TIPOS DE INTERVENCION

1.3.1 Terrorism and Political Violence

In March 2010, two women killed 40 commuters and hurt 160 more on a train into Moscow with explosives that they had strapped around their waists. According to Mia Bloom, the Metro Bombings in 2010 constituted ‘the deadliest incident in Moscow since female suicide bombers brought down two planes and attacked the subway in 2004’ (Bloom 2011: 7). These and other spectacular attacks by women have drawn the attention of scholars to the fact that not only men but also women ‘are capturing hostages, engaging in suicide bombings, hijacking airplanes, and abusing prisoners’ (Sjoberg and Gentry 2007: 1). According to Karla J. Cunningham, ‘female involvement with terrorist activity is widening

50 _{The case study in Chapter 5 offers a detailed account of this campaign and public} responses to it.

ideologically, logistically and regionally’ (Cunningham 2003: 172) – and other recent publications support this hypothesis (see, e.g. Ness 2007, Jacques and Taylor 2009, Bloom 2011). While it is difficult to verify the accuracy of such a broad claim, there can be little doubt that female involvement in political violence and armed conflicts has a new visibility. ‘Whatever the actual changes in the level of women’s participation in terrorism’, highlight the editors of another recent book on the subject, ‘media coverage and scholarly attention have both increased exponentially in the last five years’ (Sjoberg and Gentry 2011: 2).

The fact that Cunningham, Bloom, Sjoberg and Gentry all use the term ‘terrorism’ should not lead to the conclusion that they are talking about the same thing. Definitions of terrorism vary from country to country and from institution to institution. Sometimes, they vary even within publications. The editors of the anthology Women, Gender, Terrorism, for instance, acknowledge that some contributions to the volume draw on ‘definitions coming from state departments, departments of defence and international organisations’, whilst others use the term in a ‘representational way’, i.e., ‘assigning it only to the meaning that it has already acquired in its frequent use’, and yet others ‘criticise and interrogate both’ (Sjoberg and Gentry 2011: 10). Some authors avoid the concept of terrorism altogether because of its politically charged nature (see, e.g. Eager 2008).

Given the negative connotations of the term, it is hardly surprising that most groups that are labelled as terrorists, including the four groups in the focus of this thesis, do not identify with this label. Charles Tilly rightly emphasises that ‘one person’s terrorist is another person’s

freedom fighter’ (Tilly 2003: 237). Audrey Kurth Cronin provides an excellent example of the ways in which labels for the same people can change over the years: ‘ANC leader Nelson Mandela, imprisoned for terrorist acts from 1964 to 1990, was elected South Africa’s first president following the end of apartheid’ (Cronin 2006: 24). In 1993, Nelson Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk received the Nobel Peace Prize ‘for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa’ (The Nobel Foundation 1993).

With a few exceptions, previous studies of political violence in West Germany and publications on women’s involvement in political violence in the FRG and other geo-political contexts use the concept terrorism, although they do not use it in the same way. Many of the existing studies define terrorism as a specific form of violence (Neidhardt 1982, Groebel and Feger 1982, Boeden 1989, Münkler and other contributions in Kraushaar 2006a). To distinguish it from other forms of violence, Henner Hess defines terrorism as a range of surprising acts of physical violence that seek to have a psychological effect on a bigger group than the immediate victims, and that are part of a broader political strategy (Hess 1988: 59). While many authors focus on terrorist acts and the groups behind them, others discuss terrorism primarily or exclusively as a socio-cultural phenomenon. Peter Waldmann, probably one of the best-known proponents of this approach, argues that terrorism is ‘primarily a communicative strategy’ (Waldmann 2005: 15). According to Waldmann, terrorist attacks are embedded into complex communicative processes involving not only the perpetrators but also the victims and the

audience of terrorist attacks (ibid.: 36). In her monograph Gendering Terror, Dominique Grisard goes even further than Waldmann. Drawing on the work of Michel Foucault and other poststructuralist thinkers, Grisard criticises that a great part of the scholarly literature on terrorism would (still) look for ‘a reality behind discourses’ on terrorism (Grisard 2011: 12). According to Grisard, such a reality does not exist. Consequently, she argues that researchers have ‘to throw the distinction between social reality and media reality overboard’51 _{to develop a better} understanding of terrorism (ibid.).

