ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author argues that there is a difference between policy-relevance and praxis, and that emancipation does not stand in opposition to praxis. She has spent the past 10 years arguing in favour of dialogue with violent actors – mainly non-state armed actors using terrorist violence – in the belief that all agents are capable of change and transformation. The chapter argues that the emancipatory aim at the heart of Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS) and the key inclusive practices of CTS make an engagement with the state possible and indeed necessary. Richard Jackson in his contribution here juxtaposes "the contrasting aspirations for policy relevance and access to power, and CTS commitment to emancipation and critical distance". Jackson argues that states are at most paying lip service to critical scholars and use them to legitimise and perpetuate the "broader system of counterterrorism".
