definition of terrorism: ‘the intentional use of or threat to use violence against
civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims’
Terrorist groups as learning organizations
Non-state organizations learn both from direct experience and from the stories they develop to make
sense of that experience, as well as from experiences and stories generated by peers
> learn from rivals’ successes → also contagion effect for terrorist groups in respect to approach and
ideology
> several modern terrorists expressed that they want to be example for others → propaganda of the
deed
The main causal mechanism in Rapoport’s work is historical context
> The first Anarchist Wave emerged with new technological developments that made travel and
communication easier, and in turn made it easier for ideas and doctrines to be transmitted across
boundaries
> radical movements and organizations learn from their contemporaries but spread of ideology and
tacts it limited to given time and space → idea that each wave is characterized by common narrative
about the enemy
Argument against the four waves theory of David Rapoport
David Rapoport's article provides the basic conceptual framework for many courses on the subject of
terrorism. He identified four waves of terrorism:
1. Anarchist wave (started with Russian populist group in 1880s)
2. anti-Colonial wave (1920s to 1960s)
3. New Left wave (1960s to end 20th century)
4. Religious wave (beginning 1979 to now)
> Predicts that Religious wave might dissipate by 2025 and that new wave might emerge
> He acknowledge existence of other group that didn’t fit the template → but those were outliers
> Criticism is that Rapoport took analogy too far (he states ‘when a wave’s energy cannot inspire
new organizations, the wave disappears’ → problematic as there is no evidence that this actually
happens)
It is our contention that the strategic and tactical choices terrorist organizations make play an
important role in the evolution of terrorism
> Dynamic exchange of ideas between groups
> Some ‘outlying’ groups have had significant impact on the evolution of terrorism
We therefore propose an alternative framework for analysis, based on the idea that terrorism
comes in four different strains and that there is an important element of ‘‘contagion’’ both within
and between these separate strains
1. Nationalism
2. Socialism
3. Religious Extremism
4. Social Exclusion
> Using Ganor’s definition of terrorism: ‘the intentional use of or threat to use violence against
civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims’
Terrorist groups as learning organizations
Non-state organizations learn both from direct experience and from the stories they develop to make
sense of that experience, as well as from experiences and stories generated by peers
> learn from rivals’ successes → also contagion effect for terrorist groups in respect to approach and
ideology
> several modern terrorists expressed that they want to be example for others → propaganda of the
deed
The main causal mechanism in Rapoport’s work is historical context
> The first Anarchist Wave emerged with new technological developments that made travel and
communication easier, and in turn made it easier for ideas and doctrines to be transmitted across
boundaries
> radical movements and organizations learn from their contemporaries but spread of ideology and
tacts it limited to given time and space → idea that each wave is characterized by common narrative
about the enemy