Waldmann and Grisard are right to emphasise that communicative processes and discursive formations shape what we define, discuss and analyse as terrorism. This, however, should not lead us to conclude that material bodies, concrete acts and manifestations of political violence do not exist outside of the media or that they are irrelevant for an understanding of terrorism. Having learnt a lesson from the feminist debate on sexual difference in the 1980s (see section on sexual difference in this chapter), I do not want to create a false dichotomy between ‘essentialist’ and ‘social-constructivist’ notions of terrorism. Rather I understand terrorism here as a complex social phenomenon based on a dynamic interplay of embodied acts, situational dynamics, a range of social actors and symbolic formations, all of which deserve close analysis. Most authors share this view, and their definitions of terrorism try to account for the complexity of this phenomenon. Yet any definition will not only sharpen but also limit our focus. ‘[A]t a minimum’, argues

51 _{‘Wer der Logik des Terrorismusphänomens auf die Spur kommen will, […] muss die} Unterscheidung zwischen sozialer und medialer Wirklichkeit über Bord werfen.’

Audrey Kurth Cronin, ‘the concept has the following four characteristics: a fundamentally political nature, the symbolic use of violence, purposeful targeting of non-combatants, carried out by non-state actors’ (Cronin 2009: 7). While this thesis focuses on non-state actors who carried out symbolic acts of violence for political reasons, it will become apparent that at least some of them did not purposefully target civilians.

This thesis refers to ‘militant leftist groups’ rather than to ‘terrorist organisations’ and discusses ‘acts of political violence’ rather than ‘terrorist attacks’. This is not because I think that it is wrong to use these terms or because at least some of the organisations and events discussed could not be understood as terrorist. On the contrary, a number of recent studies use the concept well and offer critical insights for this thesis (see, e.g. Weinhauer et al. 2006, Diewald-Kerkmann 2009, Colvin 2009, Bielby 2012, Grisard 2011). As mentioned previously, the Ministry of Interior also classified the RAF, MJ2, RC and RZ as terrorist organisations. For two reasons, I have abstained from using the term terrorism in this thesis. Firstly, the concept is emotionally charged and highly controversial. Given the pejorative nature that the term developed over the years, it is hardly surprising that the four groups in the centre of this study did not identify with this label. They presented their attacks as part of an ‘armed struggle’ or ‘guerrilla war’ against the existing political order. Patricia Melzer (2009) and Jeremy Varon (2004) try to account for this constitutive difference by using self-chosen and externally imposed labels contextually. Secondly, an exclusive focus on terrorist events and groups would limit the scope of this research project. Following Donatella Della Porta, I do not use ‘terrorism’ as an analytical concept in this thesis

because it is too a narrow category to analyse political protest in Germany in the 1970s and 1980s.

In her comparative study Social Movements, Political Violence and the State, Della Porta analyses political protest movements in Italy and the FRG between 1960 and 1990. In the introduction, the author criticises terrorism studies for ‘[c]oncentrating on the most radical forms of political violence’ and thereby isolating ‘their object of interest from the larger political system’ (Della Porta 1995: 5). According to Della Porta, violent protest in West Germany ‘emerged from the gradual radicalisation of political actors’ (ibid.: 7) and has to be analysed in the context of broader social movements. By now, this fact is widely acknowledged in terrorism and security studies (for a recent example, see: Adraoui and Waldmann 2012: 11), but a large part of recent research still focuses on a few central actors and events. This study seeks to broaden the scope of research on political violence in West Germany. It will become apparent that some of the groups and attacks in the centre of this study meet most if not all criteria in conventional definitions of terrorism, but this is not the case with others. Despite all ideological, organisational and tactical differences between the RAF, MJ2, RC and RZ, all carried out acts of political violence. Following Della Porta, I understand political violence in this thesis as ‘a specific repertoire of collective action that involved physical force, considered at that time as illegitimate in the dominant culture’ (1995: 3-4). As we have seen, acts of political violence during the period examined in my dissertation included both attacks against property and against people.

