Ecoterror v. Ecotage (Part 1)

Ecoterror v. Ecotage: Prudent Language in Public Policy

As the suffix suggests, an understanding of ‘ecoterrorism’ is sought referentially, juxtaposing the act along side other forms of terrorism that we perceive as more familiar. There is an inconsistency, however, in statements born out of referential understanding; either ecoterrorism is like the terrorism we have come to experientially ‘know’—Al Qaeda seemingly the most prominent example—and therefore equally concerning and demanding of our attention, or it poses, as FBI Counterterrorism Chief Jarboe declared in 2002, its own “difficult and unique challenges,” and thus requires an altogether different approach to understanding and response (Amster 2006: 291). So is it the same, or is it different? If it is different, is it still terrorism, or does it require a wholly new signifier? Answering these questions requires a thorough survey of ecoterrorism, provided by an analysis of actions credited to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), in relation to both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ terrorism. This exploration of the issue culminates in the revelation that, rather than there being subtle differences between the ELF’s ecoterrorism and other forms of terrorism, there exist important distinctions at every turn and, therefore, a new signifier is warranted: ecotage. Upon the conclusion of this exploration of theory and the ELF case study, attention is given to the United States’ efforts at remedying the perceived security threat embodied by ecotage, an effort that, first and foremost, desperately attempts to keep ELF actions as terroristic by definition. The functional reality of a broader terrorism definition will then be explored, which, among other things, allows the state to investigate individuals and organizations that now hold proximity to the increasingly meaningless concept of terrorism. A final critique of ecotage, both as a means of direct action and a threat to security, will then be proffered to the reader, suggesting that, while ecotage is an exceedingly limited avenue to pursue social change, it is also capable of serving a valuable purpose, from a structural functionalist perspective.

The Characteristics of Terrorism and ELF Actions in Comparison

There are several characteristics of terrorism that, while varying in appearance between the ‘old’ or ‘new’ forms¹, are present in both: the utilization of violence, collective identities built upon exclusion, the promotion of social conditions that are not acknowledged to be important or desirable to dominant society, and, sometimes synonymous with the previous point, the repositioning of power within society (ranging from attaining recognition of existence, to self-direction, to total dominance and control). Also characteristic of terrorism, regardless of the form or age (as the ‘old’ and ‘new’ designations imply), is the desire for a viewing audience and credit for the actions undertaken. The last of these criteria, the desire for an audience, I shall address first, as it is arguable the most similar between all three objects we are currently concerned with: old terror, new terror, and ELF actions. The Earth Liberation Front desires an audience, either directly through media coverage, or indirectly through experienced effect. In the last five years alone, there have been too many ELF actions to list across the US, ranging from un-newsworthy acts of ‘monkey wrenching’ construction equipment to acts of arson that snag headlines in the national news (Yardley 2008: n.p.). Like both ages of terrorism, the ELF desires credit for such acts, but the organizational structure makes this last point tricky and revealing of the first of many distinctions between the Earth Liberation Front and terrorism. The ELF is not an organization so much as it is a name that carries with it a certain ideological meaning, and it therefore cannot be understood as like the organizations that one most likely thinks of when one hears ‘terrorism’. It certainly is not organized like old terrorism, which is believed to fall apart if the leaders are eliminated. It holds closer proximity to the new organizational model of terrorism which employs cells, but such a comparison remains limited. ELF cells are not relational to one another, and arise solely at the will of their members; they are not dependent upon any other aspect of the organization for resources, and are, in short, non-hierarchical.

Credit cannot be understood in the traditional, hierarchical conceptualization of an organization. Credit is more associational and ideological, with the ideology best understood as a blending of green anarchists, ecofeminists, deep ecologists, anarcho-primitivists, and numerous other ‘radical’ eco-centric ideologies. In addition to whatever slogans are left at the scene of an ELF action, the perpetrators use the ELF label because they want it known that they act in the defense of all living things that face oppression at the hands of capitalism and the state (NAELFPO 2008: n.p.)

