2017 Abstracts Stage 2

Manchester VS Ataturk

With the internet and social media reforming the realm of reporting news, those that have routinely ignored developing nations are demanded to atone for biased newscasts, thus the project intends to bridge this gap and to further interrogate to what extent there exists a journalistic void, seeking out the cause and how to resolve it.

Methodology: The project concerns two cities, both of which had experienced an act of terror in connection to the Islamic State (IS). This project deploys qualitative research in the discourse of an interpretive methodological approach.


Manchester – The first object of terror befell on the 22nd of May 2017, in Manchester’s Arena. The incident occurred at an Ariana Grande concert.
Istanbul – The second object denoting an act of terror was the automatic weapons fired and suicide bombings that occurred in Istanbul’s Ataturk airport, on the 28th of June 2016.

2011 Abstracts Stage 2

Can Right Abuses be Justified in Guantanemo Bay?

• A study of how the unconvicted detainees are subject to torture through ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ in Guantanamo Bay.

• I will relate this to Mill’s Utilitarianism, in particular to the Harm Principle: people are free until they harm others.

•I will reconcile this with Mill’s On Liberty which expresses that we should maximize happiness and in the absence of harm, never restrict one’s liberty.

Discussion: Mills states that it is only in cases of self-defence or direct harm on society, in which we can intervene with restrictions. It is true that we have to safe guard the security and autonomy of everyone. Although, when human rights are violated, it is often the case the violator will perceive their action to be in the best interests of society. (Guards/workers at Guantanamo bay) This is the short fall of Guantanamo Bay, rights should not be violated but should be best calculated to promote the good.

I will explore:
1. The life of the Binyam Mohamed, held at Guantanamo Bay for five years but released without conviction.

2. What would be Mill’s response to Guantanamo Bay closing?

3. Does this pose a threat to society?

4. Are they too dangerous to set free?

5. Do we have a right to control where they are placed, inside our borders or back to their homelands?

6. If they are not convicted, is it right that we can impinge on their liberty? Surely they are FREE.

2009 Abstracts Stage 3

The Threat of 21st Century Global Terror: are Terrorist Organisations Psychotic [Freud]?

Territory: Terror and the Suicide Bomber.
Terrorism is not a new weapon but in the 21st Century we have seen it used to devastating effect. A 21st Century phenomenon is the suicide bomber, the human bomb willing to sacrifice their own life for terrors cause. The suicide bomber is an utterly baffling weapon 9 times out of 10 it is unable to be defused and its explosive force can cause widespread damage to infrastructure, troops and civilians. For counter terror organisations around the world the suicide bomber presents the ultimate nightmare and risk to the civilian population. It is a bomb combined with human thought and human emotion, a bomb that shouldn’t exist.

Concept: Freudian Psychosis.
The aim of my project is to engage with the terrorist’s mind-set, in particular the suicide bombers with respect to Freudian psychology. The simple answer is to declare terrorism and its follower’s psychotic thought, but could this assumption merely be just a Western attitude?

Secondary Concept: Levinas’s Autrui.
For further discussion I will also engage the terrorist with Autrui [the Other] to discuss if the suicide bomber truly understands the people it destroys as Autrui.

2008 Abstracts Stage 3

The War on Terrorism

This project investigates the motivations behind different terrorist attacks. From what drives them to become involved in terrorism to the different positions that are open to them and finally the effectiveness of their role and the influence of society’s perception. I decided to title my project “The War on Terrorism”. By my title I do not mean the campaign that was initiated by America and joined by other countries throughout the world to ‘curb the spread of terrorism’. My project will discuss the reasons why this campaign will not work. This War on Terrorism was authorized by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists and was passed on the 18th of September 2001 after the attacks on America on 9/11. The object I plan to focus on is a scene from the film ‘The Kingdom’. The reason for this is because it is a film about terrorism, which I think compliments the objective I am trying to prove. The reason why I chose this is film is because at the start of the film when the terrorist bomb goes off in the housing compound, Agent Fleury whispers in one of his associate’s ears in comfort something we as the audience cannot hear. Then in one of the latest scenes when the leader of the terrorist group is shot and is dying he whispers to a young girl in comfort something that again we as the audience can’t hear. Then in the final scene each person reveals what was said to them. It was, “Don’t worry, we’ll kill them all.” This for me is very significant because it showed that even though the American agent was claiming to be bringing justice to the terrorists he was actually just looking to kill them all for killing his comrades. Both sides had the same objective, they both wanted to kill. How will this ever stop terrorism? My parallel territory was the Cold War as I believe no other event in history has affected world politics as the same way the Cold War did in the mid 1940’s till the early 1990’s. Terrorism has taken its place in modern day politics. The concepts I identified throughout my project were power, identity and the loss of identity. I believe America’s waging of war on terror was just an assertion of power and way in which to reinsert them as the main hegemonic power throughout the world. A philosophers whose work I have used is Ted Honderich, especially his work terrorism for Humanity which raises many difficult questions that are unavoidable at this moment in time as the war on terror rages. Questions related to the morality of terrorism and the use of political violence. In this work Honderich’s arguments for and against terrorism are directed towards the goal of the Principle of humanity. The questions which are raised throughout run along the lines of when is terrorism right, if ever? And when is it wrong? And what are the reasons for it being wrong? The main reason I chose this philosopher to focus on is because throughout this work he implores us to open our minds and explore political philosophy but he reminds us that even though we are opening our minds to see the bigger picture it does not mean we have to lose our convictions. Other philosophers I chose to look at are Castell and his work on resistance and identity, Habermas’s philosophy at the time of terror and Baudrillard and his fatalist theory,