Social behaviour that is understood as political violence according to this definition is, of course, not the only form of violence that could or should be understood as political. Like terrorism, violence is a contested concept that ‘defies easy categorisation’ and is at least to some degree ‘in the eye of the beholder’ (Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois 2005: 2). While most authors seem to agree that there is no society or cultural area that has been free of violence (Englander 2003: 1, Imbusch in Heitmeyer and Hagan 2003: 14), their definitions and theoretical approaches to analysing its various manifestations differ considerably. In the anthology Violence in War and Peace, Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe Bourgeois reject the idea that violence is always exceptional, spectacular and visible. As mentioned in the introduction, I do not want to divert attention from the fact that domestic abuse and sexual violence against women is less visible but far more common than such attacks. According to them, violence is ‘a human condition’ that is ‘everywhere in social practice’ (ibid.: 2, 21).52

Scheper-Hughes and Bourgeois convincingly argue that peacetime rape, abuse in the family, and ‘assaults on the personhood, dignity, sense of worth or value’ that involve no direct physical harm are also forms of violence (ibid.: 1) and that ‘gender operates through all forms of violence’, although it is mainly associated with gender based violence (ibid.: 22). In the anthology On Violence, Bruce B. Lawrence and Aisha Karim rightly emphasise that ‘theories of violence must be as varied as the practices

52 _{Scholars have tried to account for the ubiquity and diversity of violence with broad} definitions of the concept. One of the most prominent examples is Johan Galtung, according to whom violence is ‘present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations’ (Galtung 1969: 168).

within which they occur’ (Lawrence and Karim 2007: 7). This thesis focuses on only one of many visible and invisible forms of violence. While this study may offer valuable insights for broader debates on violence, it does not seek to come up with a universal theory of female violence and could not possibly do so.

1.3.2 Previous Scholarship on Women’s Involvement in

Political Violence

Research on female involvement in political violence and terrorism still accounts for a relatively small part of scholarly work in terrorism and security studies, but it is clearly on the rise (Jackson et al. 2009). As researchers from a range of disciplines (e.g. politics, Women’s studies, anthropology and psychology) contribute to the growing body of literature, and as their research questions vary as much as their analytical frameworks, it becomes increasingly difficult to give a comprehensive overview of publications on this subject. A survey from 2009 reveals a nearly three-fold increase of scholarly work on female terrorism between 2002 and 2006 alone (Jacques and Taylor 2009: 502). Although the authors consider only publications in the English language that were released between 1986 and 2006, the publications examined cover a number of geographical regions, historical periods and political contexts. Among other texts the survey mentions analyses of female involvement in militant anarchist groups in Russia in the late 19th _{and early 20}th _centuries (see, e.g. Knight 1979), publications about women in Latin American guerrilla movements in the 1960s and 1970s (see, e.g. Reif 1986, Kampwirth 2002, Gonzalez-Perez 2006) and literature on women in

militant organisations active in the 21st _{century such as global Islamist} network Al-Qaeda and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in South Asia (Alison 2003).

In their survey, Karen Jacques and Paul Taylor mention ‘European left-wing terrorism’ only in passing and do not define what they mean by this term. Between the late 1960s and the mid-1990s, militant leftist groups fought for revolutions in a number of Western democracies, including but not limited to European countries. In the 1970s and 1980s, women were actively involved in militant leftist groups in West Germany, in Italy (Della Porta 1995, de Cataldo Neuburger and Valentini 1996, Wunderle 2006), France (Dartnell 1995) and other European countries. Jacques and Taylor fail to acknowledge that militant leftist groups operated in this period also in Japan (Steinhoff 1989, Farrell 1990, Derichs 2006) and in the US (Varon 2004, Juchler 2006). The Japanese ‘Red Army’ and the American ‘Weather Underground’ also had female supporters, members and leaders (Diewald-Kerkmann 2009: 4-5). In fact, the active participation of women constitutes a distinct characteristic of militant leftist violence between the 1960s and mid-1990s that David C. Rapoport (2004) defined as the ‘third wave of modern terrorism’ (Schmid 2011: 231). 53

At latest since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, events and groups associated with the ‘fourth wave of terrorism’ have clearly dominated media reports and scholarly publications in Western countries. In this

53 _{Alex P. Schmid and Bradley McAllister rightly emphasise that neither nationalist} attacks between 1920 and 1960 nor religiously inspired violence since the 1970s – which they take to constitute the second and the fourth waves of terrorism – were characterised by such an active participation of women. However, women played active roles in

Anarchist political violence between 1870 and the 1920s, which Rapoport defined as the ‘first wave of modern terrorism’ (Schmid 2011: 231).