This conveniently transitions to another comparative issue between the ELF and ‘traditional’ terrorist groups: identity construction. While traditionally both ages of terrorism construct identity upon exclusion—the construction of an ‘Us’ in relation to a broader conceptualized ‘Them’ or ‘Other’—the identity presented within the ELF’s ideology is so inclusive that it is interspecies. Humans and non-humans are included in the ELF’s conceptualized-Us, and although they employ an Other in the perpetrators of perceived crimes against the Us, that conceptualized enemy is always, insofar as my research shows, an abstraction: a state, a corporate body, state power in general, capitalism in general, and so on. Implicit actors within oppressive structures may do harm, but their status as living creatures with a right to continued existence is never questioned; individual perpetrators, such as politicians or business owners, may not be liked and consequently may have moral judgments thrust upon them, but they are never the target of ELF action. One can attempt to compare this to other terrorists groups that root their Other in abstractions like America or another collective identity that centers itself around an institutional body, but the comparison is exceedingly limited; for those who build their Us upon exclusion (hating America, for example), it rationalizes the targeting of specific members of that external group. Identity exclusive terrorists demonize an abstraction in order to then demonize the abstraction’s constituent body, while the identity inclusive ELF demonize abstractions that, whether one is a proponent of the cognitive invention or not, one is inextricably caught up within along with the rest of society. The two serve distinctly different ends: the former employ the abstract Other for the purpose of targeting implicit benefactors with destructive force; the latter employ the abstract Other in order to target non-living symbols and tools of the abstraction with destructive force.

There is a blatantly observable difference, therefore, between how old terror, new terror, and the ELF use destructive force. Old terrorism is usually willing to resort to violence against people, but that violence is restricted by the organization’s desire to become or remain sympathetic in their plight. New terrorism, on the other hand, is not restrictive of its use of violence against perceived enemies, a point that 9/11 makes markedly clear. ELF violence, if it can even be called violence, is distinct from both the above forms of terrorism; their actions never target living creatures, as it would be antithetical to the meaning of acting under the ELF banner. Furthermore, ELF actions are commonly designed to prevent collateral casualties as well (by 2003, the ELF had been credited with at least $100 million in damages in the US, but zero deaths) (Amster 2006). Linguistically, these differences warrant a distinction. One can describe all the above as the use of destructive force, but to describe all destructive force, targeted at humans or property, with the same signifier hinders the discussion through the presentation of generalities. Rather than employing a broad definition of violence, let us call destructive force targeted at living creatures ‘violence’, and that which exclusively targets property ’sabotage’. The former destroys life and causes terror, while the latter disrupts productive force² and serves as an inconvenience.

The labeling of the Earth Liberation Front as a terrorist group is increasingly revealing itself to be problematic from a referential standpoint, for, while there exists tentative parallels in form and action, those parallels have more disparate elements than shared ones. There remains a final point of comparison, however, that we should explore before finalizing judgment. While it can be said that dominant society does not prioritize animal life as equal to human life, and it can be said that, before the start of the 21^st century, environmental concerns were not as highly prioritized as they are today, the environment has quickly rocketed to the forefront of public and international concern. The ELF’s primary point of contention, therefore, does not require greater awareness; they are increasingly sympathetic figures in an environmentally concerned society. Elves—those who identify as ‘members’ of the ELF—are not a radical element of US society that must be dealt with, but rather are social actors who, although a bit extreme in their tactics, have their “hearts . . . in the right place,” so says a juror after the guilty verdict of Eric McDavid, an alleged ecoterrorist; “at least someone is trying to take care of our world and our environment,” (Todd 2007: 325).

If ELF actions are not terroristic, and therefore not ecoterrorism, what should one call it? Speaking generally, ‘ecotage’, as it is increasingly called, is simply yet another (albeit illegal) form of direct action, combining public protest with a DIY³ response to particular social and political conditions (Plows et al 2004: 199-200). ELF actions are too distinct from other actions labeled as terroristic: they are too loosely organized, too non-violent, too inclusive in their conceptualized-Us, and frankly, too concurrent in their environmental concerns (at least today) to require the media coverage that terrorism seeks to exploit. Torching SUVs and McMansions to let people know that we are in danger of an ecological meltdown is like blowing up a planetarium to let people know Pluto is no longer a planet: ridiculous. There may be those who resist both assertions, but both are quickly becoming socially accepted conventions. Giving Elves an iota of credit requires one to acknowledge that the act must be serving a different purpose in an era when there is collective recognition of a problem, but a seemingly absent collective action. As Pressman points out, media coverage can serve as a means of recruitment, suggesting a course of action to those who hold similar ideological beliefs (2004: 424). Although it is not his intent to distinguish between ELF actions and terrorism, Pressman presents a unique purpose of media distinct from its use within traditional terrorism; the hope is that it will inspire, not terrorize.

Next (Part 2)

1I wish to explicitly state that I am not suggesting that the modern notion of ‘old’ and ‘new’ terrorism is necessarily right. It is simply a frame through which ecoterrorism can be examined and discussed.

2Productive force denotes the energy exerted toward the creation of a given object, not a prescriptive judgment of ‘good’ force.

3DIY: do-it-yourself; an important concept in many social movements and subcultures, including contemporary anarchist theory.