Re-Engineering Security Discourse: A Tri-Layer Framework on Political Framing, Organizational Cohesion, and the Perceptual Drivers of Terrorism

Abstract

Contemporary terrorism studies remain divided between critical constructivist paradigms—which treat political violence as a socially constructed label—and rational-choice models that focus on group mechanics, tactical efficacy, and state sponsorship (Abrahms, 2012; Stampnitzky, 2013). This paper bridges this divide by introducing an integrated Tri-Layer Framework. The framework connects structural push factors like governance failures and systemic inequality (Crenshaw, 1981; Wiktorowicz, 2005) with perceptual amplification driven by political agenda-setting, elite manipulation, and media sensationalism (Criado, 2017; Zulaika & Douglass, 1996), while also accounting for the internal dynamics, principal-agent friction, and transactional mechanics that lead to militant disillusionment and defection (Popovic, 2015; Shapiro, 2013). Combining a critical review of security literature with empirical insights from five in-depth interviews across elite and public perspectives, the study examines how political actors and media outlets manipulate security discourses to shape public priorities. Ultimately, the findings reveal a key divergence: while elite agendas and media narratives dictate public anxiety and policy focus, actual group survival and member defection are dictated by transactional incentives, psychological weariness, and targeted state intervention (Becker, 2017; Cronin, 2009).

Keywords: Terrorism Studies, Constructivism, Rational Choice, Principal-Agent Theory, Political Framing, Media Sensationalism, Organizational Defection, Tri-Layer Framework.