ABSTRACT
This chapter identifies two important problems in the treatment of sabotage. The first is that of the interpretation of the act, and the second is that of designating it as rational. The chapter argues that both interpreting an act as sabotage and then considering that to be a rational act require contextual evidence which is not usually available to those who make such imputations. Sabotage may thus sometimes have more symbolic and moral power than it has instrumental significance or effect. There is a strong possibility that sabotage is indeed “rational” — in many cases this is obvious as the act comes allied to a specific declaration of intent. As the understanding of acts of sabotage needs to be firmly grounded on contextual data, so too must it address the symbolic ordering of that context which creates and sustains the meaning of those acts.