2006 Abstracts Stage 3

In what Ways has the Bombing of the World Trade Centre in 2001 affected the Globalization Movement?

– “We will promote the security, prosperity and freedom of action of the United States and its partners by securing access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons.” – “We will expand the community of nations that share principles and interests with us, and we will help partners increase their capacity to defend themselves and collectively meet challenges to our common interests.” – “We will create conditions conducive to a favourable international system by honouring our security commitments and working with others to bring about a common appreciation of threats; the steps required to protect against these threats; and a broad, secure, and lasting peace.” National Security Strategy of The United States, March 2005

2006 Abstracts Stage 2

Attacking the Spectacle: from the Situationists to Fight Club

The project will examine the problems that confronted the Situationist International from 1957 to 1968 and show how those same problems are addressed almost half a century later in the film, Fight OutlineClub. Aim: To argue that that the problems faced by the SI are still evident today and that the events presented in Fight Club are symptomatic of this. Method: The following aspects of both Situationist thought and the themes discussed in Fight Club will be used to support my argument: – Commodification and Consumerism: Both Guy Debord and Tyler Durden felt society had become ‘over-reliant’ on material possessions. – The Society of the Spectacle: The product of this over-reliance. Debord’s term for the vicarious nature of modern life. – Detournement: The process of defacing or editing already existing pieces of art, film, music, literature or architecture. Tyler’s assignments in Fight Club are deeply rooted in this idea. – The LA Riots, the Strasbourg Scandal, May 1968 and ‘Project Mayhem’: These events marked the culmination of both SI thought and Tyler’s desires in Fight Club. – Situationist Film and Fight Club Itself: Both looked to push the boundaries and confront traditional cinematic norms. – Terrorism: Could the Situationists be viewed as terrorists? The members of ‘Project Mayhem’ certainly could. Is terrorism in fact necessary for change? – Generation X: The events of May ’68 marked a culmination of social unrest, but as “the middle children of history” does our generation have anything left for which to fight? Sources include: ‘Fight Club’- David Fincher, ‘The Society of the Spectacle’- Guy Debord, ‘Guy Debord and the Situationist International’- Tom McDonough, and ‘The Culture Industry- Theodor Adorno. Information from the Internet, magazines and newspapers will also be used to illustrate my project.

2006 Abstracts Stage 2


Can one consider the ethical viewpoint of both sides of terrorism? If terrorists believe their actions cause the greater overall good, would J.S. Mill condone them? Can the media be held responsible for the growth in terrorism? The growth in the media is consistent with the growth of terrorism, is this significant? The intention of terrorists is to reach a wide audience, does the media aid them in achieving their ends? What implications would censoring the media cause for us? Could it be considered to limit our freedom?

2005 Abstracts Stage 3

A Philosophical Re-evaluation of Terrorism and Modernity

There is currently a spectre haunting the modern world, whose presence demands the attention of socioeconomic, political and intellectual institutions to which it is opposed. It has claimed thousands of lives, initiated wars, undermined international law and called into question modernity’s ideological foundations; and yet, discourse on terror has failed to confront its true origins. Knee-jerk condemnation and bureaucratic rationality continue to dominate responses, manufacturing consent while excluding any form of self-reflexivity or discussion. In situating terrorism in the dialectic of modernity, this project aims to assert the absolute necessity of such a re-evaluation in finding a solution. Key themes • Problems of the inherited language: Towards redefinition of ‘Terrorism’ • The legacy of the Enlightenment and the task of Philosophy. • Power bases and the assertion of legitimacy. Fundamentalism vs. Liberty. • Towards a resolution: forums of discussion and devolution and hospitality