context, female suicide terrorism has emerged as a new trend in research on women and political violence (see, e.g. Victor 2003, Dolnik 2004, Hasso 2005, Skaine 2006, Miller 2007, Ness 2008, Eager 2008, Rajan 2011, Bloom 2011, Berko and Yuval 2012). While some researchers in the German-speaking world have contributed to this quickly growing body of literature (see, e.g. Ziolkowski 2012), their recent focus was clearly on women’s involvement in political violence in Germany, Austria and Switzerland in the 1970s and in earlier historical periods (Kuenzel and Temme 2007, Hentschel and Hensch 2009, Diewald-Kerkmann 2009, Vukadinović 2010, Grisard 2011, Hikel and Schraut 2012). Scholars in German Studies and in comparative history from different countries have added to this body of research (see, e.g. Della Porta 1995, Varon 2004, Fronius and Linton 2008, Melzer 2009, Colvin and Watanabe-O’Kelly 2009, Colvin 2009, Bielby 2010, Bielby and Richards 2010, Rosenfeld 2010, Passmore 2011, Bielby 2012). Contrary to earlier publications such as Robin Morgan’s The Demon Lover (1989) and Eileen MacDonald’s Shoot the Women first (1991), recent studies in the English-speaking world examine the roles of women in militant leftist groups in the FRG closely and critically (see, e.g.: Colvin 2009, Melzer 2009, Bielby 2010, 2012).

From the very beginning, references to deviant, criminal and violent women in a range of historical and political contexts featured prominently in debates and publications on female participation in the RAF and other militant leftist groups. Dominique Grisard highlights that the active involvement of women in political violence in the 1970s rekindled interest in the Russian Anarchists, who were now presented as

‘predecessors’ of women in the RAF and other militant leftist groups (Grisard 2011: 48ff). Hanno Balz mentions a range of other female figures in history and mythology who were relevant in this context:

In ancient times, there was Homer’s Amazon queen Penthesilea and the Greek myth of Medea who killed her sons. Later, there were Kriemhild in the Nibelungen saga, Jean d’Arc and the ‘bloodthirsty’ women of the French Revolution. Finally, there were female guards in concentration camps during the Third Reich. What all have in common, is that their violence is carried out as revenge and rage, expressed in bloodthirsty ecstasy, and is deeply irrational.54 (Balz 2008: 201)

As the quote above illustrates, some researchers who seek to investigate female participation in political violence may themselves end up repeating stereotypes about women without critically questioning these representations.

Clare Bielby’s analysis of representations of violent women in newspaper and magazine articles from the 1960s and 1970s shows that the demonisation and sexualisation of female perpetrators of violence was not limited to members of militant leftist groups. Bielby’s study indicates that ‘as far as the majority of newspapers and magazines are concerned, there is no such thing as a politically violent woman; regardless of why she might think she is being violent, it is actually all about her body, her

54 _{‘In der Antike ist es bei Homer beispielsweise die Amazonenkönigin Penthesilea und}

im griechischen Mythos Medea, die ihre Söhne tötete. Später sind es Kriemhild in der Nibelungensage, Jean d’Arc und die “blutrünstigen” Frauen der Französischen Revolution, schließlich die KZ-Wächterinnen im Nationalsozialismus. Ihnen allen ist gemein, dass sich ihre Gewaltanwendung als Rache, Toben und in der blutrünstigen Ekstase ausdrückt, also letztlich etwas zutiefst Irrationales’

sexuality, her oedipal history, and her uncontrollable emotions’ (Bielby 2012: 1).

In a study of 44 court cases against members of the RAF and MJ2, Gisela Diewald-Kerkmann comes to a similar conclusion to Bielby. Rather than understanding female participation in the two groups as a result of political considerations, Diewald-Kerkmann reasons, researchers, journalists and legal authorities have drawn on three different arguments to explain it. According to the first one, women carry out violent attacks because violence lies in their nature. Diewald-Kerkmann highlights that journalists and legal authorities who draw on this model usually evoke stereotypical notions of femininity, for example, by depicting women in militant leftist groups as irrational, emotional and dependent on men (Diewald-Kerkmann 2009: 5). A second – and no less problematic – line of argumentation presents female perpetrators of violence as deviant women, i.e. morally bad, mentally ill or otherwise different from normal women. This line of argumentation can be traced back to Cesare Lombroso and Guglielmo Ferrero’s Criminal woman, the prostitute, and the normal woman (first published in 1893) and the work of other pioneers in the field of criminology (cf. Grisard 2011: 37, 41, Bielby 2012: 75). Diewald-Kerkmann uses the case of Ulrike Meinhof to illustrate this line of argumentation. Several authors and public authorities have claimed that Meinhof’s decision to join the armed struggle was related to